Follow on G+ Follow on Twitter Subscribe the Facebook page Subscribe the RSS feed Receive notifications of new posts by email

Deep Space Settlement Pre-Orders, First Playable in 6 Months

By on July 10th, 2014 11:13 am

Deep Space Settlement | A real-time space 4X strategy game by Escape Velocity Studios

After three or so years in development, Deep Space Settlement, a real-time space 4X game (or 4X RTS) by Escape Velocity Studios, has opened pre-orders for anyone willing to support the indie game’s development as it enters into full production.

Word by the devs:

The game has been in pre-production since 2011 and will hit the First Playable milestone by the end of the year. By pre-ordering now you will get exclusive access to this very first milestone release and will be a privileged early backer and supporter of the development team. We will listen to your first-hand feedback and you will help shaping the awesome 4X RTS game Deep Space Settlement thrives to be. -Stéphanie Rancourt (Escape Velocity Studios)

The pre-order costs $50, which looks kinda steep at first glance for a pre-order without immediate access to the game, or at least not until the end of the year anyway. But, Stéphanie explains that she needs to work full time on the game now for what she now asks for your support in return for the opportunity to play the game earlier and help define the game with your feedback.

The game has been completely self-funded until now, at first with personal savings and later through side contract jobs. Now, full time dedication to the project would require your support and we feel the game is close enough to a solid first playable release.

The devs don’t deny the possibility for the game to get cheaper with time though, in case you were wondering. “I agree that it would make sense to lower the price, as we get closer towards the final release. So, yeah it’s not determined yet, but very likely.”, says Mathias Koehler (DSS Artist) in the game’s forums.

It’s always nice to see another Stellar Indie Venture blossom. But, while the devs are close to reaching a first playable version, there’s still a lot ahead for them up until release. And as to when the game will actually be released, Stéphanie says that:

We strongly believe that in order to make Deep Space Settlement one of the best 4X RTS game out there we need to take the necessary time to nurture the game in all its glory. Setting us hard deadlines would compromise the quality of DSS. Please understand that we are a small team of passionate and dedicated indie game developers who will do whatever it takes to put an awesome game in your hands. By pre-ordering the game you will contribute to this goal and we can’t express our gratitude enough. Thank you!

They have also opened a Steam Greenlight page, where they ask for your vote to help them get to the Steam store.

     Subscribe RSS

Tags: , , , , , , ,


  1. SQW says:

    PC gaming, the only place where you can legitimately choose to pay more for less. =|

    Good luck to the dev; I shall support them, should the final product prove worth, once it’s been made.

    • Njordin says:

      PC gaming, the only place where everybody with zero money can achieve great success and build the greatest games ever possible.

      NOBODY forces ANYONE to pay for ANYTHING. remember that. #EarlyAccess #Kickstarter #Pre-Order etc.

  2. Zero says:

    I’m a big fan of these guys. They are fiercely independent. I’m thinking that any number of publishers would hop on board to help fund this game if they wanted to do it like that. But, you know, everybody’s got their own plan.

    Mathias did some work on StarDrive too.

  3. t1it says:

    4X Space RTS. With the 4x explicitly stated by the developers.
    Looks like serious business. I’m having my left eye on this in the nearest future looking for a real game play video. I want to support this.

  4. Cargus says:

    Hm, let’s see…

    – Indie developers that say all the right things
    – Preliminary shots look pretty

    – RTS. Ick.
    – Expensive
    – Nothing playable at all for 6 months
    – No completion timeframe

    Thanks, but no. I’m wary of “early release” anything anymore – been burned too many times.

    • Njordin says:

      some get burned, some have a great time.
      Like me, i got burned one or two times but had a great time with many titles.
      Nobody forced you to pay, it´s an investment. its not guaranteed that the project will be successful.

    • Mark says:

      I’ll second that.

      RTS. Ick.

      Distant Worlds is the only RT 4x that has come close to being good and IMO has its gameplay severely crippled by RT once you have several things happening simultaneously around mid-game. I really hate being forced to miss things because RT can only focus on one thing at a time.

      • Keshn says:

        Hey, Homeworld was an RTS too, maybe not 4X, but the RTS elements were there for sure. Also I never feel overwhelmed in Distant Worlds. Whenever something that needs my attention happens I just pause the game.

        Even though I almost never pre-order, I would for this one. IMO the concept is solid and does promise alot. I will however only pre-order once the alpha is out.

  5. Alex says:

    That price is a bit steep. They should consider throwing in pre-order perks if they want to earn money off that figure because I don’t believe a lot of people are going to bite, especially coming from an indie studio that has not proved yet that they can “deliver.” Even throwing $30 on an Indie title nowadays is risky (Gemini Wars, Horizon, StarDrive, Endless Space(maybe)).

    $50 for a game in the 4x category warrants extreme caution. We’ve all seen where this genre has been heading lately, and frankly, no amount of videos or dev logs can make me throw money on a pre-order. Good luck to their team, because they are going to need it if they want to make enough money from pre-orders, especially if they don’t explore additional options.

    In fact, thinking about it now, wouldn’t it make more sense to price it less now, and then price it for more later on? >.<

    • Zenobia Kael says:

      one has to wonder if maybe its a good thing? with the xtra money hopefully they can develop it right and we wont get a shotty game.

      • Alex says:

        See, but nobody is going to want to pay $50 for no access. They will need this money in the next 6 months more than in any other 6 month period after. The way I see it is that they are shooting themselves in the foot by setting the price so high now and then lowering it later on. People are just going to wait until the price drops to buy. Any “extra” money is simply a figment of imagination here.

      • SQW says:

        So does that mean if they did not reach that imaginary number, the end product will be a mediocre attempt and anyone who paid $50 will get shafted? Will there be refund?

        It’s less putting $50 towards that dream game you have in mind and more just pushing the development along and expect to collect whatever’s on the table once the funding dries up. There’s another word for it: charity.

        Someone in the thread said PC gaming is where dreams can happen. Well, wide eye dreamers without a sound business plan is a 100 pound weakling in front of a 300 pound gorilla that is reality.

  6. Tarsis says:

    Looks beautiful. Would love to play. Early access without any access for $50? No thanks. I’ve early accessed and kickstarted several projects, so far only one lived up to my expectations. I’ll still early access an interesting game for $15 or less, I am no longer paying someone ELSE any significant cash to do the job of playtester. (You can pay me by selling it to me for 50% of the expected pricepoint instead.) I’ll just send $15 to Bay 12 games, really stretch out a dollar.

  7. salvo says:

    wow … I read in the game forum, Stephanie wrote the game engine herself from scratch, in c++. I’m really impressed. She deserves being supported.

    btw … is a kickstarter not viable? I’m pretty sure, the game would attract a lot of people, considering the advanced development state

  8. Evil Azrael says:

    50USD is quite a lot, i think. More than i am willing to pay in advance. But for a nice picture of the dev…. errr, forget it.

  9. Gary says:

    If it was 4X turn-based strategy, instead of RTS, I might have considered it.

    • Dan Freese says:

      totally agree with you Gary. Must say I have to agree with the main theme of these posts…. Been burnt to many time particularly in the space game department. “Nexus; the Jupiter Incident” was the one that really broke the back for early purchase for me. Still a bit angry about how screwed all of those who bought the game where.

      Its one thing to make a bad game. Its quite another when you sell that bad game knowing full well you won’t be around long enough to fix your broken product!

      • Alien JD says:

        Did you mean Legends of Pegasus? Nexus: The Jupiter Incident is one of my favorite games (despite its flaws). But LOP was an unplayable mess.

        • Anubis says:

          Legends of Pegasus wasn’t early access though, it was sold as finished product and well.. we know what happened. I am still thankful that amazon couldn’t send the game in time and I was able to get a refund. :D

          The first time amazon didn’t deliver on release date and it was a good thing.

      • Gary says:

        I’ve only been burnt once on Kickstarter, and that was “Haunts: The Manse Macabre.” As far as 4X TBS space games, I’ve backed “Predestination” and “M.O.R.E.” so am still waiting on them, but so far so good :)

        • Jeff P says:

          I backed both of those as well, but I’m not as optimistic. “M.O.R.E.” has had a lot of turmoil among the development team and doesn’t appear to be making much progress, while the “Predestination” alpha forums are detailing many persistent bugs and coding glitches that are worrisome. That’s the last time I’ll back a Kickstarter.

          As for “Deep Space Settlement”, I agree with Mark that the game play video reminds me of “Homeworld” without the back-story. The price (particularly for a pre-alpha) is outrageous. Definitely a wait-and-see.

  10. farcodev says:

    I “like” the modesty in their announcements; that remind me some other awesome and best of the best projects out there that will change anything… until their release.

  11. Zenobia Kael says:

    why all the hate on the RTS? thank GOD ITS RTS. sick of all these slow turn based games coming out lately.

    • Alien JD says:

      Because in an RTS once your empire gets large you have to let the AI manage it for you or constantly pause (which makes it slow paced anyway). Also when you play these RTSs on large maps the frame rate at late game tends to be erratic at best, too slow to play at worst.

      Hegemony Wars of Ancient Greece comes to mind. I liked the game but sometimes I’d have 3 or 4 battles happening at once and I’d have to decide which one I wanted to let the AI lose for me so that I could focus on a more important battle. Late game it became a crazy click fest.

      I like the way Total War and Sword of the Stars handle things. Turn based empire management with real time battles.

      • Mark says:

        Actually its even worse than that. By mid to late game (in Distant Worlds), you often have 3 or *more* important things happening simultaneously and even if you pause the game you are inevitably going to miss some of the action because RT games can only focus on 1 thing when you hit un-pause as eventually you must.

        You might well know that 3 battles are going on at the same time and be able to view paused snapshots of them, but you can only actually *manage* one at a time unless you pause every second and flick back and forth like a crazy person (which would be incredibly confusing).

        This mandatory missing of important events in a RT strategy game really kills the whole concept of “strategy” and is completely solved with a turn-based approach.

        • Jeff P says:

          I took the plunge with DW:U at its release on Steam, and while I don’t regret the purchase, I agree that game play gets very hectic as the game proceeds, and the learning curve is mountainous. Definitely not for casual gamers. I, too, prefer the “turn-based strategy, real-time tactical” game play of SotS.

        • Alien JD says:

          That was the only thing I disliked about Distant Worlds. 3 or 4 major events going on at once and there’s no way to micromanage them all. I found that I had to build a lot of ships I didn’t need and setup fleet postures near my important colonies and my empire’s frontier just so I could survive long enough to try to deal with everything. I was building lots of cheap ships that were just there to die and buy me some extra time.

          This tutorial covers fleet postures which help somewhat (but not completely).

        • Keshn says:

          What? I disagree with almost all of these arguments.

          While I do agree that late game you have to delegate some things to the AI, if it’s turn-based you just have to micro it yourself possibly making it worse, and just wasting your time. Turn-based also becomes a click fest in late game, if not even worse than RTS, when you have 200 ships in 20 fleets and you have to micro each and everyone of those yourself.

          I also disagree with the point about being overwhelmed by events. If you want to see 3 battles at once just switch over to each one you want, let game play for a while and switch it again giving orders as you go. The only thing I found that made me shake a little was the Ship Design, but only because of the amount of info on the screen.

          I also have no idea why you guys build so many ships that are cheap and weak. I usually go with missiles, railguns and tractor beams and I just walk over everything and everyone. Only thing I worry about, are late game armor and Spaceports. The fleet postures are also a great help for empires of all sizes, I can just automate my fleets to defend my empire, saving me form having to do it all myself.

          Bottom line: I have no idea how you guys see all these flaws.

        • Mark says:

          @ Keshn,

          I couldn’t care less about how many times I click the mouse, I care about how much control I have over my game.

          With a RT game you simply don’t have the control that you do in turn based.

          If you rapidly switch between multiple simultaneous battles in Distant worlds, by the time you get back to the first one it will be over. And 6 more will have started in other parts of the galaxy……

        • Cargus says:

          Eh, everyone has their own likes and dislikes. I find RTS games of any stripe to be irritating, stressful, and rushed, and no, I don’t care that it is pausable. I like turn-based games, and yeah, I know I’m in the minority. But RTS has caused me to pass on a lot of games that otherwise look good. I’ve tired, repeatedly with RTs and it’s just never a fun experience for me.

          But even if this game were strictly TBS, I’d not pay $50 for something that may or may not be fun to play in 6 month, or 12, or 18, or never.

      • Mark says:

        @ Cargus, Actually I’m not sure you are in the minority. I agree with you 100% and so do several others.

        I’m sure there are many sites where we would be in the minority, but Spacesector doesn’t appear to be one of them. We’re obviously a group of discriminating hardcore gamers :)

    • Noldor says:


      Micro-management becomes hell in mid to late game.

      Total War, SOTS1, and other instanced combat games have it best. Late game, you’re going to have a huge empire that becomes hell to manage. You will have to constantly pause or automate. That and multiple events.

      Sins of a Solar Empire is the only 4X-like game that I have seen it done well. Maybe Homeworld too if that counts.

      The others have done poorly as real time.

      Unless you want a game like Starcraft 2, where it becomes about clicks per minute, in general turn based > real time.

      • Mark says:

        I prefer a turn-based strategic layer with instanced turn-based tactical combat. That ends up giving me total control over my game. But barring that I agree that TB Strategic with instanced RT combat is infinitely better than constant RT for everything.

        And yes SOASE is probably the best RT 4x but only because you never (or hardly ever) seem to get multiple important things (like combats) happening simultaneously in different parts of your empire which is the real achilles heel of RT games, even pausable ones. You can only focus on one thing at a time.

  12. Bill says:

    Nope. Can’t do it. Not for this one or the next hundred behind it.

  13. Mark says:

    Reminds me of Homeworld……… except Homeworld looked better.

  14. DavePC says:

    I pre-order this game and I must admit there is indeed an element of risk here but the developers seem competent they can deliver and quite passionate about this game as well. They also seem to be listening to the fans on their forums and from what I have seen thus far this game is very pleasing in terms of graphics and atmosphere, we will just have to wait and see how the rest shape up

  15. Sam says:

    If I get a screen shot of some space ships will you pay me 50 bucks?


  16. blueInstinct says:

    I too dislike the RT in 4x games, I put up with the steep learning curve of Distant worlds because the game has so much to offer, but its such a hectic mess once it progresses.

    in my current game iam under preasure from 2 sides, and have plenty of power to deal with it, a situation i love in 4x games, however since its RT, its a klickfest interrupted with alot of pauses.

    not exactly my cup, i find myself dreaming about DW being turn based alot

    DSS looks fantastic and i probably buy it once it comses out though

  17. ManicMechanic says:

    Looking forward to this one, many space games out there and coming in, read somewhere a guestion why are we getting spammed by so many space games, the guy got massacred brutally :D
    You can NEVER have enough spacegames. Period. Elite, SC, NMS, SPG2, GCiv… Keep ’em coming!

  18. Noldor says:

    Yeah this one looks really promising.

    This is one of the few games that I have seriously considered buying to support the devs. The other, interestingly enough is known as “Shallow Space” (check it out as well).

    I really wish that it was not real time but instanced battles with turn based strategic. Hmm … lets hope they can implement as well as Sins of a Solar Empire, but this game looks a lot more complex (ship design for one). Hopefully 64 bit too, because 32 bit these days would be a deal breaker.

    Hmm … will need more time to think about this one.

  19. Gunlord says:

    I really like RT4X myself (big fan of Sins) but I can see why other people dislike the genre. It seems very much like the sort of thing that would be hard to have a good multiplayer for, since as JD said above, RT4x tends to have a *lot* of slowdown on bigger maps. ;-;

    The devs of this particular game seem like very good people, though I’m not sure if I’ll support early access…I’ve been burned by that too :(

  20. Zero says:

    From a development standpoint, 4x RTS on the scale of StarDrive / DW, etc, it obviously presents a lot of challenges both from a design and coding standpoint.

    One thing that turns introduce to the gameplay mix is that concept of a discrete time unit. I press the button, I get results. Things happen after I press the button. From a coding point of view, this also lets me say “Ok computer, only think about stuff that has to happen after the user presses the button.”

    In the 4x RTS, it’s constant computation. It’s the same concept – there is a discrete time unit that the computer uses to update itself – but it has to happen at the minimum every few seconds to get a simulation that is capable of responding to player actions in real time. In a normal RTS setting, your computer can handle it just fine. Take that concept and spread it out over 1400 stars or whatever, and now you’ve got 1400 RTS games to think about.

    DW could handle more stars and ships than SD because they didn’t have the modules to think about. In StarDrive we had to compute the effects of the ship modules on any ship that was in combat constantly. Power knocked out here? Well, your engines don’t work. But you have a repair module? Ok, they are slowly repairing. And it’s this times however many ships you have. I found some ways to cull out unnecessary computations but you can imagine how this would affect performance.

    Anyway, the end result for me is that I think we can get a lot more mileage out of a turn-based game and much better performance by splitting TBS and RTS segments into separate scenes (ala SoTS, Total War etc).

    That said, 4x RTS is still an incredible genre. I don’t know what the DSS scale and scope is really. I haven’t seen any diplomatic or exploration elements in the game, at least in the classic sense. It looks very much like a space RTS rather than a 4x RTS at this point. If the scope remains as a single solar system then performance is probably not an issue. Plus I know the coder, Stephanie, is a huge performance nerd.

  21. Mark says:

    Yeah I never really thought about it that way, but its true. From a programming standpoint, TB games can be deeper, more detailed and more complicated than an equivalent RT game.

    In an age where more and more shallow, dumbed down strategy games are emerging (compared to their 20 year old ancestors), I for one would greatly welcome the added detail, depth and immersion that can be possible with a TB game, even if we have to wait a bit for each turn to compute it would be worth it for the payoff in simulation accuracy.

    • ashbery76 says:

      I don’t recall many strategy games from 20 years ago that have more depth than real time Paradox games.

      Older games tended to have lots of micromanaging and not so much lots more mechanics.

      • Mark says:

        Paradox games are really only *technically* RT. They move at such a glacial pace that you never really run into any of the standard RT complaints like multiple combats happening simultaneously or frantic clickfests.

        Its the same situation as the old game “Star Wars Rebellion”. It was RT and there were lots of options, detail and things happening, but you could slow it down to such a crawl that it may as well have been TB.

        I don’t really have a problem with RT as long as it doesn’t move so fast as to overwhelm you with events, even if you can pause it.

    • Gmandam says:

      “In an age where more and more shallow, dumbed down strategy games are emerging (compared to their 20 year old ancestors), I for one would greatly welcome the added detail, depth and immersion that can be possible with a TB game, even if we have to wait a bit for each turn to compute it would be worth it for the payoff in simulation accuracy.”

      More shallow? Or just better designed?

      Every time I hear this argument it amounts to the same thing, “Old Game X is better because it’s harder to get into, harder to control and less comprehensible”. That’s not depth, or complexity. That’s needless busy body work and no-one in their right minds should praise anything for keeping it.

      Why don’t we do more micromanagement?

      Because micromanagement for micromanagement sakes is boring as hell. I’m sure we all remember X-com where you had to buy individual bits of ammo. I sure as hell didn’t hear anyone claim when the new X-com got rid of that, that it was dumbed down. Why? Because it’s boring, pointless and adds nothing to the game. A base whose logistic system doesn’t automatically buy ammo for your guys to shoot, should be fired.

      Why do games seem dumbed down?

      Because we design them better, we’ve learnt that making games look like nuclear control panels aren’t fun. They don’t add anything other than time, and yes you can move beyond them but should you really have to do the effort? I mean you do play this game for fun right and anything that comes between you and your fun should not be there. Be it superfluous UI clicks or otherwise.

      • Mark says:

        Certainly buying individual bits of ammo seems like pointless micro, I’m with you on that and I agree that micro for the sake of micro is bad and many older games were indeed guilty of this.

        But when you boot up X-Com EU and find out that you can no longer drop items on the ground or exchange them between troops then there’s only one phrase for it…… Dumbed down.

        No alien base invasions (or only one heavily scripted one)? Dumbed down. Tiny non-random maps? Dumbed down.

        Why do many modern games seem dumbed down? Simply because they *are* dumbed down. They really are.

        • Gmandam says:

          “But when you boot up X-Com EU and find out that you can no longer drop items on the ground or exchange them between troops then there’s only one phrase for it”

          Um, let’s think here. What can you carry in X-Com EU. A gun, a side arm, a grenade and a bit of equipment. Guns are essentially class locked, so they can’t swap those. Side arms are side arms, and one is essentially the same as the other, bullet,laser,plasma ammo types aside. Grenades could be swapped, but part of the tactical challenge is knowing when to throw a grenade and when not to, especially considering that explosives will destroy harvester items. So let’s put that to one side.

          So, the equipment is really the only thing that can be swapped. What equipment can we swap? A +20 to range, additional Armour, a medi kit, combat stims, a addon that stops strangling and poisoning, a combat stun, a mind shield and reaper rounds addon.

          So let’s disregard, the reaper rounds, additional Armour, the implant and the mind shield because it’s implied to one degree or another that they are a part of the Armour your wearing or a part of your biology.

          What does that leave us with? A scope addon, medi kit, the stun and the combat stims. Four items, out of a total of sixteen. It’s hardly a tactical choice.

          So, the base thing.

          Yeah, I miss the base invasions. They were nice, but you know what. That’s not dumbed down, that’s a missing feature. There is a difference and it’s up to *you* to prove that they were afraid that the base attack mechanic would put players off from playing the game, because as far as I know, they never said that at all.

          The smaller maps, maybe they just want to get you to the fighting easier. Big maps don’t make for complicated gameplay, it just makes for lots of traveling and distance, most of which isn’t exactly fun. It’s just boring for the most part, as by mid game, you don’t fear the enemies and you’ve got your top squad in destroy formation.

        • Mark says:

          Lol sounds like you have different terminology for what I think of as essentially the same thing. Call it “Class Locked”, “tactical challenge”, “missing features”, “easier”, “streamlined”….. etc its all just different euphemisms for the same thing.

          If a game cuts depth, useful decisions, interesting or fun things that a previous version had, its commonly known as dumbing down. These things weren’t pointless micro, they were useful or fun game features that were simply *missing* from the modern version. And it isn’t only X-com EU that’s guilty.

        • Cargus says:

          You want to restore some of XCOM:EW’s difficult choices, try the “Long War” mod. It’s quite awesome, but hard as hell (you were warned!). It reworks the game and adds so much stuff it’s almost like a whole new game.

        • Gmandam says:

          “Lol sounds like you have different terminology for what I think of as essentially the same thing. Call it “Class Locked”, “tactical challenge”, “missing features”, “easier”, “streamlined”

          Uhm, The description of class locked is a reference to the fact that the guns are class locked. Tactical Challenge is a reference to the fact that you have to know when to throw something correctly. Those are irrelevant to the discussion we’re having.

          “If a game cuts depth, useful decisions, interesting or fun things that a previous version had, its commonly known as dumbing down. These things weren’t pointless micro, they were useful or fun game features that were simply *missing* from the modern version. And it isn’t only X-com EU that’s guilty.”

          Secondly, missing features is different from dumbing down. Because dumbing down out right says *Motive*. Removed features is someone saying something is missing, dumbing down is someone saying that “This feature was removed because we felt it too complicated”. One has motive, one has not. The one with motive will always be inherently less acceptable to the majority of people than the one without.

          Streamlining is taken to mean a synonym of “Dumbing Down”, but this is a corruption of intent than it’s actual meaning. Stream lining is meant to be a way of removing things that obscure mechanics. For instance civ 3 had some strange population mechanics. When changed in civ4, no-one complained. Why? Because the essence of the mechanic was retained while making the system simpler to understand.

          Ultimately, it all comes down to the idea if you believe they did remove/forget about some features because of the need to “dumb down” or if they did it because they realized what the core attraction of Xcom was. If you believe the latter, as I do, then there is no malice or “dumbing down”.

        • Mark says:

          @ Cargus,

          I was skeptical that anything could save Xcom-EU but after looking up the “long war” mod you mentioned I have to admit that if it lives up to the advertising material it might actually be pretty good. Downloading now, thanks for the heads up.

  22. Mark says:

    Gmandam, you can make a million excuses, you can use a million different terms and euphemisms but in the end it all simply boils down to the same thing.

    It wasn’t about malice it was about MONEY! They wanted to broaden their potential audience to include as many console kiddies and “casual” gamers as possible, so the game had to get simpler. X-com EU originally had Time Units but they were scrapped because the devs didn’t think that casual gamers would want to – or be able – to do simple math. In the process, hardcore gamers lost options, depth and functionality. It was *dumbed* down to make more money, that’s the one and only motive.

    • Gmandam says:

      “Gmandam, you can make a million excuses, you can use a million different terms and euphemisms but in the end it all simply boils down to the same thing.

      It wasn’t about malice it was about MONEY!”

      You’ve made two assumptions. First of all, that all people are stupid (which is arrogant in the extreme). The other is that wanting to make money is an inherently bad thing.

      Let’s address the first, most people aren’t stupid. As a rule, we’ve been weeding out the stupid people since the dawn of the genus Homo. What people are, is busy and unwilling to put up with hassle during their free time. They have no desire to play a game that has a control panel that looks like a nuclear sub on steroids. They want a Simple UI that has depth of options.

      This is why EU4 and CK2 are getting credit, because the simple UI but the same depth is increasing the popularity of their games with people who simply can’t be bothered with stupid UI.

      Secondly, everyone wants to make money. I want to make money, it’s why I work. You probably want to make money as well. I doubt this is our only motivation, but it’s a big part of our lives regardless. This does not make us bad people. Likewise, it doesn’t make EA evil for wanting to make money, they are evil because of HOW they want to make money. In this case, it’s how someone makes money that matters, not the making of money itself.

      Xcom-EU, for all it’s flaws (unrelated to your Dumbing down), captures the core concept of the Xcom of yor. You are managing an organisation tasked with stopping alien invasions.

      The last point I’ll make is, they didn’t get rid of the Time Unit system. They made it less arbitrary. Two actions per turn, unless you dash to a new place. That’s one turn to move, and one turn to do an action. My, it almost sounds like a system designed to limit action within a single turn
      by attributing it to a point based system. Almost as if they used units. Of Time! *Incidentally it’s insanely arrogant to assume people aren’t willing, or can’t, do maths*

  23. Happy Corner says:

    I know I’m not a moderator here, but Mark and Gmandam, you two should just agree to disagree and move on. Seriously, you’re having a fight with no prize. Neither of you are actually idiots… I’m confident that you both could find better things to do with your time than bicker in circles about XCOM.

    • Mark says:

      No you’re right, its a fairly mild and polite dispute which hasn’t gotten heated or anything but I feel that I’m getting absolutely nowhere fast. We’re definitely going in circles now and there’s no point I can make that has any hope of changing his mind, so agree to disagree sounds good to me. Lets move on :)

Related Articles:

Post category: News & Announcements