A few months after entering Early Access, Daedalic put their RTS 'A Year Of Rain' on hold

The bases where not very good in my opinion.

Pathfinding terrible yes, but also weird economy, scale, IA and other stuff.

Too many games release in Early Access way too soon in their life.

Man, that sucks. It looked really appealing. That said, I typically will not pay to test alpha and beta versions. Heck, I barely even do it if it's free for me.

At some point, maybe, developers will realize that classic RTS development with a multiplayer focus just doesn't make sense.
For single player, sure, more than enough successful enough single-player RTS titles out there.

But multiplayer-classic-RTS is a dead genre, with a handful of (old) titles holding the players that are left captive. And those old titles are so well polished by now that any new challenger can only fail. Especially if it is in such a rough state as this one was on early access release.

I was looking forward to playing this game, actually. The campaign, that is.
Too bad it won't happen.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 5 February 2020 at 1:45 pm UTC

At some point, maybe, developers will realize that classic RTS development with a multiplayer focus just doesn't make sense.
For single player, sure, more than enough successful enough single-player RTS titles out there.

But multiplayer-classic-RTS is a dead genre, with a handful of (old) titles holding the players that are left captive. And those old titles are so well polished by now that any new challenger can only fail. Especially if it is in such a rough state as this one was on early access release.

I was looking forward to playing this game, actually. The campaign, that is.
Too bad it won't happen.

Yeah, this. Having an active multiplayer community is hard; there are only so many games that can have thousands of players online 24/7. Making an indie game that depends on it seems unwise.

RTS games were the multiplayer hotness once, a long time ago, which probably won't happen again. But the genre goes a lot beyond competitive multiplayer, and there could be a lot (more) of amazing single-player RTS if people stopped focusing all their efforts in online skirmishes (which they do to the detriment of the single-player, of course).

I was kind of excited for this one as well (though only for playing on my own, no multiplayer involved).

Agree with the other people here.
Focusing too much on multiplayer won't work.
Make a good single player game and allow people to play online if they want.
Playing with friends can be great. I still play the original Majesty with friends on and off again on weekends.

Another good point is that there are too many games and you can't guarantee a player base.

Does this game even support dedicated/private servers ? or are you reliant on their own ?

[quote=eldaking]

RTS games were the multiplayer hotness once, a long time ago, which probably won't happen again. But the genre goes a lot beyond competitive multiplayer, and there could be a lot (more) of amazing single-player RTS if people stopped focusing all their efforts in online skirmishes (which they do to the detriment of the single-player, of course).

It's amusing to contrast the call for single player with the hue and cry when Ravenfield definitely stated that no, there would not be multiplayer even though that style of game was almost always done with multi in mind. As it happens, Ravenfield did very well at crafting a good single player experience, so they made the right decision. But wow, were there a lot of people giving up on the game at the time for that reason.

Not that I disagree. More well crafted single player experiences would be more than welcome. Heck, doing that with an almost inherently multiplayer genre like RTS would set them apart, I think. But they'll be a hard sell for sure.

an almost inherently multiplayer genre like RTS

I think I stopped playing RTS games when multiplayer became the focus. Warcraft 2 was probably my last one.

Too many games release in Early Access way too soon in their life.

I don't understand this statement. Isn't the whole point of early access for developers to charge customers for the dubious privilege of beta testing their broken and unfinished games with no guarantee that it will ever reach a finished state? There's a reason I stay far away from any game with the "early access" tag.

I must say, I'm a bit sad about this.
The developers had a presentation about the multiplayer tech of that game at UnrealFest last year, and it looked quite intriguing. From a technology standpoint, that is. No idea if the game is fun.

Too many games release in Early Access way too soon in their life.

I don't understand this statement. Isn't the whole point of early access for developers to charge customers for the dubious privilege of beta testing their broken and unfinished games with no guarantee that it will ever reach a finished state? There's a reason I stay far away from any game with the "early access" tag.

Early access, just like anything else, can be done right or done wrong.

A game that is mostly finished, but just needs some more months in the oven for bugfixes, balancing and "polish", would be done right.
As would be a game like RimWorld or Rise To Ruins, where even the unfinished state is actually very polished and fun already and just grows from there.

A game like this, however, in a barely even playable state with tons of bugs, myriads of missing features and mostly incapable of delivering its own core gameplay - well, that is definitely done wrong.
They should have done a closed alpha or something like that instead.

Funny enough, I think the game would have had a better chance (still small, but nvm) if it had been kept in the oven until now and then announced and released in early access during the whole Warcraft 3: Refunded desaster. Not that that was foreseeable, but it should have been kept in the oven longer anyway.

You aren't wrong that many developers simply use early access completely wrong and due to that it is always a good idea to be very careful around early access titles.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 5 February 2020 at 4:19 pm UTC

i was a big fan of sc2 and a bit of w3, i always had a sc2 pro-gamer stream on bg while working, and saw one of the popular sc2 commentators, Wardi, playing year of rain on stream. we discussed linux build with developers in chat, i just didn't expect them to give up this early. so sad about it.

A game that is mostly finished, but just needs some more months in the oven for bugfixes, balancing and "polish", would be done right.
As would be a game like RimWorld or Rise To Ruins, where even the unfinished state is actually very polished and fun already and just grows from there.

These days, isn't that the point where most studios do the official release?

an almost inherently multiplayer genre like RTS

I think I stopped playing RTS games when multiplayer became the focus. Warcraft 2 was probably my last one.

Oh i wish these work with Proton but you missed out on so much buddy :(

Warcraft 3 had a great story
as did Starcraft 2
Age of Mythology had a nice story as well
Red alert 2 was silly(as in humor) but still a very fun game
Tiberium Wars was also a pretty decent story , and possibly the last decent C&C game
Lord of the Rings Battle For Middle Earth - awesome story (though campaing was repetitive)

RTS games were the multiplayer hotness once, a long time ago, which probably won't happen again. But the genre goes a lot beyond competitive multiplayer, and there could be a lot (more) of amazing single-player RTS if people stopped focusing all their efforts in online skirmishes (which they do to the detriment of the single-player, of course).

It's amusing to contrast the call for single player with the hue and cry when Ravenfield definitely stated that no, there would not be multiplayer even though that style of game was almost always done with multi in mind. As it happens, Ravenfield did very well at crafting a good single player experience, so they made the right decision. But wow, were there a lot of people giving up on the game at the time for that reason.

Not that I disagree. More well crafted single player experiences would be more than welcome. Heck, doing that with an almost inherently multiplayer genre like RTS would set them apart, I think. But they'll be a hard sell for sure.

Yeah, I very much think the fault of focusing on multiplayer isn't just with developers/publishers but in big part with a group of players. They unrealistically expect every indie RTS to be Starcraft 2, and get mad when it isn't.

"Only the multiplayer is worth it because the AI is trash. [no and no] But servers are desert so it is hard to find a match. [uh, of course] Developers put more effort into the campaign and new game modes that no one plays [false] than into balance [aka, minor issues] for 1v1 that is the official competitive mode ["competitive"]. It has been months and they haven't fixed this faction/unit that is broken. [wow, months! Unthinkable!] They should focus more on the hardcore players that keep the community alive [haha, just no] and make big official tournaments with cash prizes to recruit new players. [that's not how it works]"

Of course, trying to please this "gamer" crowd is a fool's errand... but they are a large part of the audience (perhaps because for so long RTS games were laser-focused in doing exactly that, pushing out everyone else that might be interested).

This discussion is reminding me that I never finished playing Nightside, even though I was quite enjoying it.

an almost inherently multiplayer genre like RTS

I think I stopped playing RTS games when multiplayer became the focus. Warcraft 2 was probably my last one.

Oh i wish these work with Proton but you missed out on so much buddy :(

Maybe, maybe not. I was never a big fan of the genre.

At some point, maybe, developers will realize that classic RTS development with a multiplayer focus just doesn't make sense.
For single player, sure, more than enough successful enough single-player RTS titles out there.

But multiplayer-classic-RTS is a dead genre, with a handful of (old) titles holding the players that are left captive. And those old titles are so well polished by now that any new challenger can only fail. Especially if it is in such a rough state as this one was on early access release.

How do you rank Northgard? When you say multiplayer, do you only mean competitive?

Lord of the Rings Battle For Middle Earth - awesome story (though campaing was repetitive)

I forgot about that one! I don't recall if I played the campaign, but I played cooperatively with my friends many a time. I loved it!

I had no care for RTS campaigns back in the teenage days. The idea was strange to me. I loved comp stomps though.

At some point, maybe, developers will realize that classic RTS development with a multiplayer focus just doesn't make sense.
For single player, sure, more than enough successful enough single-player RTS titles out there.

But multiplayer-classic-RTS is a dead genre, with a handful of (old) titles holding the players that are left captive. And those old titles are so well polished by now that any new challenger can only fail. Especially if it is in such a rough state as this one was on early access release.

How do you rank Northgard? When you say multiplayer, do you only mean competitive?

Northgard was quite fun, and I'm sure I'll return to it at some point.
And it does have quite a lot of single player content.

And I know a few people who play it online with friends mostly, some streamers, too.
When I say multiplayer, I indeed mean those that focus on competitive PvP. Games like Northgard, that offer multiplayer in some variant for those who want it, but don't try to go for the competitive scene, do rather well.
Especially if the multiplayer they offer is co-op friendly.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 5 February 2020 at 8:48 pm UTC

Lord of the Rings Battle For Middle Earth - awesome story (though campaing was repetitive)

I forgot about that one! I don't recall if I played the campaign, but I played cooperatively with my friends many a time. I loved it!

I had no care for RTS campaigns back in the teenage days. The idea was strange to me. I loved comp stomps though.

IT was fun and quite unique
I like the second one added even more races to play.
What I hated was the campaign in the first one.
The story missions were awesome. Defending Minas Tirith. Attacking Helm's Deeps with an army of Uruks. All awesome
What was not so awesome was defending Entmoot 10 times in a row.
Emperor Battle For dune and Warhammer Dark Crusade/soulstorm had the same tihng. A campaign made up of skirmish maps with a few story missions thrown in. Defending gets repetitive quickly. /rant over