"Of course there is going to be a sequel"

I think that was a casual statement made more jokingly than anything else...at least, that's the way I interpretated it...it seems that its implied a 2nd one will come out because the first was so successful and the story line was "left hanging", so it doesn't surprise me that even a review would just assume a sequel will come out even if no official statement has been made...

I agree with Seleuceia.

My logic tells me that even if they decided to go with SINS2 they wouldn't be announcing it to the world just after major expansion which is selling as a complete game. Especially because it is going to be at least a year before they get balance to a decent point.

They are small team currently as far as I know it working on 3 titles. Fallen enchanters, Sins of the dark age and patching up SOASE. Not to mention they also have good app business going on. 

If ever SINS 2 won't come out before 2016 that is for sure. A lot will happen in meantime. The world as we know it will end, M theory will be confirmed we will invent fusion and warp drives travel between dimensions Skynet will become self-aware  ..... 

If Skynet becomes self-aware Sins2 might get the best AI yet...

Hey, cleaning lady at my building said that Sins will have a sequel. Open up the champagne!

... Not to mention the world ends at 21-12-2012. Anyway, I think Sel and Greg are right. I would love to see a sequel some years from now though. Would buy it no matter what price.

They've mentioned multiple times in various interviews (some to do with Sins of a Dark Age) that they "aren't done" with Sins. That's not confirmation of Sins2 but more just confirmation of intention at this point.

I think there's a really good chance Sins 2 will be made...but it's a long ways off and from a business/PR standpoint it makes sense that they wouldn't just come out and see "Yo, we alls is making Sins 2 fo sho" because you never quite know what the future will bring...

As far as I'm aware, you're mixing up publisher and developer. While Ironclad will be busy with Sins of a Dark Age and whatever Rebellion patching they decide to do, they're not likely to have any involvement with Fallen Enchantress.

People from both companies work on the game...it is probably true that SD is more responsible for PR/marketing/sales and support while Ironclad focuses more on engine issues, but both are active in developing the game as well as it's expansions...

In fact, Fraiser was quite active on the forums during the release of Rebellion, specifically trying to nail some MD issues and engine related bugs...and of course, we have SD devs involved as well (Yarlen and Kryo are probably the two biggest for Sins)...

SD is busy with a lot of other things, but SD also has a lot more resources and personell than Ironclad...who picks up the ball on Sins 2 is unknown, but I wouldn't be surprised if both companies worked together again...point is, there are enough people between the two companies that current WIPs (like Sins of a Dark Age) shouldn't preclude the development of Sins 2...

Ironclad owns the Sins intellectual property. Stardock can not do anything with Sins without Ironclads blessing. Ironclad on the other hand needs Stardock to publish any sort of Sins sequel. If not, then they will have to go to another publisher (Like EA, or THQ). Which IMO would be a Very Bad Idea. Stardock, and Ironclad seem like they have a symbiotic relationship. They need each other. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Sins 2 is a joint Stardock/Ironclad effort.

I believe there WILL be a Sins 2. With the success of Sins IMO they would be fools not to capitalize on this. HOWEVER.. Wait until the other projects are done first before working on (or even announcing) Sins 2. Even if it does take a few years. Your fan base ain't going anywhere. Just if you do make Sins 2, Don't do a Sword of the Stars 2 with it (SotS 2 is nice, and pretty, but boring, buggy, practically non functional, and an Inept AI to top it all off. They took everything that made SotS 1 fun, and removed it!)..

Will there be a Sins II?  Probably, but if the game still has all the "options" of Rebellion, I won't bite -maybe if I have $10 to blow on it via Steam a year after release and umpteen patches.  There are too many things imho that SINS doesn't have to list.  I'm thinking Endless Space is going to blow the lid off the genre and Rebellion is just going to dwindle -not die, just dwindle.

Some sales info, server traffic, just anything for SOASE over the 4 years it's been out would be nice.

But endless space is turn based...

I have same reservations about endless space.....

Endless Space,,,,really...??? We finally have computers and engines / internet connections that can handle live action strategy games and you want to go back to turn based strategy??? I hope your trolling.

Endless space is a good game but its combat is nowhere close to the feeling of combat in Sins. I am not saying it is bad, it just seems like much less of a focal point in that game and doesn't seem to be innovative, just different. I own both and I still play sins way more.

The preference of turn based titles over real time games has little to do with technological limitations holding real time games back. It's a different style of game that appeals to a different style of play. Turn based games are not merely a predecessor to real time games that will simply go away as the other improves.

Regardless, SemazRala comment that "Endless Space is going to blow the lid off the genre" is kind of laughable. Don't get me wrong, I like the game, but it does nothing new for the 4X genre and is somewhat inferior compared to some of the classics like MOO2 and the Space Empires series in terms of gameplay. It is superior only in terms of presentation quality, and UI / accessibily. Both are rather important and can easily make or break a game, but they only go so far when the game itself simply doesn't have the depth of those that came before it.

Your statement hinges on the assumption that RTS is inherently superior to TBS, which it isn't.

So it becomes a preference. It's ok if you prefer real-time, but please don't assume that for everyone.

True it's going to be based on opinion, but if you take opinion with majority, then RTS is better than TBS in terms of sales and players.

Even discounting TBS from Endless, the game falls flat with combat mechanics and slow research. I do have the game, the ui is gorgeous actually.. i really like it. But i don't like playing the game, even without turnbased.. i'd still dislike it to sins :]

A story-driven strategy game? Bite thy tongue, heathen.

I'd say it's more like RTS is climbing into the USS Niche Market that TBS is currently captaining.

TBS is actually seeing quite the resurgence lately. RTS had it's heyday but seems to be on the decline (which is unfortunate, I like both genres a lot) unless you count MOBA and Tower Defense. While fun in their own right, I consider them genres of their own.

Well, Homeworld was arguably one of  the best.   I don't see why they couldn't make a strong multiplayer core that plays pretty much like the current game does with a single or co-op story mode wrapped around it. Just my heretic opinion =P Ever since HW appears to have died the market seems to be lacking in a good space tale. 

I like story a lot, I just don't like strategy game campaigns very much. It feels more... "puzzle" to me than "strategy". Oh, this i mission, I lost because I didn't do this. So now I know the correct steps to take to beat Mission #14 - that kind of thing.

I'd rather just get my lore from a novella or an episodic series posted on the website or something.

I understand where you are coming from. For me, I like to experience the story for myself. I heart Halo for that and I heart Homeworld. Yeah, it was annoying figuring out the trick to beating stages, but in the end it was worth it. The Gardens of Kadesh and the Karos Graveyard were two of the most memorable play scenes for me. 

It was not one of the best, it was the best.