Romeo wrote:
That also surprises me. I assumed Galactic Civilizations III would've absolutely walked over AoW3 and Fallen Enchantress. Sad that the 4X market has such dismal sales outside of Civilization and XCom, but then again, I guess I should appreciate that its niche nature ensures we don't get swallowed up by jerks at EA/Activision.

m10101110101 wrote:
they said on steam EA would be with 4 primary races. 2 have been announced so when ever they get the other 2 up on the wiki it should be close to EA. the problem is that could still be a year away. at this point im not sure if amplitude is going to end up putting the game on hold just to make some other game because of the competition having already released games... sad. i think thats what doomed routine as well

duo_ wrote:
unfortunately and in my opinion, amplitude feels like an indy developer and even though endless legend felt like a AAA game and could easily rival games like civ5 and master of Orion, it won't because its a relatively small and unknown company and game. endless space 2 will not be as popular as the civilization games, from the point of marketing and brand recognition, even though i would rather play ES2.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
ES has sold 1 million copies and EL 750K, on steam. That is not Civilization level, but it is quite high for the genre when compared to others.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
ES has sold 1 million copies and EL 750K, on steam. That is not Civilization level, but it is quite high for the genre when compared to others.

Slashman wrote:
Yep. They are doing extremely well actually. And unlike Firaxis, they are very invested in their community to a degree that I have rarely, if ever, seen from a dev.



I don't think they stand to lose any customers to Civ. In fact, I suspect it will be the other way around if ES 2 is as awesome as they are aiming for. The only other major, turn-based 4x space competition would be the horribly boring Gal Civ 3.



Although as an aside, let me strongly encourage everyone here who hasn't done so yet to give Star Ruler 2 + Expansion a try. It is easily the best real time space 4x I have ever seen and that includes Sins of a Solar Empire (I do not say that lightly).

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
ES has sold 1 million copies and EL 750K, on steam. That is not Civilization level, but it is quite high for the genre when compared to others.

duo_ wrote:
where did you find this out i looked on steam stats and could not find anything? what i really want to know it how civ 5 compared to ES and EL in terms of sales.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
To give you an idea, Age of Wonders 3 has achieved 500K sales (corroborated by statements from Triumph Studios), Fallen Enchantress: Legendary heroes has 350K, and Galactic Civilizations 3 has only 260K (granted, it was released not too long ago). Games like Sorcerer King and Warlock 2 did not even reach 50K (sadly :( ).

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
I personally really like Galactic Civilizations 2 (esp its AI), but I have to admit that the Endless games spoiled me tremendously, especially when it comes to immersion. In that, Galactic Civ doesn't hold a candle to them.



I have not played Gal Civ 3, but from what I've seen and read, it seems I'm better off sticking with the 2nd one, as what little additions the 3rd had doesn't justify the price or make up for the things they have removed.

Slashman wrote:
I'm surprised Gal Civ III sold as well as it did, personally. It is, without a doubt, one of the most boring 4x games ever conceived.



Its races are carbon copy reskins of each other. Its research tree is an endless string of +1 to x 'technologies'. Its lore is grade-school bad. Its combat is non-existent and makes the original ES combat seem like a full on RTS.



To add insult to injury, they went the actual nickel and dime DLC route with one of the latest 'gems' being the addition of heroes...the thing that pretty much every other 4x game has had in the the last 6 years. And they acted like it was some kind of unprecedented addition to 4x games.



Most of their sales likely occurred in the EA phase, because I have no idea why anyone would want to invest time in a game which boasted new and improved exploration and after scanning 6 anomalies in a row, my exciting rewards were: 4, 8, 21, 5, 14, 2 credit amounts. With flavor text repeated several times over. Gal Civ 3 is crap personified.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
I personally really like Galactic Civilizations 2 (esp its AI), but I have to admit that the Endless games spoiled me tremendously, especially when it comes to immersion. In that, Galactic Civ doesn't hold a candle to them.



I have not played Gal Civ 3, but from what I've seen and read, it seems I'm better off sticking with the 2nd one, as what little additions the 3rd had doesn't justify the price or make up for the things they have removed.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
Yea the novelty of designing ships wore off quite quickly in Gal Civ 2. Gal Civ games are really meh when it comes to warfare, both strategically and tactically (tech wise, war did present interesting opportunities), that I 90% of the time focused on peaceful play (which is what made Gal Civ 2 for me).



Regarding peaceful play, Gal Civ 2 trumps Endless games in my opinion. I can't speak for the 3rd.

Romeo wrote:
I take it you haven't played it at all since it launched. It was pretty dull when it first popped up, but it's seen constant improvement since then.

The races are massively different than one another. I'd actually go so far as to name them more varied than the ones in Endless Space. And yes, many technologies are simple improvements to previous technologies, a trait it shares with literally every other 4X game I can think of. At least they're unique to the races. The lore is fine, don't know what you're on about there. Combat sucks though, I'll give you that one for sure.

Slashman wrote:
I waited until it launched and for the first post-launch patch before I played it. So no, I'm not basing my experience on EA builds.







I've never found them to be all that different except for a trait or 2. And certainly not more distinctive than ES races. Feel free to point out where and how they are.

Romeo wrote:
Oh hell, try it again. They continued to add and alter for the first year.

Slashman wrote:
Tried it again last night. It was still boring and it still felt incredibly lackluster. Sorry but playing connect the dots on planetary buildings does not make for interesting gameplay to me. Neither does the annoying passive nature of space combat or the boring weapon choices in the game. Also, the idea that if you mine something, you can only use it in one ship or building is baffling.



Sorry but Galciv is just horribly overrated IMO. Maybe all the new DLC makes it worthwhile, but I'm not investing in all that only to find that I still don't like what it does. If the base game is boring, then chances are I'm going to find the DLC+base game boring. I honestly don't know what possessed me to buy it in the first place, I really didn't like Gal Civ 2 either.



Oh and investigating anomalies and space junk still just got me small bunches of credits but the game treated the event like I found the lost city of Atlantis or something. Maybe I need to investigate 20+ to get lucky.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
I got the numbers from steamspy, which tends to be reliable. 

Actually it's not reliable at all. Both ES and EL had free weekends a year ago which would greatly affect the number of owners showed in Steamspy. Even without that the data is not that reliable, which is why Paradox requested to remove any data related to their games.

rockmassif wrote:

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
I got the numbers from steamspy, which tends to be reliable. 

Actually it's not reliable at all. Both ES and EL had free weekends a year ago which would greatly affect the number of owners showed in Steamspy. Even without that the data is not that reliable, which is why Paradox requested to remove any data related to their games.

SteamSpy usually does note that and remove them from their estimates.

Kartu14 wrote:
Hi,



Any news about EA for Endless Space 2 or an another test session ?



Thanks for the answer

Kartu14 wrote:
Hi,



A Big challenger to Endless Space 2 is coming in May, 9th : Stellaris

In this game there is a focus on population, politics (elections) as Endless Space will do.

Master Of Orion is going on with the EA.



Can we expect some fresh news about our game soon ?

Thanks per advance

Romeo wrote:
I'm extremely excited for Stellaris, but its existance shouldn't spur Amplitude to do anything they weren't already planning to do. There's more than enough room in the genre for two to exist at the same time.

Kartu14 wrote:
Hi,

It's not the problem, i am very confident in ES2 game. The game is in my Steam whislist since a long time.

All i want to say is with a Road Book for the game development, it would give us some good

informations of the different stages of development for the game and a precise idea of what's going on.

That's all

Best Regards

rockmassif wrote:
I think there is still more time for early access or release. Simply because Stellaris is about to come and I doubt Amplitude would want to go toe to toe with that. It would just hurt their numbers while there is such a big hype train for Stellaris. It's just usual marketing, nothing new.



For me it doesn't really matter since I'm gonna buy both games but some or most people will choose between two if you force them to. In the meantime, I'm trying to complete some achievements in ES.

Romeo wrote:
Yeah, I think most of us are already sitting with cash-in-hand for Endless Space 2. I would assume they're still too busy making the game to put out Early Access at the moment. As I recall from previous Amplitude stuff, they tend to be fairly playable/feature complete before getting an EA release.

Helionyx wrote:
In the steam forums they indicated that the amount of finished races in the wiki might help to get an idea of when EA is going to start (there will be 4 playable races when EA launches).

Helionyx wrote:
Bump. Is there a rough release date for the EA? Or a roadmap?