Gundato: Quite simply, we have had attempts to clone/update X-COM. The UFO games. And while the fans enjoyed that (as much as anyone can enjoy something that isn't a carbon copy), they didn't sell all that amazingly. Gasp, shock, and amazement, most people don't want turn-based games (sadness...).
lowyhong: This is a fallacious assumption, with no concrete evidence to support it. Some people don't want turn-based games, yes. But most? As a counter-point, I can easily cite the Civ 3 and 4, Sins of a Solar Empire and GalCiv2 as examples that have been selling quite well over the last few years.
4x games are a different beast all together. :p. They stay alive in the same way that hardcore strategy games and hardcore flight sims do.
That being said, I will admit, I probably should have looked up what the genre actually is (turn-based tactical?).
As for why I make the assumption: Look at industry trends. For a while, they were insanely popular. Then it started to peter out. Now, all we have are indie games and a few small ones. There is a diehard fanbase left, but they are divided as hell, and clearly VERY picky about anything that isn't exactly what they want. if UFO:ET and the After* games were so successful, people would know about them. Instead, people are always surprised when they find out UFO: ET exists. And a lot of people were surprised when they saw Aftermath popped up here.
Hell, even 4x games are a lot "weaker" than they used to be. You mentioned the Civs. Honestly, that is the only BIG one. Maybe X-COM could have been that big, but it wasn't kept alive in the years in between. There is a reason why we get a new Medal of Honor and CoD every year or so. It keeps the brand fresh in people's heads, and minimizes the alternatives.
GC2, SEIV, and Sword of the Stars are great, but they have much smaller market shares than Civ (I think it is safe to assume that). And Sins was more of an RTS than anything :p
I don't think there is a single 4x fan who would say they don't like the Civ games. They might say that they prefer Alpha Centauri or MOO or SE, but they don't dislike Civ. And that helps. I know plenty of people who hated X-COM, but loved Jagged Alliance 2. And vice versa.
Plus, you might have a much smaller userbase (than say, FPS or RTS), but you have something they can get behind.
With X-COM, people have tried this (the UFOs). It clearly didn't unite the fanbase. Maybe actually calling it X-COM would have worked (even though "UFO: Enemy Unknown" was the name in Europe, where it did much better). But if all that mattered about the game was the name, why did Interceptor and Enforcer fail so badly? :p Clearly gameplay matters, which is even more problematic.
Do I think a "true" X-COM remake could do well: Yes. I think that the brand is still strong enough that it could unite a lot of the fans, and that the game itself could intrigue others. However, if I were funding a project, I wouldn't count on that. The fans are too finicky, it is WAY too easy to piss off a large portion of the fanbase, just by "not getting the models right".
Nah, the only safe bet that involves making a turn-based tactical (plus the currently unknown strategic) would be a carbon copy of the original (not even Apocalypse). Not even changing the graphics (just use a few shiny algorithms to scale the sprites up). Then, nobody could complain that it wasn't what they wanted.
Although, they would instead complain that the company "didn't try". And people would use their brains and realize that they already have the game, it is called X-COM.
Then you remember that we hardcore fans are a pretty small minority in the first place.
Chances are, this will be another Interceptor. But maybe we'll get lucky, and we'll get another Fallout 3 (including all the hardcore fans eating their hats and acknowledging that it is different, but fun). I am still not willing to come down on either side for this one.
