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.

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.

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

...Putting the game on hold? I'm not sure what's given you that opinion. They've been full steam ahead on Endless Space 2 since they announced it.

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.

Alright, to be fair though, absolutely NOTHING in the 4X space ever competes with Civilization. Sins of a Solar Empire was very popular for 4X, but never touched Civilization. For the niche genre though, the Endless series is surprisingly popular. In the span of two major releases, they went from virtually unknown (Endless Space) to quite popular (Endless Legend). I'm sure Amplitude knows their niche, and isn't planning on spending 500million on a 50million dollar market. =P

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.

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.

I find that legitimately surprising. I stumbled on to Endless Space through random luck. PC Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun and Kotaku all did multiple articles on Endless Legend. Thought for sure it would've outsold Endless Space.



Still, I'm glad they're doing alright with sales.

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).

Star Ruler 2 adamantly refused to function on my computer for some reason, but I didn't refund it, just in case it ever gets patched to work in my case. And no, I'm almost positive they won't lose anyone to Civilization VI. The community here is fiercely loyal. Besides that, Civilization tends not to be fun until most/all the expansions are released.

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.

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.

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.

I'm pretty sure neither of them came close to Civ 5. And that really doesn't matter because no 4x will ever come close due to the simple fact that the Civ series has a huge, and almost guaranteed to buy, fanbase. They are a larger company backed by a large publisher and they have more marketing power. There are people who don't even know what a 4x is who play the Civ games.



The good news is that none of that matters as long as ES and EL are profitable to make for Amplitude (and so far they seem to be just fine). Do you think we would have gotten this much post release support for EL (with more to come) if EL was not doing well sales-wise? They hired on AI programmers who helped make improvements for EL and are working on the same for ES 2.

well my fear right now is that amplitude won't make enough money and go under or get bought out by ea. either would spell the end of this series

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



Civilization V has 8.8 million, which is of course not surprising. However, while ES and EL do not come close to that giant, they are some of the closest to them as far as 4x games are concerned (if we don't count Total War and other Firaxis games). Indeed, on that front, Amplitude is pretty much in the top, along with Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion (800K, though of course this doesn't count the base game and Trinity).



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 :( ).



With regards to ES outselling EL, we have to keep in mind that the former came out more than 2 years before the latter. Based on the comments from Froguesquadron and steamspy stats, EL is their most successful game based on sales over time. That said, it is extremely impressive to reach 1 million in your very first game!

To also make you more optimistic, Dungeon of the Endless has 500K sales. So Endless games in total have achieved more than 2 million, which is not that common at all in an industry dominated by a few key giants, much less so in the 4x / strategy market. For a small company to achieve that much with just 3 games is quite something.



So I wouldn't worry too much ;)

Indeed, you should worry more that they will get your favorite features implemented than if they will do well. Just continue to spread the word to anyone you think would be interested in their games.



Right now, I'm more worried about the new combat mechanics being to hands-offish than whether or not the game will sell well.

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 :( ).

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.

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.

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:
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.

They will likely add those things back as DLC. They just released a paid DLC that is essentially ship parts. You know...those things you design your ships with that don't actually do anything?



"Now you too can design amazing looking ships that are just as boring in combat as if you'd made a simple box with windows in it!!!"

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.

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.

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.



The DLC was alright, you seem to gloss over the new campaign, two new races, new technologies, gameplay adjustment to account for those heroes and new ship parts. Some of the cheaper stuff doesn't do it for me, I'll be the first to admit, but Mercenaries was great.



Sounds like you got unlucky. I've had anomalies literally change the game for me early on, such as getting a fully loaded colony ship, or enough credits to immediately purchase a Mercenary. I bought in Early Access, and I wouldn't have suggested it to anyone in that state. The way it is now is a fine game, I'd have no problem suggesting it to someone.

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.

2 and 3 are pretty different games to be honest. It's hard to say if you'll like it or not. The ship designing and combat have been simplified further, planet governing and managing non-combat aspects are more fleshed out this time around.

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.

Disagree all the way. Designing ships in Galactic Civilizations 2 was basically the entire reason I bought the third.



The third has more interesting options for peaceful play in my books. In fact, the overwhelming majority of victory conditions can be done without ever constructing a single warship.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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



Well, their Machine race builds its population, it doesn't grow on its own. Not only does that mean quite a bit more work, but it allows high populations on small planets, and with a large industry amount, you can pump out transport ships almost constantly. The Yor are the only race with those gameplay options. Compared to their Endless Space equivalent, which still grows on its own, it's a large difference.

The other original evil race, the Drengin, don't get unhappy as they colonize further, in fact, it makes them happier. So whereas most races want to limit the amount of planets they have available to what they can keep happy, the Drengin are better served by always taking over other planets. They're also the only race to use slavery as a gameplay mechanic, allowing them to take the pre-existing populations (Or import them later) in exchange for amazingly powerful planetary bonuses. The Hissho being their closest comparison don't differ all that much from the other races apart from bonuses to combat.

And the newest Evil race, the Snathi, have a chance to take over enemy ships in combat. Given that they have horrid production and fairly weak ships, this makes them the only race capable of making a hodgepodge fleet of the best ships, but also makes them incredibly inconsistant to use. They don't seem to have a direct comparison in Endless Space.



Those are just the Evil races, the Neutral and Good races are also split up pretty significantly. To say nothing of the different mechanics when Ideologies and Research are mixed in as well.

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

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.

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.

Aye, fair enough. I love the series though, can accept that it ain't your cup of tea though.