Inksplat - but this is NOT a video game... it's a BOARD game. You should be able to play in without being "plugged in." That's WHY some of us play board games... it's a nice break from video games with more human interaction.

I LOVE X-Com the video game. I was ECSTATIC when I heard of this board game... and then when I found out about the REQUIRED use of an app, the wind fell out of my sail. How limiting. 5-10 years from now, this BOARD game is obsolete when the app "isn't supported" anymore, or goes away, etc. Such a bummer.

Sorry, FF... you just crapped on a great opportunity in my opinion.

Inksplat, you are spot on about all this. There is nothing wrong with a board game that requires a free app these days. There really is a lot of design space available there.

Have to agree with Inksplat. There are a lot of games that don't require any computer assistance. Let the people that want something a little more enjoy themselves.

Everyone seems to be making a lot of assumptions here from one description.

There is a pause button in the app, you can see it a screenshot in the description page, the game is not fully real-time.

I agree that the concept of real time doesn't sound appealing. Reminds me of that awful Star Wars VHS game. But if you read the description it says only part of the turn is timed. The resolution phase gives you as long as you need to roll your dice etc. The timed element is probably just the initial part of the round, where you and the team make some snap decisions. It has potential. It reminds me of being part of the crew on the bridge of a starship or something. The timed element could really add some tension if implemented well. And while the video game was turn based for the most part, it does actually move in real time while the geoscape is active.

On a separate note I'm warming to the idea of the app. It'll be really cool to get it on a big TV screen using mirroring on Apple TV.

It's just like that other game (won't mention name) that's a "digitally enhanced minatures game". I am an emissary for them and it works wonderfully. If you do have a device to run it I would try it. I think this will be a new trend so we better get used to it. Hell almost everything requires internet nowadays unlike some years ago , tv , cars , ect. You need to think of the possibilities like internet play and that it's generally easier to teach to others. Anyway to each thier own but it does look interesting.

So if they're requiring the use of an app/website, can they guarantee that the app/website will be stable? I don't think I have an app on my phone (Samsung Galaxy S4) or my iPad mini that hasn't stopped and crashed back to the home screen mid-use. I'd hate to be three turns away from a victory only to have the app crash (or the website freeze up) and lose all progress in the game. There's nothing like playing a game (video game, board game, or otherwise) for an hour+ with no outcome due to something that is not actually part of the game.

No, sir, the requirement of owning the app to play the game is not in the player's control. It is a "requirement". The table, the players, are in our control. The choice of owning this app to play the game is 100% not.

The requirement to play certain PC games is to have a top end PC. The requirement to use certain apps is a new enough iPhone/iPad. How is that any different?

You're basically arguing that everything should always be 100% backwards compatible, and that is a terrible idea because it limits progress. Board games need to evolve just like every other medium.

First off, please stop telling people what they are "basically arguing". You keep saying "you're arguing, you're arguing" and including a witty metaphor. Thanks, I know what I'm arguing. Secondly, I never said it was a bad idea, I was simply defending the point that, yes, it is a requirement and limits the audience base. I never once said this is a terrible idea or anything of the sort. To the contrary, I've stated over and over again that I like the concept and will back it all the way.

Now that i have slept on it, the feeling of being gut-punched has subsided somewhat, and I have perhaps calmed down a bit.

I still think the real-time & APP solution was bad. Read on if you care to know why i think so. (Or feel free not to, it's not like i can make you. )

As previous posters said, the concept in and of itself of having a CD,DVD or even a videocassette in a board game is not something explosively new. An APP is just the modern-day continuation of the same idea. The example of Vlaada Chvatil's Space Alert was given as an example. Indeed he also made Galaxy trucker in the real-time genre.

Space Alert wants you to use the CD for it's missions. It is clearly stated that the game is intended to be played like that, and that it adds to the atmosphere. But, and this is a big one, it also includes a system for playing without it. The game doesn't recommend it, and say you'll basically need another player to do it, but if you prefer to so, or your cd-player is bust or whatever you CAN. That's really all i ask. Live and let live, right?

As for Real-Time in board games, I've really only tried it out with the two games mentioned above. In one, time was too short, and in the other, it was so liberal it didn't actually matter. I think there is a reason that real-time is not terribly common in board games, and that is because it's hard to make work, and harder still to make worthwhile.

The problem I see are that A) it punishes your group if you have mixed skill-levels. If 3/4 guys manage to complete their turns as they should, then mr 4 is either going to get everybody killed (as this is full co-op) or get run over by the faster players making all his decisions for him. Neither of these two are much fun for mr 4.

Further, I understand that the idea might be to reward fast thinking and decision making on the spot, but I fear that the reality is that it doesn't reward fast players as much as it punishes slower ones. To continue the example above, if mr 1 is super-fast, and can finish his turns with time to spare, then he just sits there twiddling his thumbs. No bonus. Or is the time he saved usable by other players or something? (Which could well be, I guess, haven't read the rules yes.)

my B) point is, Is it really necessary? Is this a gimmick for a gimmicks sake? As a previous poster mentioned, if you look at the picture in the game description, you see that big friendly "pause" button on the screen.

...

So which way do you want it then? Pauseable real-time? Isn't that just.... you know... regular board gaming then?

Now don't get me wrong, this is a step in the better direction, if you ask me, but it still means that the real-time concept is NOT as central as might first be indicated.

So why is it included? To build tension? Yes, but time-constraint doesn't build tension. It builds frustration and stress. These are in fact NOT things I think make a board game better. Battlestar Galactica (another of my top 10 games of all time) has tension in bleeding spades, and no need to rely on real-time for that. I know a lot of tense games, but can't think of any of them that would be made better by including a real-time element.

What else have we got? It creates situations where players need to make decisions with in-complete information. You mean, like locking your choices before drawing the modifer-event-card to the crisis card you just drew? There. I fixed that for you. This has been done in many games without having to resort to real-time elements or APP's to generate obstacles to overcome. Pausable APPs at that.

Anything else? Well, it DOES go really well, and is almost automatic to include if your game is run by an APP.

This is true. And if you are going to use an APP anyway, it's very easy to incorporate, to the point of almost being a free-include.

So is that the idea then? Did you (FFG) want to create a upcoming game that uses an APP as a central mechanic, and this just happened to be it? The next suitable game in the pipeline? I can totally understand that, and for me personally it's just a massive shame that it happened to be a franchise i LOVE. Had it been Harry Potter or Alien vs Predator or some suchlike, you wouldn't hear a peep from me. Sure, I'd quietly feel sad for the fans of those franchises but since I probably would not have bought those games anyway, no skin of my nose.

So taken that we can pause the real-time clock, the real difference between an APP or a player/deck/scenario-book running the Alien Ethereals is.... that if we DON'T enforce the time-element it will get too easy? The "crisis" don't bear close scrutiny or a group discussion? Well, the work has still needed to be put in to make the aliens "events and crises", are you saying they just aren't particularly tuned and balanced?

That doesn't sound right. We know for a fact Eric is well capable of balance, nuance and all round excellence. (Have you played Chaos in the Old World? It's pure gold.) So, if not sloppy game design, then... lazy? Maybe FFG is short on time/staff or something? As someone pointed out, the community and BGG will PROBABLY make versions with the option for APP-less play, but (perhaps ironically) that doesn't speak to me either. I don't want to play BGG's X-COM, I wanted to play FFG's X-COM. A shame I'm part of the group not in the target audience. This is like the X-com movie being made, with all my favorite actors, and then only being viewable in Australia.

If the game was presented like : "You can EITHER get an extra player, and have him work with a scenario-book and 4 decks of cards to play the Alien Ethereal Overlord, OR you can use our free APP, to do all that work for you, and let you play the game with one less player."

Then it would speak to and welcome two pretty different types and groups of gamers. We would have the option for asymmetrical game-play (and it did work VERY well for netrunner, didn't it) and would not need to exclude anyone.

Which brings me to my next point.

I think this is bad for business.

As someone pointed out, I agree that this is a calculated risk/choice on FFG's part, and they feel it's worth it to make a game like this. Sure not MANY gamers are going to pass on this game because of the APP, but I know for a fact that some are. I assume they are counting on that to be offset by... who? Are there gamers out there who will buy it JUST for the APP. I mean, gamers that would not otherwise have bought it? Because the group of gamers who will NOT buy because of the APP are gamers that otherwise would have. I have a really hard time imagining someone holding this box and going : "Hmm, I have never heard of this game or franchise. Aliens invading earth sounds cool, but I just don't know. No wait, it says here it's run by an APP! Cool! Ok, NOW I want to buy it."

Well, it MIGHT happen, but I'm fairly confident not in the same volume as people passing on the game.

ON THE OTHER HAND.

- I don't think people will have a problem finding something to play the APP on, in some form or shape. It's fairly safe to say that most gamers have access to a computer or that at least 1 person in the group has a device that can support an APP.

- I don't think battery power in said devices is a real problem. Like setting up a normal game, for this, you charge you phone/laptop/whatever, or have a power cable for it. Ok, so perhaps you don't bring this particular game with you camping, but A LOT of games fall into that category. You can't call that in and by itself a deal-breaker.

- I'm not worried the APP will not be available in 15 years. If this game turns out to be half as good as it could be, there will probably be somewhere (BGG, maybe?) to get it and a emulator to run it if that is needed. If I'm still playing this in 15 years, nothing would make me happier.

- For people who like to incorporate an APP into their board gaming, congratulations, this will probably be a huge success with you. Good that someone shows you some love.

- The market and the board gaming industry is a living evolving thing, and new steps needs to be taken. I am not surprised that FFG, that are frontrunners in the field, are among the first to try new implementations. I also think they do deserve kudos for it (although in this particular instance, the APP-"exlusive" thing might well be to big of a step in a single go).

So in conclusion.

I am willing to let go of my real-time gripe. You can pause it to teach new/slow player, or as needed for the occasional joke-telling session. Fine.

The APP-requirement remains a deal-breaker for me. Probably to my loss, but right now I can't justify put my money behind this. I will not monetarily support what might be a trend of games that demands an APP to play. The instance the option becomes available for an APP-less version, this will ZOOM back to my must-buy list, but until then, no-go.

I will probably play this game if someone in my group get's it, but this hypothetical somebody, will not be me.

I don't mind APP supported or assisted board games, but I don't want them in the drivers seat. I like my board games analog.

P.S.

Yes. I know I have not read the rules, or played this game yet. These comments are made with the information available at the time of writing. Yes, I might be wrong. I acknowledge that, and almost hope that I am to some extents. This game might still become the best game in the history of ever, and people like me will be remembered as douchy nay-sayers. I will happily live with that, if it means X-COM turned out great, and i get to play it a lot.

The app is not only for managing the real-time nature of the game, which is the only thing you touch on - going on and on about how it's pausable. It is also to control the enemy AI and a 'dynamic turn structure' - the game will ostensibly react to what you're doing, which a shuffled deck of cards can't do.

Further let's realize that this is likely a long game, and the other real time games mentioned and in existence are typically under 15 minutes. An hour plus game with real time elements is going to need a pause button.

I'm not going to reply to the whole lot of this, but I feel as if a some assumptions are being made here that either don't seem to be borne out by what we do already know, or just aren't confirmed.

Space Alert wants you to use the CD for it's missions. It is clearly stated that the game is intended to be played like that, and that it adds to the atmosphere. But, and this is a big one, it also includes a system for playing without it. The game doesn't recommend it, and say you'll basically need another player to do it, but if you prefer to so, or your cd-player is bust or whatever you CAN. That's really all i ask. Live and let live, right?

Sure, but Space Alert is Space Alert. The design of the real-time elements of that game are basic enough that they can be run pretty easily by a person with a timer.

From the account given here, what they're trying to do with XCOM is considerably more complicated - a series of different attack strategies for a start, but within that, a randomised order of things. For example, "Each round, the app tracks the time you have allotted to respond to each task, forcing you to think quickly, even as you must carefully measure the strategic implications of your decisions. However, the app does far more than track time. Its design is integrated deep into gameplay, and it permits both a mutable alien invasion plan and a dynamic turn structure."

With Space Alert it was just a matter of providing 10 cue cards. This sounds rather more involved and I expect at some point during playtesting they had to judge whether it was truly feasible to include non-app options.

The problem I see are that A) it punishes your group if you have mixed skill-levels. If 3/4 guys manage to complete their turns as they should, then mr 4 is either going to get everybody killed (as this is full co-op) or get run over by the faster players making all his decisions for him. Neither of these two are much fun for mr 4.

Further, I understand that the idea might be to reward fast thinking and decision making on the spot, but I fear that the reality is that it doesn't reward fast players as much as it punishes slower ones. To continue the example above, if mr 1 is super-fast, and can finish his turns with time to spare, then he just sits there twiddling his thumbs. No bonus. Or is the time he saved usable by other players or something? (Which could well be, I guess, haven't read the rules yes.)

my B) point is, Is it really necessary? Is this a gimmick for a gimmicks sake? As a previous poster mentioned, if you look at the picture in the game description, you see that big friendly "pause" button on the screen.

...

So which way do you want it then? Pauseable real-time? Isn't that just.... you know... regular board gaming then?

Now don't get me wrong, this is a step in the better direction, if you ask me, but it still means that the real-time concept is NOT as central as might first be indicated.

Well, first of all, I'm not sure what you mean by 'punished,' since this is a co-operative game, no one player gets punished more than the other.

This, from the web page: "Once you formulate your response to the alien invasion, you must engage the enemy in an untimed resolution phase. " So that would indicate that the the game progresses at the rate that people can collectively make a decision (and as hinted at in the bit I quoted earlier, it seems as if the time that you take to make those decisions has an impact on gameplay).

The pause button, then, seems to be for when you are moving from collective-decision-making to the individual resolution of all your decisions, and that's why it's necessary. From everything we know, the real time element is very much a part of the game. It's a phased game, then. A series of timed events followed by non-timed section. The twist being that the team decides how long to take in the timed phase, and the game adjusts accordingly. Is nobody excited by that idea?

As someone pointed out, I agree that this is a calculated risk/choice on FFG's part, and they feel it's worth it to make a game like this. Sure not MANY gamers are going to pass on this game because of the APP, but I know for a fact that some are. I assume they are counting on that to be offset by... who? Are there gamers out there who will buy it JUST for the APP. I mean, gamers that would not otherwise have bought it? Because the group of gamers who will NOT buy because of the APP are gamers that otherwise would have. I have a really hard time imagining someone holding this box and going : "Hmm, I have never heard of this game or franchise. Aliens invading earth sounds cool, but I just don't know. No wait, it says here it's run by an APP! Cool! Ok, NOW I want to buy it."

Well, it MIGHT happen, but I'm fairly confident not in the same volume as people passing on the game.

Sure, and I know people who are turned off by the LCG model because they have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome about CCGs, but that doesn't stop Netrunner being a great success. And I know some people who just won't play any game unless the theme strikes them as immediately exciting, but that doesn't stop Catan selling by the bucketload. Boardgames have for a long time been a niche, but a growing one in which it is finding room for other niches. I've talked to a few people that were initially turned off by this... most of them changed their mind after they realised it wasn't only a phone app. Most people I've spoken to don't mind either way. And yes, some were MORE excited about the potential of this, because it sounds like it could be very exciting and innovative (yes, I'm in this group). There's room in the market for all these sorts of people.

@ Inksplat: Um. How am I ruining the experience for you. Seriously? Just because I choose not to buy it if it does require the app to play, how does that effect whether you can enjoy it. I really can't fathom it.

It has nothing to do with you not buying it, but you and others complaining that the app shouldn't be mandatory--you're demanding they change the design because you don't have the technology.

I make no demands. I express an opinion; as has everyone else involved in this thread.

I actually hope that this game is a success. I like FFG; I own many of their other products and think that they are an innovative company with great customer service (they once sent me a free replacement Runebound board from the states to where I live in the UK and didn't even charge me postage) and who make many titles that appeal to me. They basically resurrected Warhammer 40k roleplay after Games Workshop dropped it, and have done some great things with it which I am really rather happy about. I have no desire to influence them in any decisions they make regarding the X-Com title; and I'm not self important to think that my opinion would anyhow. But simply put; from what I know about how this game works at the moment (and to be fair we haven't been given a great deal of information thus far) I know that it is not for me. If the use of the app became optional then this would change my opinion. I am aware that it may be the case that this is not an option that FFG can countenance at this point in the development process.

It's just like that other game (won't mention name) that's a "digitally enhanced minatures game". I am an emissary for them and it works wonderfully. If you do have a device to run it I would try it. I think this will be a new trend so we better get used to it. Hell almost everything requires internet nowadays unlike some years ago , tv , cars , ect. You need to think of the possibilities like internet play and that it's generally easier to teach to others. Anyway to each thier own but it does look interesting.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, so please don't take this the wrong way; but almost everything doesn't require the internet nowadays. Very little does in fact. The internet is a very handy tool for all kinds of activities (including conversations about boardgames with complete strangers) but looking around the room I am sat in now I can't think of anything that requires internet access. In my house there is nothing that requires internet access. The debate here actually reminds me a little bit of the mixed opinions people had when Microsoft originally announced their Xbox One console last year, and some of the "interesting" fuctionality and useage options and restrictions they originally intended to introduce with it. On the one hand you had people saying that the requirement for a constant internet connection were too restrictive on freedom of use, and on the other hand there were a bunch of people accusing the other side of being luddites (basically).

Please note that I'm not trying to equate FFG with Microsoft. That would surely be uncalled for

Well,

the fact that you will need an app (which you will have to download once) doesn't mean you have to be online while you are playing the game, right?

I dont own a Smartphone/Laptop... This means.. no Xcom Boardgame for me... very sad...

I dont give up hope, that it will be possible to play the game right out of the box...

Well,

the fact that you will need an app (which you will have to download once) doesn't mean you have to be online while you are playing the game, right?

Nope; it doesn't. Hense the debate "reminds me a little bit" of the Xbox One release controversy. It is on the issues of fuctionality and usability - as well as the attitudes of those who are for and against the innovative features - that I make the parallels.

O.K..

This thread is quite interesting for me - usually I am someone who doesn't like new technology, won't use messengers and stuff like that.

But this time I think that the game could really improve from an app with a nice AI (only hope the app will be downloadable for android somewhere without a google account).

WORST. MARKETING. DECISION. EVER.

I have no way to use Apps, I cannot believe their marketing people thought this would be a good idea... total stupidity.

Is it the worst marketing decision because you like the game brand, namely X-Com?

Is it the adding an App to a board game that makes it a terrible marketing decision?

For me I think it's a great idea. Will the game be playable in 10 years? Well that depends on the success of BGs with Tech I would imagine.

I love the idea of an app - but I understand peoples desire for a more BG based mechanism, but I believe before people start drawing lines in the sand - and setting fire to each other perhaps see what people think after the GenCon demo, and release.

I also find it quite hard to believe people can't muster a tablet, smartphone or netbook/notebook/PC to play this. I recall reading there is an average 2 smartphones per household in the western world...

embrace the change, and note if it sucks at worst you have lost the price of one night out on the beers (plus there is always ebay).

I see and understand some of the critics about the app, but I'm still very excited about this game.

I loved XCOM both the original (one of the best videogames of all times) and last year's remake, and I think the combination app-boardgame is appealing and makes sense for this game...

I fully agree with the concerns of whether the game will be playable in 5-10 years from now, but considering the cost of these games and the amount of new games that will be out in 5-10 years, I'm not worried at all. As an example, I own all expansions of Descent 1, it was my favourite game (probably the game I've spent more hours playing) and I have not played since Descent 2 came out... In summary, by the time the app becomes obsolete, there will be an XCOM 2, and if the game is so bad that it does not deserve a 2nd edition, then I also don't have to worry about the app.

Well we should have a lot more info come this weekend with Gen Con.... Anyone going down there?

Any computer app starts life as a paper and pencil specification or flow chart. I therefore see no fundamental reason why the app could not be converted to charts and tables if there was a high demand for it. I also see no reason why the source code could not be made available for free so that if the app becomes unusable in the future someone could convert it to another OS. All this hate for the app seems way over the top. In my opinion it's a logical move for FFG to make considering the number of smart devices in circulation these days.

Any computer app starts life as a paper and pencil specification or flow chart. I therefore see no fundamental reason why the app could not be converted to charts and tables if there was a high demand for it. I also see no reason why the source code could not be made available for free so that if the app becomes unusable in the future someone could convert it to another OS. All this hate for the app seems way over the top. In my opinion it's a logical move for FFG to make considering the number of smart devices in circulation these days.

As a software dev, I can see tons of reasons they wouldn't release the source code. Doesn't mean they couldn't release "Here's what the app does rules-wise" but there are legitimate reasons they may not want to or be able to release the source code.

I dont own a Smartphone/Laptop... This means.. no Xcom Boardgame for me... very sad...

I dont give up hope, that it will be possible to play the game right out of the box...

Smartphones are cheap nowadays, a basic one is all it takes. Even if you don't have one, I'm quite sure that the other 3 players at least one of them will have. It's the 21st century after all.