Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Slugmonkey]

Just wondering if there's been any talk of a Star Sector 2. I'm new around here.

[Morgan Rue]

Not that I'm aware of. Considering it isn't even really out yet and is still in a 'beta' state and being developed... I wouldn't expect to hear about a Starsector 2 for at least ten years, if ever. There will probably be another blog post about development in a few months.

[SCC]

The first game isn't even finished yet, and people already ask for a sequel?

[Grievous69]

At least it wasn't the usual ''release/update when??''. Now there's been a similar question once and I vaguely remember Alex saying it's more likely he'll work on an expansion, like a DLC probably, than immediately making a brand new game. Don't quote me on this tho, 'twas a loong time ago.

[Harmful Mechanic]

It wouldn't be the Starsector forum if we didn't have a bunch of well-meaning but entirely clueless teenage boys who think a tiny indie game made by three people can be expected to produce the same volume of PR and content as AAA studio titles, with sequel plans already settled before a game has shipped and dedicated community management to keep them mollified.

They'll either learn better or drift away to the next big title.

[Grievous69]

It wouldn't be the Starsector forum if we didn't have a bunch of well-meaning but entirely clueless teenage boys who think a tiny indie game made by three people can be expected to produce the same volume of PR and content as AAA studio titles

You're right on the PR part but just because a game is made by indie developers it doesn't necessarily mean it has little content. Sure they need far more time for the same amount of content than AAA fellas, yet I've seen tons of big budget games with barely any content and depth. And of course indie games that keep me occupied for a crazy long period of time. Only thing indie games don't have is pretty graphics, and I'm sure not a lot of people care much for that.

[Alex]

Just wondering if there's been any talk of a Star Sector 2. I'm new around here.

Hi! As others have mentioned, yeah, no plans for an expansion - or for anything else that far in the future, really. The game is still a ways off from reaching 1.0, and after that, I would like to work on a few expansions, and then after that, see where things are at.

(As an aside, I kind of dislike the term "DLC", myself, but it's really entered the language as almost a substitute for "expansion"... ah, well.)

[SCC]

To be fair, there are players who have never seen an expansion before, but were bombarded with new DLCs regularly... Can you blame them for using the word they know? Expansions are so rare nowadays. It's more common to be mercilessly nickel-and-dimed.

[AgentFransis]

Proper expansions are so much work though. Much easier to sell some horse armor DLC.

[Grievous69]

In my mind, expansion is something big that adds to the original game, like a entirely new campaign, new factions in games and so on. DLC would be something smaller, like a few new units or just visual extras, skins and similar. And honestly, I've seen pretty huge content updates to games that were just called DLC (Wizard of Legend comes to mind). On the other hand, there were ''expansions'' that just added a couple of missions or some new cosmetic crap. So I just call them randomly, usually DLC since it's used more. I'd love to hear what's the general thought on the difference between the two.

[Alex]

Certainly not blaming anyone using the word, yeah

Just, to me, "DLC" has connotations of "bad value" or "has visible hooks in the game when you don't have it to try to upsell you" or, well, yes, "horse armor" (see: "bad value"), and other things I find distasteful. But I'm not sure if that's just my interpretation or if that's a more wide-spread feeling. It could well be just me; "DLC" seems to be pretty commonly used for all sorts of things across the board.

But, personally, I prefer "expansion". Even within that, I'm sure opinions will differ on what constitutes "big enough" additions of content/mechanics to warrant being called that. And in particular, "should have been in the base game" is a touchy aspect, too, since anything one can think of could fall under that - it's just such a subjective call.

[Yunru]

For me it tends to be volume of content. Disgaea, for example, has a tonne of dlc characters. Enough, in fact, that if bundled I'd probably call it an expansion. But the sell them separately, so DLC (plus it let's me cherry pick the bits I want.

Although it's all relative. Yuri's Revenge for Red Alert 2 only added a few new mechanics and one side, but that was a 50% increase in playable factions. A Starsector Faction mod however, I would hesitate to call an expansion because it's not game changing enough. Nex, on the other hand, would definitely be an expansion.

[kenwth81]

It wouldn't be the Starsector forum if we didn't have a bunch of well-meaning but entirely clueless teenage boys who think a tiny indie game made by three people can be expected to produce the same volume of PR and content as AAA studio titles

You're right on the PR part but just because a game is made by indie developers it doesn't necessarily mean it has little content. Sure they need far more time for the same amount of content than AAA fellas, yet I've seen tons of big budget games with barely any content and depth. And of course indie games that keep me occupied for a crazy long period of time. Only thing indie games don't have is pretty graphics, and I'm sure not a lot of people care much for that.

They can easily push out lots of content in relatively short time. That is not the problem with mainstream established gaming companies. Their AAA video games have gotten remarkably similar to each other. They are incredibly risk averse. These established game companies is becoming less than willing to bet on creative and unique ideas and focus on established franchises.

Indie games are smaller, cheaper to develop and take less time (*cough*) than mainstream titles. Indies games can afford to be different, able to take unnecessary risks and offer unique and varied experiences. What a indie game lack in polish, they can make up for it with creativity and imagination. Multi million budget and cutting edge technology does not ensure a great game. Game making is an art form. 

[Morrokain]

Indie games are smaller, cheaper to develop and take less time (*cough*) than mainstream titles.

Mostly yes, yes, and... no most indie games take much longer or have the same time-frame if they are lucky from what I've seen. If they have small dev teams. Not all indie games do though, but the larger the team the less creative control. Its a trade off like most things when regarding development.

In my personal experience, the ones who release fast tend to be half baked and cause dev burnout that leaves the game unfinished and unplayable once the negative reviews start pouring in. I've seen it many times.

I think you have a point that creativity/passion > polish in some circumstances, but I think you really underestimate the time sink of making a game like this actually be good. The type of game matters too, and so does the implementation. Strategy games in general are difficult to make. Its one of the reasons the genre as a whole has few games when making genre comparisons (especially as you said major companies tend to be risk averse and the genre itself has a relative niche audience to begin with).

If you are seeing super fast indie games they are probably based on framework development software like Unity where you can literally import and edit entire features and UIs. This game is proprietary engine design. That alone is much more difficult to do.