A very refreshing opinion on the state of RTS games from Arthur Bruno:

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rts/crate-ceo-rts-genre-interview/

This honestly gives me hope in that the RTS game Crate is working on is going to be at least decent, if not good. This genre deserves more games that are not trying to chase the mainstream audience or trying to make it into an E-sport.

The only other classic RTS game (meaning it doesn't play like Company of Heroes) that has shown some promise in the last decade or so is Tempest Rising. Still waiting for the GOG announcement on that once it comes around to releasing.

Wishlist entry for that BTW:
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/games/tempest_rising

Hmmm, I don't really watch their streams. Some good info there. Wasn't really interested in Farthest Frontier, but disappointing to hear. Still, it doesn't sound that definitive. As long as it comes here, even a couple years later, after the game is finished and out of early access, I'm fine with that.

And I am of course aware of the GD expansion :D

Denial isn't a river in Egypt.

Another confirmation that the Galaxy integration scares away developers/publishers. Well done.

This always makes me laugh, because if it were 100% true, ZP would be flooding with games. They will just make up another reason why there is no GOG version. if Galaxy integration was gone. We know the true reason is a lack of sales compared to Steam.

Edit: If the Galaxy integration is a problem then release the damn game DRM free on ZP. Isn't Farthest Frontier SP only? what GOG Galaxy integration would really need to be done?

Yeah... I had been the big proponent of Grim Dawn for forever (I was on the Kickstarter for it afterall and have since bought more than half a dozen copies for other people beyond my own and my husband's copies from crowdfunding). But the latest patch changed it into a completely different game that I can't stand. Stupid twitch reflex dodge button crap that shouldn't have been added and then redid the rest of the game to require it. Talk about "change it until it's 'no longer the kind of [game] that I want to play'". The game plays and feels entirely worse now. I've entirely stopped playing since that patch.

Dev, "I was inspired by Diablo 4!" *spit* What a crappy thing to do.

So I'm not sure I'll be able to get the expansion. They keep telling people "just stick with the old version if you don't like the dodge button!" so I guess should listen to their shitty advice.

I'll get FF and try it here should they unshackle it from Steam. But I've certainly added a healthy dose of skepticism over the last couple years.

The hard truth is that it depends.

Some say integrating with anything other than Steam is a pain.

Others say that without support for achievements and a client-based online multiplayer their games are incomplete and they can't release them in that state.

There just isn't a way to please everyone.

I couldn't find anything, so I'm assuming you meant Farthest Frontier.

Simple solutions:

1. They don't need to integrate with Steam. Plenty of smaller project games here, itch.io, FFG, ZP, self-hosted, etc. don't need it. The legitimate reasons for it are very few: MP, voice, VAC, VR. And even then, all 4 of these can solved through implementing into the game itself or offloaded to third-party services.

2. If a game needs achievements to feel "complete", it was very likely a barebones game that couldn't stand on its own in the first place. Plenty of games before the advent of achievements in the mid-00s still stand the test of time and even then, were able to do more with less resources.

Broken record, but GOG should be clearly communicating to its partners that supporting Galaxy is entirely optional. That way, they won't have a legitimate excuse to avoid GOG. I'd rather cut through the bullshit and have them admit they don't care about DRM-free and/or the much smaller niche market share than make up poor excuses about needing to support a client we all know they don't have to. And users here aren't subjected to this ballbusting 'will-they-won't-they' dance spanning years and can move on.

---

As for the topic itself, I'm excited for an RTS renaissance. But things haven't been going so well. I'm hoping Frost Giant's Stormgate and Starlance (GiantGrantGames)'s ZeroSpace will succeed for the good of the genre because SC2 is pretty dead for custom maps and I personally can't support Activision-Blizzard-King anymore.

If they don't have the budget/time/personnel for that, then I doubt that they'll release the kind of RTS that I like ('cinematic' campaigns like Westwood/Blizzard used to make).

It's really not that simple.

Steam is where the bulk of the money gets made.
So, if you want to make a living with your games, you go the Steam route.
(hell, I know, I'd definitely go the Steam route first and foremost, if I was a developer - GOG would be an afterthought at best - and even then only, after I made my money on Steam already)

And once you go the Steam route, you may as well use their well-tested structures, to make your game as enticing as possible for the potential buyers.

Now let's head over to GOG, where you and I say: "the Galaxy client is entirely optional" and "I don't need Galaxy's features".

While that may be true for you and me (and for some others), it isn't true anymore for a growing part of GOG's customers.

Many of those, probably would have never become GOG customers in the first place, if it wasn't for the introduction of Galaxy.

That's the group, that - on the one hand, may love the idea to have their games DRM-free, but - on the other hand, also wants to enjoy their games with all the amenities that an online client (like Steam) offers.

And I have a feeling, that particular group may now be the fastest growing group among GOG customers.
And: their money is worth as much as yours and mine.

However: even with that group being the fastest growing one - it's still far away from making the extra work of a Galaxy integration (and possibly prior to that: a tiresome removal of the Steam intergration) for a GOG release monetary worthwile.

So, all / most / many developers find themselves in a spot between a rock and a hard place:

- a Steam release (with all the bells and whistles) is basically a given, if you want to make money, and you believe, that selling your game there, will at the very least, reimburse you the $100 Steam fee.
(which is - and on that I'm pretty sure - one of the main reasons, why so many "smaller projects" release on itch.io, etc.,...no entry fee)

But some questions arise, when it comes to a possible GOG release:

- should they release on GOG at all?
The "easiest" route is of course, to forego a GOG release entirely.
Will, of course, bring some ire from people who would like the game to be released here.

- should they do a GOG release - but with a version of their game, which is lacking features?
The second most "easy" way.
Will silence some of the irritated group above, but will call a new group of irritated people on the plan: those that don't want to use an online client, but somehow want all amenities/features that come with the use of an online client.
Plus those, who complain about having to pay the same for "a lesser game".

- should they release on GOG/ with full Galaxy integration (which will cost them extra work/time (=money), without having guarantees, that that extra work will be financially rewarded)?
This option will basically shut up all complainers (with the exception of the "I want everything an online client has to offer, but without using an online client" fraction, of course), but will probably not make enough revenue, to make the move actually worthwile.

All three options have one pesky thing in common:
the relatively tiny userbase of GOG, compared to Steam - and the lesser financial attractiveness, that comes with that.

As a business person, you always have to evaluate, which investment (of work, time and money) is rational and will bring you a revenue plus - and which investment isn't worth it.

Now, if a developer, like the one mentioned in post #2 in this thread, has already experience with a GOG release, and they know that the revenue is not what they expected, prior to that relase - why should that dev opt for a GOG release for their second game?
(quote: "[...] it was a lot of effort to support / integrate their galaxy stuff on Grim Dawn for what is a pretty small chunk of sales")

Sure: they could save wortk/time/money, by skipping the Galaxy integration...but then they would fall prey to the groups mentioned above.

It's a no-win situation, really.

Edit: formatting

Edit 2:
Oh, and don't get me started on the "special way", that GOG uses, to do their payment to developers who released here...that's a whole different can of worms.

We will never really know, but I feel like it's often just a cop out answer. Especially since Crate already has experience with GOG and Grim Dawn seems to be doing fine, with updates happening at the same time as Steam (+1 or 2 or so days for offline installers of course).

I'd be pretty interested in what specifically seems to be considered so problematic that a lot of devs/publishers argue with, that the portion of sales on GOG is not worth it. Probably all under NDA, but it really feels somewhat blown out of proportion. I understand not wanting Farthest Frontier on GOG right now, especially in Early Access. Diverting resources to that in a critical development phase might indeed not be wise. But releasing the game here, at least after its main lifetime on Steam is over or once the game is "done done", would still be nice from them.

And that is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by their own negligence. They left GD on GOG without Crossplay for many years, and thus during those years, GD on GOG was a gimpy, inferior product, which effectively had no multiplayer, and also no trading functionality.

And getting them finally to add Crossplay after many years was like pulling teeth. Before they eventually, after eons, finally decided to bother to do the work to add Crossplay, they made excuses for their negligence of the GOG version by making ridiculous statements like it's up to GOG & Steam to play well together --- as if Crossplay was expected somehow to spontaneously manifest itself on its own!

No doubt that negligence on the Crate devs' part is, to a large extent, the direct cause of the low sales of GD on GOG. But of course, they won't admit any of that in their responses, and they just completely ignore those points. *rolls eyes*

Grim Dawn had the best multiplayer -- direct connect/LAN -- from the first day.