I disagree with just about everything you've said, I don't think you can make direct comparisons between Aurora and Stellaris for a start as they are trying to accomplish completely different things.
can you give examples of what you think are lies and over-exaggerations on the Stellaris feature list?
I'm not trying to pick fights with either you or Zincat, I'm just trying to understand the gripes because neither I or any of my friends that play Paradox games have struck anything like you guys are describing.
And ok the rate of DLC releases in 2012 and 2014 was pretty quick at roughly every 2 months, there have only been 2 since then, but theres still no need to buy them that I can see unless you want to play the specific culture that's being expanded (I still don't have Sunset Empires, and pretty sure I never will because the concept seems really stupid to me)
I am not trying to pick fights either. I understand my opinion is far out in the left field, and is very unpopular, so I'll try to tone it down a bit while explaining what I mean.
First of all, Aurora and Stellaris are both 4x games. Whether you call one a turn based strategy, and the other a grand strategy, does not realistically, make a difference. In both games you expand, exploit, etc etc. A thing people point out about Paradox games is diplomacy, and on the surface this is the stark contrast between Stellaris and Aurora. Paradox Games have a weird diplomacy/politics system, that limits you in every possible way. It is supposed to be modeled after a feudal society, but run a check list of the things Paradox Games let you do, without triggering an event. Aurora on the other hand just has a 'do they hate me or like me' meter, and in my book it works fairly well. If you can roleplay or imagine a grand scenario of how your Wannabe King Bob the Nobody wrested his Kingdom from his brother's incestuous hands- then you should be able to roleplay and imagine long diplomatic discussions in Aurora. If we can all agree on this, then the most stark difference between Aurora and Paradox Games does not seem that... different at all, and we don't need to go over the others.
As far as the feature list goes, I'll try to break it down for you, with how I imagine it will turn out, and why this is basically a lie/fraud/scam whatever you want to call it. But don't misunderstand me. The industry has been doing this for years.
Deep & Varied Exploration: Yeah, no. It is space in 2D, with random generation of dots on the map. Conway's Way of Life has more variation than what I expect this to be. As far as the 'Deep' part goes, it's just going to be an event, from a pool of 20 events. Just about every modern 4x game has this, and quite frankly, it is the weakest way one can implement variety.
Look towards the leaders in PCG and compare an event system to what they have. Ultima Ratio Regum procedurally generates clothes and languages. Dwarf Fortress proceduraly generates music and poetry form. It is like saying, hey, Aurora has a deep and varied race system. Every race is different, as their stats allow them to live comfortably at different temperatures and Gs.
Enormous procedural galaxies, containing thousands of planets: It would take me two minutes to code this up. Elite did this on a floppy disk. Not worth the mention. More impressive would be 'Dozens of solar system types, with handcrafted planet art' and even then I would snore. Why do they make it sound like it is 'OH MY GOSH SO AMAZING'.
Explore Anomalies with your heroic Scientist leaders: Events. Give me a text file, and so far, the feature list suggests I can code a Stellaris clone within the hour.
Infinitely varied races through customization and procedural generation: Already been there in previously mentioned features.
Advanced Diplomacy system worthy of a Grand Strategy Game: You mean this time around I can actually discuss trades and conquer or subjugate whoever I want whenever I want? Start civil wars? Give foreign aid? Send over materials for nefarious purposes in getting a proxy war started? No? Then get out.
Ship Designer based on a vast array of technologies: *yawn*. It's probably gonna be like what... 10 modules? Maybe 12? Yeah. I am so excited.
Stunning space visuals: I was wrong. Stellaris does have something over Aurora.
EDIT: I said I would tone it down, but it seems I just can't get a grip on my displeasure and it's pouring out. I won't edit what I originally wrote, but please try to understand where my opinion comes from. I grew up on games like Elite, Star Control, Master of Orion, Master of Magic, Heroes, Emperor of the Fading Suns, Warhammer 40k, D&D, all the good oldies. And in every way, compared to games of their time, these games have been superior and leaders in innovation and game design. When I see people tout CK2 and games of that nature, as a masterpiece and holy grail of gaming, it just makes me sad. The hype train of Stellaris is so long, at this point, that if you laid it out on the earth, it would wrap around the globe twice. And this is based on realistically looking, at best mediocre mechanics.
Have you ever seen or played Phoenix Command? It is a RPG system so complicated that it is unplayable. Resolving a single bullet hit takes a good hour. What I am trying to say is, being complicated is not good. And being simple does not mean bad. But Paradox games fall into neither category. I would at best call them 'Inconvenient'. Just like PC, they have good ideas, with a strong concept and vision. But the execution falls short. The game is carried by the imagination of players who do not mind the fact that research does not make sense. Who do not mind that 4000 Knights can get beat by 2000 peasants. Who do not mind that their brother who killed their mother, is not a valid 'I KEEL U' target for conquest.
Now, I will always applaud a game that can engage a player to make greater of what they are given through the interface, but if that is the requirement to enjoying the game, how can it be called good?