I don't agree, it's definitely a reason not to buy the game for me.
If you can't stop saving and reloading even though you don't want to, you might have a serious problem. You might want to look into going into therapy.

I just hope that these content updates come in the form of free DLC rather than paid ones.

Oh, you mean expeditions; yes, the game ends after six expeditions (levels), which get more & more difficult as you play, although this isn't the case everytime -- i've been lucky enough to find the golden pyramid very close to were my ship was, although this isn't always a good thing since through exploration you can find precious artifacts to sell for money or fame. Ultimately, best scores depend on the risks you're willing to take.

If the devs have the same mindset as me, then that is a reason to buy!

I think that is a bit harsh, dude. They can still backup the savefile of a roguelike and save the therapy money.

No, it isn't. "If the devs have the same mindset as [you], then that is a reason [for you] to buy!" (Therapy might still be a good idea because you'll finally be able to enjoy games such as 7 cities as much as you could enjoy them)
My point was that you are doing the opposite of convincing (at least some) people who are against perma-death that roguelik/-tes aren't flawed by design. Your response has a pretty similar effect.

That doesn't make any sense... What I wrote was about compulsory reloaders who can't manage to break their habit that they themselves consider cheating. If those people consider it a flaw that games allow them to do something that they don't have to do then they have a problem in my opinion.

The possibility of backing up your save files doesn't have anything to do with my statement but I have an opinion on that as well: It's great that you can still do that but it is a flaw of the game that you have to do it if you want to keep your save files. Sometimes the games artificially make it harder for you to back up saves and that is an even bigger flaw.
I understand if devs want to make an iron man mode the default option but not giving you another option is something I do not agree with. Also, I have to wonder if the success of these roguelites (that I sometimes even like in spite of them being what they are - some have redeeming factors) means that there are going to be almost inaccessible save files in the future because accessible save files make "savegame abuse" possible.

I found it on bandcamp for the same price: https://selbstserum.bandcamp.com/album/the-curious-expedition-original-soundtrack

Also has one more song than the Steam OST (if the store page is up to date).

deleted

That's what we both said until you made it about you. It's always about you isn't it? How about some therapy for that, huh?

I can enjoy them, what makes you think otherwise?

How so? How has that been your point? Maybe you want that to be your point now because so far your posts have been nonsensical.

Yeah THAT makes no sense. Nobody except you has talked about someone like that. Nobody has mentioned such people here. That is why I mocked you for your strange statement.

Most of hese games are designed in such a way that you do not need to save and reload. A round of FTL or Curious Expedition takes an hour on average. There is no need to save and reload. The possibility to do it anyway is not a flaw. It's a workaround for people who are bad at strategy and are incapable of learning the game to eventually win consistently. It is nothing to be ashamed of.
I am terrible at jumpnruns, but I can still have fun with them with cheats.
But on the other hand I don't go around complaining about how hard/unfair/whatever jumpnruns are or that you can't save and reload before a hard part because I realise that I am just bad at them. It is also not beneath me to abuse the WinUAE savestate system to eventually see the endgame of Rainbow Islands and Giana Sisters.

If that is possible then by not making the savefiles inaccessible they are giving you another option. Depriving yourself of the game because it is beneath you to use a trick to save is silly, almost idiotic. That is why I will keep informing people about this possibility, many just don't know about it.

easy level is pretty easy btw.... normal can be easier or harder based on a bit of luck (but usually good or bad choices factor in). I haven't played again since they added hard so I can't comment. You can save and quit. (Nice for when life factors in). I don't think they added multiple save slots to redo turns but the way the game plays, I don't think there necessary (and I am one who normally likes to save often to go back to fix mistakes on longer games. I don't remember the save system on 7 Cities of Gold/Heart of Africa so not sure how different that is. Still a fan of this one...

It's not about me. As I said, it's about you (both in the sense of "one" and "you" because that's what you said).
Obviously you enjoy them, otherwise my post wouldn't have made sense. You explained why you like this game by comparing it to a game you like that allows reloading in order to avoid consequences, which you apparently did not approve of.
So: Maxvorstadt says he doesn't like the premise of the game - you explain why it is good - I respond that if the devs agree with your reasoning that is another reason not to buy the game.

So how does that make sense? My assumption is that, in fact, the devs agree with you. I did not explicitly state that, which may be the reason we do not think each other's posts make sense.
It's one thing not to like a game-mechanic but completely disagreeing with a point of view of a dev studio makes me (I think understandably) less likely to want to give them my money than if they had a reason that I agree with.
Maybe I understand the notion of "savegame abuse" differently than you. You made it sound like you dislike reloading your game. If you don't like it, then don't reload your game! I fail to understand how it is a good thing that you have to go through hoops to save a save file that you want to keep. If you think that's a good thing when you can just refrain from reloading save files in any game if you so desire then I have extremely different views than you. I can't stand it at all if I am denied options just because some people can't control themselves or because someone thinks you shouldn't reload your game. -Why else would [] the game automatically delete the save file?
From the very start you make it sound like it was something to be ashamed of, which is why I am trying to ridicule the idea that you can "abuse" save games.
It doesn't really matter how short sessions can be because the games' problem is not that the devs did not think implementing a save function is necessary but that they actively delete your save files just to enforce the devs['] idea of how you are supposed to play their game. FTL even deleted your save file directly after loading under some circumstances, I think. In my opinion that is like treating the customer like an idiot and I don't approve of that at all (I still don't regret buying FTL but only because it is just good enough that I still have some respect for the devs).
I hope that you can imagine that not everyone wants to sink as many hours into every one of their games as you want to sink into your favourite games. -As you wrote, you suck at jump'n'runs. Now, all the games that I was used to playing until a few years ago were games that allowed you to freely use the save function or refrain from doing so. Can't you imagine that I'm annoyed that the typical DRM-free cross-platform games seem to deny me an option that I am used to and that some people make it sound like a good thing when they could just not continue playing a lost game in any regular game ever (there are probably some exceptions that are just as ridiculous as the opposite).
I'm fine with being bad at games and using cheats. In my opinion, though, cheats and options should be made as accessible to the paying customer as possible.
The trick is not beneath me and I made a similar argument in a different thread a few days ago. My only problems with your initial post were the language that you used and you making it sound like a game lacking a feature would be an improvement to the same game with said feature.

Edit: Corrected two sentences.

Hard is...well, hard. I get my a** handed to me every time. :P

I've had this title for a while now and have been following its progress with great anticipation. I truly adore the game, it is very addictive, the devs are fantastic to deal with. The way early access was handled I thought was perfect, the very early very first version I had still had an enormous amount of content that kept me going and going for ages.

Good on them ! They, and their game are brilliant !

Hmm. So it seems a tad bit more "control over the RNG for success" than Renowned Explorers was (which I liked, but only briefly because it was far too random), but not as "you can really beat the game if are skillful enough" as FTL.

I enjoy it, but I expect I won't stick with it very long because of it being overly RNG-dominated without enough "skill compensates for random". Maybe it'll come with time, but I doubt it -- I just don't see room for that.

(EDIT: Playing on normal.)

This is one of those games I'd really like to try, but my Win Vista will apparently not do. A pity as the reviews and views on the developer sounds very good.

I haven't replayed the game since halfway through its time as In Development, but from what I recall - at least on normal mode - I found the game perfectly beatable under nearly all pre-set conditions. What the game does require is that players don't get too greedy with the looting. The overwhelming majority of my failed expeditions were because I knowingly triggered some of the worse traps (voids of course, but wildfires and floods can be painful too), thinking I was well-equipped to outrun their effects, but I really wasn't. :) That's part of the gameplay mechanics. You can dig holes for yourself that you're unlikely to get out of, so figuring out if a particular hole will be worth it is part of the fun, at least IMHO.