Creston wrote on Aug 14, 2014, 22:34:

Slashman wrote on Aug 14, 2014, 20:42:
The combat in this better not be crap like GalCiv 2.

It worries me that no one is actually talking about it.

I honestly can't remember if they said you'd have control over it this time or not...

jdreyer wrote on Jul 22, 2014, 15:10:

ELITE wrote on Jul 22, 2014, 12:40:
Yep...
Subscriptions & Early Access.

Software is turning into highway robbery - but worse many of us are willing to get robbed by choice...

The high price keeps the number of early adopters, and thus the amount of feedback down, while still providing feedback. What you're paying for is not only the chance to play before everyone else, but also the chance to have some influence on the design of the game. Like Beam said, no one is holding a gun to your head. If I were young and single, I'd do this, as I often registered for game betas back in the days before early access. These days, time is limited though, so I only buy finished games, and usually months after release so that I play the most stable, up to date version.

. As a result, we currently have eight games
in development (only two of which, Galactic Civilizations III and Offworld Trading Company have been
announced. We have also used that capital to help launch a number of new start-ups across several
different industries that we look forward to sharing with you over the coming year or two.

eRe4s3r wrote on May 19, 2014, 20:49:

IN fact, reading their website I think this game doesn't even exist yet. They plan to maybe make a game that will be maybe like they described if they get enough buyers?

This is.. really a problematic trend. Not something I support...

Prez wrote on Jan 30, 2014, 23:23:
I wonder what the licensing fee for the engine is going to be. I imagine it would be pretty far out of reach of your average indie studio...

Task wrote on Jan 30, 2014, 17:51:
I'd rather it be fleshed out into an actual game...

dj LiTh wrote on Nov 8, 2013, 07:22:
That has to be one of the most pointless DLC's i've ever seen for a game.....and i actually like Sins

Optional Nickname! wrote on Jun 17, 2013, 12:38:
Why No US release? I'm hoping it is because this non-US release does not require Steam. The web site offers no information on that.

Im not aware of the whole Beck drama, presonally I couldnt care less because its about the games and the companies that make them and Stardock is one of the few out there that do good for gamers. I do agree with the above post 100%. I think a lot of developers simply ignore a lot of their fan base and their suggestions because they somehow think that fans shouldnt influence their decisions regarding game design and ideas. What a lot of them forget is that they started out as gamers themselves who wanted to make a game that they themselves wanted to play...

gray wrote on Jun 13, 2012, 08:02:
Is this playable yet? Desyncs are/were a complete game breaker.

Flatline wrote on Mar 31, 2011, 19:51:

Prez wrote on Mar 31, 2011, 19:23:
This "SHOULD" not affect users accounts?? I'm not exactly instilled with total confidence with that statement.

Though I imagine that they sold Impulse because of the fiasco that was Elemental.

Prez wrote on Mar 31, 2011, 19:23:
This "SHOULD" not affect users accounts?? I'm not exactly instilled with total confidence with that statement.

Blackhawk wrote on Mar 31, 2011, 18:52:
With Stardock officially out of the distribution business, I wonder if we'll start to see Stardock products on Steam.

Considering there is no single player campaign other than skirmish missions(which are great, admittedly), it seems more like an a tool for forcing people onto Impulse:Reactor than anything else, and I'm not in the mood for a more invasive form of an Impulse store/DRM, to be honest. The lack of running an Impulse client in the background is the ONLY advantage it has over Steam at the moment, being a bit buggier and games usually at full price vs Steam's frequent sales.