http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1074
Shack: I'm a huge fan of the Homeworld series. I know you can't say a single thing about it--
Jonny Ebbert: [laughs]
Shack: --but maybe I could phrase it this way. In this economy, and considering all the risks of hardcore PC game development, can we ever really expect to see a true Homeworld sequel? Is that even a reality now?
Jonny Ebbert: Anything's possible. If I went back in a time machine and I told you there's going to be a Fallout 3, and it's going to sell three or four million copies on Xbox and PS3, what would you reaction be? I mean, up until that point Fallout was a very, very niche cult game.
And it came back, and now it's going head to head with Gears of War. And if I went back and told you it was going to go head to head with Gears of War 2, and sell about as many copies, you'd be like, "Whaaat?" [laughs] That's a good one!
So anything is possible. It didn't come back in the exact same form, but it came back in a very cool form. The original Homeworld was our first franchise, it put us on the map as a studio. It's ours now--we own the IP now, so it's always going to have a very special place, and we're always looking for opportunities to do something with it. But it has to be an opportunity that makes sense, and that's going to compete in today's market.
Shack: So it wouldn't have the true 3D, shift-click movement controls, but...
Jonny Ebbert: I think that might be too complex for most people. I mean, maybe not. Maybe we could have a breakthrough in the control scheme where it's easier to play and more accessible. But at the same time, it might be like the equivalent of Fallout 3, where it feels like Homeworld, but it's kind of a different style of game. Where it's way more accessible to people, a little more exciting. We would probably want to take it in that direction. If we were working on something. [laughs]
Shack: Thanks Johnny.
[self censored stream of expletives] I wonder if he realizes that he just said that modern gamers are stupider than the gamers who had played Homeworld and Homeworld 2...

It really hurts too see that more and more companies jump on the Bethesda train.
from what i've read they could even make an FPS homeworld,it's new! and innovative! and immersive!

If it was a good FPS and stayed true to the setting, that would actually be fairly awesome.

I wouldn't interpret it as him saying modern gamers are stupider. He's saying that the majority of gamers now aren't the hardcore(?) or dedicated(?) (not sure what word would best describe it) that the original players of the Homeworld games were.
It's that accessibility thing again: developers figure in order to make money, you have to appeal to a wider audience, and that means you have to make the game something the more casual gamer will want to play. And unfortunately, the more casual gamer is the bulk of your buying market.

Ok, so you're saying that you don't have to be stupid to be unable to understand the concept of holding the shift key when it's clearly explained to you? Maybe it's not just that people are stupider but that the standards for intelligence have dropped as well.

Ok, well can we agree that being completely unable to understand the simple concept of holding down the shift kry when it is clearly explained to you in a tutorial (as it was in Homeworld) requires either computer illiteracy or some amount of simple stupidity?

Boo Hiss!
The casual gamer market requires simple controls, easy ports to console systems (with simple controllers), but, rakes in the cash if it's done right for that market.
Homeworld control wise was fairly simple as it was. But I can see someone wanting to reduce it to a 2D plane with everything automated like a screensaver.

Whether he's realizing this or not is irrelevant. What's important is that he's right. I'm 99% certain he doesn't mean modern gamers who know how to configure their PCs for relatively optimal performance, that is, those with 1/2 a clue. He's likely referring the current generation of xbox mouth breathers. The kind of person that just can't get past the "on" button stage.
They're in this to make money. And because of this they have to appeal to the largest mass of gamers. The users who have 1/2 a clue unfortunately are the minority in this mass. Such is life.
That said, I wouldn't play a dumbed down homeworld. But you can be damned sure they won't care or miss my dollar.
Oh and FYI, just because you're a "hardcore" gamer doesn't mean you're smart or can grasp something as "deep" as a 3 dimensional battlefield in a game. It just means you really really really like games.

To me, a "Hardcore Gamer" is always going to be the type of person who spends time (days even) tweaking DOS boot disks to get you games running.
Definitions have changed since gaming became 'mainstream"

You're absolutely correct.
Back in "the day" a hardcore gamer was the avid config.sys/autoexec.bat tweaker. And it's just as true today, only maybe it's a registry hack here, a beta driver there, etc... However, as you state, the definitions have changed. Nowadays a hardcore gamer encompasses the avid xbox/ps/wii fan as well as the technologically savvy. I feel that it's unfortunate that game companies (that is, marketing teams in game companies) tend see us all as one big blob of people.
<OMG! OFFTOPIC! BE AFRAID!!>
Now I'm curious. How many people out there used to have a boot up menu that had an option to boot with QEMM (or EMM386) and all your resident crap in the UMBs and other configurations that allowed for just XMS via himem.sys? What was the max conventional memory you managed to squeeze out after tweaking out your loadhigh (lh) commands in the autoexec/config.sys? I managed to get a max of 622K free while still having my CD ROM and mouse drivers loaded into high memory, that was nothing short of pure black magic to get that working... I even had Win 95 set up to go into DOS 7 instead of Windows on boot up so I could play my DOS stuff... Man I had that shit down to a science way back when. Good times..</OMG! OFFTOPIC! BE AFRAID!!>

Why do people seem to feel the need to remind each other that companies that make games for profit are in it for the money? That's like saying people who eat are in it for the not starving. Just because you eat doesn't mean you have to be a glutton. The same is true with earning money. Just because you're trying to make money from something doesn't mean it has to be your sole concern and that you're willing to sacrifice everything and anything to for even a little more profit.
Also, you're going way off topic in your last post.

No. once a company has reached a certain size it's just about the money, and they are willing to sacrifice everything in order to get it.
The only question is: Do they think they can make more money by keeping you and/or their employees happy/proud and doing business for a longer period of time or do they want to make money fast, sacrificing good relations.
The question is really: How are their goals aligned with yours?

If you're already obese I guess gluttony just comes naturally. (Amazing how useful this metaphor is (or is it an analogy?).) While history supports your hypothesis, history is hardly definitive. You got anything else?

Not history, just common sense. If the person(s) who is(are)in charge, knows most employees, they are more likely to identify with the company. They want THEIR company to be the best.
But once that ribbon is cut and the bosses don't identify with the company as a whole anymore, they will turn to the one definition of success that doesn't require taking an interest in your company: profitability.