Phoenix Point - new tactical strategy from original XCOM devs

[Sly Boots]

I couldn't see a pre-existing thread for this, but it's one I'm very much looking forward to so thought I'd start one for this - Julian Gollop has just announced the launch has been pushed back three months to September, so the game can be further polished:

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/phoenix-poin ... n-delayed/

Happy for them to take all the time they need to get it right, all the previews for this have looked very promising.

[Lee]

I backed this and played the first playable build and loved it. I didn't play the other builds I got acess to, just to keep it all fresh on release

[Sly Boots]

Nice interview with Julian Gollop:

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/phoenix-poin ... tegy-game/

Sounds really intriguing - different factions you can ally with or oppose, mutation system so that enemies can adapt to your combat tactics to keep changing things up... all very interesting.

[Mantis]

It does look excellent. Hearing him describe the systems in detail and his ambitions for it at EGX was very interesting. He said it had always been his ideal to have all of the individual missions feed into one huge overworld simulation akin to a Civilization game.

[Lee]

Gollop's desire for the game is what we really need in a lot of other genres

[DjchunKfunK]

Another game snagged by Epic.

[Sly Boots]

Oh FFS.

This one stings.

[Mantis]

Yeah, that's kind of annoying, I was really looking forward to this one but I won't be using the Epic Store until their significant security issues are sorted.

[Sly Boots]

It's funny, but the more exclusives they land the more determined I am not to use the store.

[Mantis]

I'm still not especially bothered about them buying limited exclusivity as a means of driving up their user numbers, but when there are reports that the store isn't fully secured and people are having credit card details stolen that is just plain shoddy. Until they prove that they can operate a store in a safe environment then no number of exclusives will tempt me over.

[Sly Boots]

Security is the big thing and the main reason my resolve won't weaken whatever games they pick up, but at the end of the day even if/when they sort that I don't really want to support this practice.

[Lee]

Just filled for a refund there after learning of this.

[Sly Boots]

Reading a lot of people saying the same, Lee.

FWIW the response seems to have made the devs reconsider at least slightly, as now they've apparently said they will send out Steam keys to backers that want them when the game's available there (so a year after release, I guess).

[Sly Boots]

Good post on the RPS comments section (the first line refers to the article its responding to):

“This is one of the few deals which seem to have worked out well for potential players, too. ”

This is a pretty disappointing angle from RPS. This is a game which was crowdfunded and accepted pre-orders on the *express basis* that people handing over money would get a Steam or GOG key on launch.

The devs have then pulled an absolute bait and switch (in almost certain breach of consumer law) by locking the game up for a year on a different platform. They have literally promised something specific and then just changed their minds despite accepting money on the basis of the initial promise.

That is at best very shady, at worst dishonest. They have quite literally tricked lots of people into lending them money when they needed it to get the game off the ground, then thrown it back in everyone’s faces when Epic comes along and says ‘hey, this is looking pretty good now’. Where were Epic at the start? Not funding Phoenix Point, that’s where.

And then to have RPS basically publish an article implicitly along the lines of “this doesn’t bother me, because I’m a games journalist and I have to use Epic’s crappy storefront anyway” is disappointing. What about the blatantly deceptive conduct? What about the morality of taking money with a particular promise and then breaking that promise?

On top of all of that, they also took pre-orders (as opposed to crowdfunding) so the usual “you take a risk with crowdfunding” argument doesn’t fly. They took money for a specific product, which they have now decided not to provide because money.

Hell, even with refunds people are getting ripped off. There is no mechanism to protect customers from exchange rate changes or international transaction fees, for example. And the refund system is a super dubious looking Google Docs link.

[Mantis]

I'm not sure that it really is as shady from a legal standpoint as the comment implies. People paid for a Steam key on pre-order, they will get the game on Steam albeit a year after release. If the developer decides to release the game on Steam a year later than elsewhere then they are still technically honouring the arrangement made when they took someone's preorder.

It's pretty nasty and could be seen as quite deplorable. But people shouting about breach of consumer laws are barking up the wrong tree on this one I suspect.