At first it feels like there is a gap between what you two say.
What Positiv3 suggests is creating a scenario where they maintain the net present value by allowing someone to take care of it. Share the income, stuff like that. Keeping the game online suggests there is some value in it.
On the other hand, as soon as Blizzard hires someone, they want to make the most of this person and assign them to a project with the highest return on investment.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Let’s assume I offer to maintain Heroes, but I refuse to join the company. People are complicated like that.
Realistically I’m afraid that the codebase behind Heroes isn’t entirely stellar and they don’t really find anyone willing to work on it, or succeed doing so. Not that modern developers are particularly stellar at anything but perfecting a screw and then testing it for 6 months.
There is a lot of potential, Heroes does have a very minimalistic DotA+ (nice job, you captured 8 camps, more than 4.7 on average) and loyalty systems (boost, conditional quests, rewards) which could be combined and bring in steady revenue, however small. Sites like Heroes Profile also attest that there is a market demand.
One problem is it’s Blizzard, they’re biased looking at their long-term MMO, both in terms of ROI and collection decisions, e.g. you must farm heroes but you can also farm cosmetics. I’m fairly sure it’s a wrong system.
Imagine you can only play female blue hair night elf BM hunter in classic WoW until you reach max level. Then you can pick one other class-spec, say fury warrior as a ginger dwarf male with a nice beard, and max out. About every two months you unlock a random class/spec. Could be frost mage, or could be a hyper drak’thyr. While at it, your first reward is a bikini plate set. For a holy paladin. Available in the shop for 10€. It would be cringe. It is cringe.