Not entirely sure what I make of it, then again I'm one of those people whom doesn't see anything after Yuri's Revenge as C&C (Generals is good though). It looks fun at least. QUICK_EDIT
My real problem is the no single player to start. I LOVE the campaigns in games, that's one of the buying features for me. But other than that, yea i kinda interested to see what will happen with it. maybe this is another trial thing like with CnC4. Maybe they have a team starting rough ideas for another Red Alert or a whole new Command and Conquer. So yes i am going to buy it and play it, but right now with only that small trailer and a little write up i can't say if the game is going to be bad. It Won't even able to hold a candle to RA2 or Tib Sun, But it cant be worse then CnC4 right?
-Matt QUICK_EDIT
Goddamn just bomb everything, launch the salted cobalt nukes and the neutron bombs, release the anthrax, the smallpox, the Zyklon-B, the BZ, the ricin, the mustard gas and the sarin.
Game over man, game over.
ztype this gay Earth, where every ztyping wanker shits all over the singleplayer experience.
First Blizzshit, with their grubby money-milking bullshit pay-3-times-to-own-the-game, and now EA with no singleplayer-for-you-guys. QUICK_EDIT
Nyeh, don't we play skirmish most of the time? I don't see much of a problem if thats the case.
I find it refreshing for EA to reboot the series somewhat, since according to the Westwood fan(tard)s EA has been doing a good job *ahem* screwing up WW's work of (half-assed AI, buggy, etc) art. Its time they made their own stuff. I'm not bothered with it being F2P since I'm not a hardcore gamer who takes gaming as MOTHERF@#KING UBER OVER 9000 SERIOUS F%^KING BUSINESS THAT I NEED TO BUY ALL DA GOOD SHIT AND KICK YO FINANCIALLY POOR F@#KING ASSES. Bitching about F2P is one of the most ridiculous things to argue about imo.
It should also be noted that EA has specifically said that the Frostbite 2 engine is too complex for modding. Even if EA released the game as a classic standalone CD, the lack of modding capability in a CnC game will only drive fans into a severe spazz rage which may lead to them losing every bit of their sanity, transforming them into a ranting lunatic who takes gaming far too fucking seriously... So yeah, its a lose-lose situation for EA. Sucks to be you guys.
[sarcasm]There's still hope with End of Nations! The MMORTS made by ex-Westwood staff who have been making mediocre games! Its a drug for Westwood fantards just like how Twilight is a drug for mary sues...
CRACK IS WACK[/sarcasm] _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
I don't think it'll be that great, but since it's free I guess I can give it a chance (despite the Origin bloatware).
I'm hoping it'll use classic C&C elements, like unlimited units, the C&C3-style sidebar system instead of the Blizzard-style unit-based structure building system used in Generals etc. And the graphics look great.
Quote:
There's still hope with End of Nations! The MMORTS made by ex-Westwood staff who have been making mediocre games! Its a drug for Westwood fantards just like how Twilight is a drug for mary sues...
I'm going to try that out aswell. WW haters (or, anti-fanboys) are just as bad as EA bashers IMO. And I personally find more hardcore-style playing more fun than playing with casual gamers. They should be aiming to provide a fun game to both casual and hardcore gamers, which I think C&C games (other than C&C4) have usually done pretty well. The game being F2P doesn't prevent it from fitting to hardcore gamers though (look at LoL).
I'm really really really really really disappointed in all of this.
It's another C&C4. One moment, the team had a great idea and they were going in the direction that they wanted, next thing you know, the entire project is whacked in the face and follow the the higher up's direction.
God ztyping damnit. _________________ Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Some how this does not bother me... I guess I wasnt to happy about the new C&C game being generals 2. So free to play kind of makes me happy.
And in all fairness this is Victory studios first game. So this might be some kind of excuse to allow for a poorer quality game so they have ability to learn from the mistakes. And just hope there next game is a full package. _________________ MadHQ's Graveyard - Click here!
(Permissions) - (F.A.Q.) QUICK_EDIT
Btw, when you're bashing fanboys using capslock and stuff in a long post you must be taking the games quite seriously yourself as well.
Nah man. That was just an expression. Also, I've got nothing against WW and even respect them for making good games (while they lasted). But they aren't perfect, no one is. Try to name one of their CnC games that's not bug infested or imbalanced. That's one thing the overzealous fanboys don't understand.
@Banshee: If they do that, well... That sucks _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
In the trailer the game looks more like End of Nations than G2. Ofc they had to bring out an rts F2P when the other c&c guys bring one out as well. _________________ Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade! QUICK_EDIT
Nyeh, don't we play skirmish most of the time? I don't see much of a problem if thats the case.
Isn't skirmish, as in against bots, basically single-player? Nowhere does it say it just excludes possible campaigh, but prolly skirmish as well.
freedom fighter wrote:
I find it refreshing for EA to reboot the series somewhat, since according to the Westwood fan(tard)s EA has been doing a good job *ahem* screwing up WW's work of (half-assed AI, buggy, etc) art. Its time they made their own stuff. I'm not bothered with it being F2P since I'm not a hardcore gamer who takes gaming as MOTHERF@#KING UBER OVER 9000 SERIOUS F%^KING BUSINESS THAT I NEED TO BUY ALL DA GOOD SHIT AND KICK YO FINANCIALLY POOR F@#KING ASSES. Bitching about F2P is one of the most ridiculous things to argue about imo.
I'm trying to make some sense of this. F2P means they will claim money somehow. And so far it sounds like it will be like "Buy additional content to build bigger and stronger armies", C&C4 style, which is extremely biased, and to be frank, total bullshit. We'll see.
freedom fighter wrote:
It should also be noted that EA has specifically said that the Frostbite 2 engine is too complex for modding. Even if EA released the game as a classic standalone CD, the lack of modding capability in a CnC game will only drive fans into a severe spazz rage which may lead to them losing every bit of their sanity, transforming them into a ranting lunatic who takes gaming far too fucking seriously... So yeah, its a lose-lose situation for EA. Sucks to be you guys.
[sarcasm]There's still hope with End of Nations! The MMORTS made by ex-Westwood staff who have been making mediocre games! Its a drug for Westwood fantards just like how Twilight is a drug for mary sues...
CRACK IS WACK[/sarcasm]
What the fuck. You do realize your making yourself an asshat with your attitude? While it's no good to support a dead company whose games got worse the richer they got, I don't see why you're defending one of the most money-hungry megacorps in existance.
No one here whined about the lack of modding capability, in fact, it's redundant if the retail game would meet expectations. Although it will never please everyone, and people are bound to find things they'd like to tinker with. Developers should continue patching the game after the release, not just abandon it like a deformed baby sold to child slavery. _________________ Last edited by Crimsonum on Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:54 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
End of Nations does not really have that much in common with Command & Conquer, atleast gameplay-wise. I'd actually say it's more closer to something like Shattered Galaxy than any C&C title ever made. And yes, I've had a chance to play it.
Also it seems that there is base building of some sorts and atleast not very strict unit caps in this C&C game, whilst EoN is squad-based combat and there is no real base building at all. Time will tell how the game mechanics of this game are going to work in the end.
So yeah, I will wait further to see where this is going. While I wouldn't really mind the online gameplay (altough I'd like singleplayer story mode to be there too), I am bit skeptical about the F2P model, as it will inevitably lead to purchasable content, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable for EA at all. The big question would be, what we're gonna have to purchase, and what we will get for free? My own expectations are not exactly very high, but that has as much to do with past C&C games as with the decline of RTS genre (face it, this is what has been happening for a while already) in general. Also nobody should really be expecting modability at this point anymore. As Crimsonum put it, continued developer support would, however, be absolutely necessary for people to continue playing this game. This applies to any game with heavy focus on PvP, pretty much any online-based game really. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Jesus Christ. Why can't I just get a simple quality experience like before: buy the game at £30 including all features then the expansion for £20 a year later.
Don't see how the free to play thing really builds a community or at least it just doesn't work for me, not being someone who follows any gaming communities besides PPM and Revora (and that's for modding C&C anyways). I sure try the game but with the lack of features I get bored before the real meat even gets released.
Plus it all relies too much on a 3rd party: if I need to log in at all times it a) requires me to be online and 2) requires a server to connect to which gives the game a limited life by default, the servers won't stay online forever. Even though games are supposed to be more mainstream now I actually play far less. That's not simply because I've grown up but also because there's so much faffing involved... creating accounts for everything, downloading the game because it's not on disc, having to deal with my net going down and getting kicked out... I just CBA any more. I play far more games on my PS1 than anything else. QUICK_EDIT
I'm not too surprised by this move, the free mmo games are dominating the gaming realm and are only going to get bigger by consuming all genres of games. It could be a very good competitive RTS but I can already tell it wont be like the original C&C games. I beleive this marks the end of the original style singeplayer games, once it goes free to play it don't come back.
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 Location: Star Kingdom of Manticore
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:31 am Post subject:
I registered for the Beta. It looks quite fun. Especially with the Frostbite 2 Engine _________________ "Reality is a lovely place, but I wouldn't want to live there." -Adam Young QUICK_EDIT
Isn't skirmish, as in against bots, basically single-player? Nowhere does it say it just excludes possible campaigh, but prolly skirmish as well.
That didn't stop MMOs like TF2 from allowing you to fight bots.
Crimsonum wrote:
F2P means they will claim money somehow. And so far it sounds like it will be like "Buy additional content to build bigger and stronger armies", C&C4 style, which is extremely biased, and to be frank, total bullshit. We'll see.
I've been playing CnC Alliances and I haven't had any reason to spend a nickel yet. It may be a slow process but all I have to do to keep up is destroy Forgotten camps and collect the harvest.
Crimsonum wrote:
What the fuck. You do realize your making yourself an asshat with your attitude? While it's no good to support a dead company whose games got worse the richer they got, I don't see why you're defending one of the most money-hungry megacorps in existance.
Well sorry but its just that everyone's been looking at the bad side more that the good side. There's at least some good points. For starters Victory Games seemed to stay true to the series roots rather than following CnC4's style. I understand the hate though.
I wonder why everyone's jumping on the F2P bandwagon when quite a lot of people don't like the idea. _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
when it comes to RTS, competitive multiplayer, gameplay mechanics, community, events around it, casters, tournaments, single player story, editing, then starcraft 2 should be the role model because it has an astonishing community, and an excellent RTS game with many many reinvented and newly invented features blizzard sticks to, how the hell should command & conquer appeal? Starcraft should be the model they should orient, and not leaving the classic cnc tracks for some MMO crap, petroglyph does that with EON, yeah congratulations for smelling the money behind that EA, screwing those who waited for a starcraft alternative cnc always was for having "a mmo rts" - and those mild mannered feelings that come from a few people like, "i might like it" or "lets just wait until we see more" no, simply no, douches, they lied to us when they said they give us an "AAA" command & conquer and "going back to the roots" they lied to us in telling all these fantastic revelation things and options we'd have in tiberian twilight, they lied to us when they said "it will be good" and we said "oh ok we give it a try" they blatantly lied to us, and they simply lie to us this time around even more, and if you are like "i give it a try because i might like like, i'll give it a chance" you are a ztyping tool, next time they do the same after that, they piss you right in the face with their products, they pissed recently on the silent hill , we saw it got worse from title to title, but now, oh boy, now you can buy a DLC for the sims in silent hill style, isn't that something?
I like how much cockriding blubb is doing on Starcraft 2. I'm a massive fan, but I can easily recognize many of the downfalls of SC2. Horrible balance (Thors lol), no cross-region play period (takes another game to get that), lack of LAN or chat rooms (two big features), and Heart of the Swarm could either fix or make more issues.
EDIT: Not to mention Blizzard totally dropped the ball on Diablo 3 to the point I won't think about playing it in fear of having a teenage favorite franchise ruined. QUICK_EDIT
I like how much cockriding blubb is doing on Starcraft 2. I'm a massive fan, but I can easily recognize many of the downfalls of SC2. Horrible balance (Thors lol), no cross-region play period (takes another game to get that), lack of LAN or chat rooms (two big features), and Heart of the Swarm could either fix or make more issues.
EDIT: Not to mention Blizzard totally dropped the ball on Diablo 3 to the point I won't think about playing it in fear of having a teenage favorite franchise ruined.
you are forgetting that blizzard does patch and re balances and cares for that game countinuously, Thors are balanced out a lot, zerg is also more balanced out in general, they test and re-balance issues keeping their eyes on how it plays out, for the players, the pros and for the dev's themselves. and i expect nothing less from HotS, yeah you say cockriding, but there is a huge difference between both companies, sure they let down diablo 2 fans, but they are still trying to fix. and basically they've sticked still to the original formula. and how does that make them look as bad as EA? tell me, with starcraft 2 their cojnstructive community and the devs behind this game they have outrun EA a long time ago.
Thors were imba in early versions dude, you dont seem to be up to date, i watched a lot replays and follow husky and day 9, i watch tournaments and it seems to be in really really good shape, AND balance.
Sure HotS could go either way, but let me say, it *will* be fixed if something is off, imba or broken, wich is highly unlikely with this franchise. And even now they implement new things for the campaign and new inventions for storytelling and utilizing customization, with being on the safe side.
edit: maybe i'll show off too much anticipation for HotS and SC2 in general but the countinuous development and the care for the game itself is unarguably in it's favor. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
Back then, awhile back, maybe not too long ago, Free to play would be a good thing, both for open source materials like the Spring Engine and it's games, and the video games that have been built to be Free to play but only cost you additional for aesthetic things, like League of Legends.
But now? The corps have stepped in, and it's all about the money once again, and people are raving around acting like it's a good thing to be paying 60$ for 1/3 of the game upgrading the shit that they like, as I heard EA mention "Buy what you like in the game!".
Seriously, that's bullshit.
Not jumping onto conclusions about the actual facts, wherein these things will actually be the way they are, or the pricing. But the fact remains that it seems like the F2P scene is becoming retarded.
Seems like no one wants to make an RTS filled to the brim with content for 30 - 40$. Simply because it's not as profitable.
Someday, someday. _________________ Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
I wish Blizzard would patch the atrocious storylines.
better than current CNC ones, WOL did ok and HotS delves even deeper into the characters and to the past happenings. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
HotS delves even deeper into the characters and to the past happenings.
How do you know for sure? Haven't seen any actual mention of them placing more than the usual amount of emphasis on characters in general and history in HotS. I think we've been told that we're gonna find more about the Zerg, though. But I don't think that quite covers what you just claimed there. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
well if you'd seen the 44 minute press conference with Q&A in the end you'd know that they indeed have a lot of ideas for the characters to make them interresting and having backlashes from past happenings such as hybrids.
have fun, and generally, this is the right mindset to work on an RTS overall.
don't try to underrate WOL or HotS, you see how successfull it is and how good its core elements are, it would be stupid to argue about that. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
I wish Blizzard would patch the atrocious storylines.
better than current CNC ones, WOL did ok and HotS delves even deeper into the characters and to the past happenings.
I dunno man. I waited 14 years for Raynor to avenge Fenix with a slug in Kerrigan's skull, and then Metzen pulls a Warcraftian reverse-corrupted-hero twist.
Along with this.
>an ancient evil awakens
>only KerriganxRaynor<3 can stop them
At least my little sister really likes it. QUICK_EDIT
i can understand why people feel biased, but i was going along with the affection for raynor to kerrigan and how kerrigan was betrayed on gettisburgh, i think with rescuing her in WOL he thought naively as an "old pained man" he paid his dues for his inability in the first place, i believe everything the queen of blades did he thought would not have happened if he could intervene somehow or have looked through the betrayal. and in don't think it plays out simply like that, i think kerrigan as stated in the conference is a biased and confused character, she's zerg still and zerg won't do anything for the dominion or anyone besides the swarm itself.
oh wait, but you can have an alternative in the cnc universe, bold headet confusing gibberish nonsense talking man who killed thousants of people trolls into the white void of nothing - end. surely your sister would like that. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
I mean, I knew that shit when I saw Kane in Red Alert. And it was confirmed when the Scrin ship in Tiberian Sun was a reconstruction, not a ship they found.
It's just that everything about C&C4 sucked balls. Including the FMV's. QUICK_EDIT
I mean, I knew that shit when I saw Kane in Red Alert. And it was confirmed when the Scrin ship in Tiberian Sun was a reconstruction, not a ship they found.
It's just that everything about C&C4 sucked balls. Including the FMV's.
yeah, they had their tryout and chance with "we put more emphasis on online gaming, we have a complete system for that" it sucked also balls, why would this one be better? it's not a solid game, it has nothing appealing, it may have explosions, but i hate to be forced constantly to be online and only playing pvp, maybe buying to unlock things, having no single player and so on, how can this be progress?
i can hear people "quit bitching" but yeh, all i can say about that is chocke on it, i'll go elsewhere for SC or playing the past titles of CNC, i',m fed up with this corporation, how much fucked up titles does a fan have to endure? it's not a hard formula, and not that hard to expand on. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
it's not a solid game, it has nothing appealing, it may have explosions, but i hate to be forced constantly to be online and only playing pvp
You haven't played it, you can't know what the game has in itself. Victory Games have talked a lot about sticking to classic C&C mechanisms, and based on the videos it looks like it'll be closer to the classic C&C gameplay than C&C4. You don't even know if it'll have skirmish or not.
Quote:
when it comes to RTS, competitive multiplayer, gameplay mechanics, community, events around it, casters, tournaments, single player story, editing, then starcraft 2 should be the role model
So make a copy of SCII and win. No, people liking SC will stick with SC and so EA has to do something different. C&C has always been quite different from Blizzard games, and while Generals 2 isn't looking like a classic C&C game except for possibly(we don't know the exact game mechanics like basebuilding and resource gathering method yet) the multiplayer (which is the most important part of an RTS), I'd say they need to try something refreshing rather than sticking with the exact classic C&C formula which already gained a bad reputation with the rushed past games.
About support, I don't know about RA3 and C&C4, but TW got 9 decent patches during its lifetime. The new C&C looks like its lifetime could be either very long (if it's a success) or quite short (if it flops), since it's an always-online F2P game which requires constant updates (and whether those updates are profitable or not depends on the amount of players).
how much lessons does someone need that this is screwed up SOMEHOW after the development of cnc games made by EA, made from really good until recent total fuckups i've lost my neutral attitude, and i couldn't care less about personal opinions, if you want to wait until it comes out, let yourself get trolled again......oh and did your know cnc and starcraft were rivals in the same genre and all cnc now does is backflipping against a wall? it would be completely natural and good to rival the game since it was that way before, there's nothing off with it. i'm not talking about carbon copying since the mechanics of cnc are the mechanics of cnc.
oh, a copy of EON is far more the term to talk about since it's the same model from what is announced, no thanks. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
if you want to wait until it comes out, let yourself get trolled again......
Not much trolling about it, if it's bad then I won't be playing it and instead I'll be using my time with something more enjoyable. If it's good, then I might play it. I'm not even watching the game closely; if it wasn't for PPM I probably wouldn't even know about this "new direction" yet.
blubb wrote:
oh and did your know cnc and starcraft were rivals in the same genre and all cnc now does is backflipping against a wall?
They probably were rivals a dozen years ago (actually, SC1 and Red Alert was the closest one afaik), C&C hasn't been much of a competitor to Blizzard since Warcraft 3.
blubb wrote:
oh, a copy of EON is far more the term to talk about since it's the same model from what is announced, no thanks.
I'm not getting this talk about EON. From what I've heard so far, the similarities between EON and the new C&C are limited to the free-to-play model and having no singleplayer (campaigns?) at launch. EON will have no basebuilding and the amount of units will be limited; it's more like a RTT game instead of an RTS. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
I'm not getting this talk about EON. From what I've heard so far, the similarities between EON and the new C&C are limited to the free-to-play model and having no singleplayer (campaigns?) at launch. EON will have no basebuilding and the amount of units will be limited; it's more like a RTT game instead of an RTS. <--- yeah but they didn't lie to the community in the first place about what they do. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
How? You would have paid for the game before, how is paying for SP later any different?
Am I really the only C&C fan not "outraged" by this change? I mean, seriously, guys. Should I call the waaaaaahmbulance for this affront to gaming? Jesus tittyfucking Christ. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
I don't care for the change. Then again I am no fan anymore. Never really played C&C3 + C&C4 (so to speak, everything beyond RA2).
EA has dissapointed me too many times. I guess I will just stick with Blizzy - even though they are not perfect, they still make the best games regarding money/time (for me anyway). _________________
So, yeah, I've created a new acc. 'cause no one could remember Ordosherrscher - and I didn't like that name anyway. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:04 pm Post subject:
FurryQueen wrote:
freedom fighter wrote:
@Banshee: If they do that, well... That sucks
How? You would have paid for the game before, how is paying for SP later any different?
Am I really the only C&C fan not "outraged" by this change? I mean, seriously, guys. Should I call the waaaaaahmbulance for this affront to gaming? Jesus tittyfucking Christ.
No, you are not.
My problem with this business is not campaigns being released after the game is available.
The problems are:
1) No modding.
2) Features that made the full game before will be sold separetely, being more expensive (if you buy them all).
3) Pay to win... I mean, units that may umballance the game will be charged.
4) Origin
5) Must play online only.
But I may be equivocated, specially in the points 2 and 3. If I'm equivocated about them, I'm fine about the rest, although the lack of modding will make the game bore me quickly. QUICK_EDIT
How? You would have paid for the game before, how is paying for SP later any different?
Am I really the only C&C fan not "outraged" by this change? I mean, seriously, guys. Should I call the waaaaaahmbulance for this affront to gaming? Jesus tittyfucking Christ.
excuse me, you are a fan of cnc? you think so? _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
1) No modding.
2) Features that made the full game before will be sold separetely, being more expensive (if you buy them all).
3) Pay to win... I mean, units that may umballance the game will be charged.
4) Origin
5) Must play online only.
1) That's iffy, given the complexity of the engine. The barrier for entry would be too high for most so modding won't likely be as popular. I'd still like it see it happen, but there's a low chance it will.
2) I'm not so sure this is the case. Consider that a game usually costs $60 then you pay for DLC on top of that. If the game has the original factions and full MP for no cost, then we're sitting good. So if SP costs, say... $30 then they release a pair of faction or armies for $10 and they do that twice. That's only $50 so you're paying less anyway. There's potential to actually pay less.
3) That's my biggest concern. A "pay to win" scenario. If this happens, EA failed. Plain and simple. I really, really want them to avoid this and I know it's easily possible.
4) This is pretty lame, but I plan on using Sandboxie to restrict Origin from scanning anything so it'll be an entirely moot point.
5) If it's an MP only title at launch, this requirement makes sense. Long as the SP component doesn't require it, this isn't the worst thing they could do... for multiplayer.
Quote:
excuse me, you are a fan of cnc? you think so?
Here's a thought: go fuck yourself. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
1) No modding.
2) Features that made the full game before will be sold separetely, being more expensive (if you buy them all).
3) Pay to win... I mean, units that may umballance the game will be charged.
4) Origin
5) Must play online only.
1) That's iffy, given the complexity of the engine. The barrier for entry would be too high for most so modding won't likely be as popular. I'd still like it see it happen, but there's a low chance it will.
2) I'm not so sure this is the case. Consider that a game usually costs $60 then you pay for DLC on top of that. If the game has the original factions and full MP for no cost, then we're sitting good. So if SP costs, say... $30 then they release a pair of faction or armies for $10 and they do that twice. That's only $50 so you're paying less anyway. There's potential to actually pay less.
3) That's my biggest concern. A "pay to win" scenario. If this happens, EA failed. Plain and simple. I really, really want them to avoid this and I know it's easily possible.
4) This is pretty lame, but I plan on using Sandboxie to restrict Origin from scanning anything so it'll be an entirely moot point.
5) If it's an MP only title at launch, this requirement makes sense. Long as the SP component doesn't require it, this isn't the worst thing they could do... for multiplayer.
a) There is hardly anything known about how this will work or what exactly you can buy later - it doesn't seem to be planed out much by this point.
For me, it feels more like some manager just said "F2P is the FUTURE, so we make the game F2P!" and not because the developers felt like it was a necessary change.
b) Pay2Win
I know EA says they want to prevent that, but I cant really think of anything else they could sell other than new units, upgrades and similar stuff.
Sure, there will probably some customisation options like skins and such, but I doubt this will work as well for a RTS as it does for games like LoL.
Not to mention that TA is also Free2Play, yet it seems like every item in the shop offers some kind of in game bonus.
The whole thing just feels like some kind of desperate experiment - someone decided that the future of EA games is F2P, so they suddenly turn their games into F2P.
But the whole F2P thing might just be a fad - remember a couple of years ago when there were tons of MMORPGs were released because WoW was so successful? Or when EA through that casual games would be the future of gaming? Or the whole 3D movie fad?
But, to be honest: since modding is now out of the question and there might not be a SP campaign, I kinda stopped caring that much about the game. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:12 am Post subject:
Looks like typical CNC community dramatics. You guys won't be pleased until EA brings back classic Titans and "YES SIR!" "AFFIRMATIVE" VOs, will you?
Not that I'm all gung-ho for this game.
I have to say I am not sure on the direction of the franchise by turning it into F2P. I just don't see how the F2P model can be successful for an RTS in the vein of CNC. Not many options for micro-transactions other than new units (which have to be unbalanced or there is no incentive to buy them) or unit skins (which provide no real incentive in a game where you spam 100 of that unit per fight).
That and the art style of the game looks extremely uninspired- the vehicles and buildings look like CNC-3 HD. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Looks like typical CNC community dramatics. You guys won't be pleased until EA brings back classic Titans and "YES SIR!" "AFFIRMATIVE" VOs, will you?
some accusations never change, but really it's not about the cosmetic issues with this installment neither was it that way with TT for the most part. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
I'm ok with this idea so far...But what I believe the C&C Community isn't pleased with is how C&C is always the experimental franchise. Yeah, let's try RTT, let's try F2P, let's try MMO, let's try casual games, web browser games, etc. Sim City, Need for Speed, Battlefield and C&C are EA's biggest and longest running franchises, and EA always keeps using these for risky ventures such as F2P and casual games, which sucks. I guess the community is just sick of that and want another game to be the guinea pig over C&C...But it's a shame that this is EA's only RTS franchise. (that is still running) The last 3 times they tried their new vision of gaming, it was on a C&C, and with the exception of TA, all of those flopped. So this is where the fans are currently worrying. QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
New direction for C&C
