<i>Command & Conquer</i> series pivots into a free-to-play future

Multiplayer-only <i>C&C Generals 2</i> will launch free RTS "destination" in 2013.

Read the whole story

 

[Ken Fisher]

Why oh why do I read this as saying: "Welp, EA knows they've got another stinker in the C&C franchise." I hope I am wrong, but after C&C 4, I fear that I am not.

ps. Zero Hour is one of the best games of all time. CHINA WILL GROW LARGER! Lay-zer Jenn Err Roll...

 

[Red Herring]

I think a better path would have been to give the multi-player away as a free to play game but still do a single player campaign and sell that along with some extra buffs for multi-player as a retail product.

 

[Menty]

Oh well. So much for the hopes of a new C&C Generals that was going to be as good as the first one.

 

[swx2]

Holy fuck. I loved Generals (yes, I liked the campaign...), and I was seriously looking forward to this after a disappointing C&C 4... I'm going to go cry in a corner now... T_T

 

[sirtheguy]

On one hand, I can really appreciate that EA is trying new things out in order to find new revenue streams.

On the other, they have so completely and utterly borked up so many games because they kept trying to fix what wasn't broken, they have probably lost untold amounts of cash. CnC 3 was, in my opinion, hands down the BEST of all CnC games ever. The story was good (and well-told), the universe was dark, the gameplay was tight, the acting was done well (I'm looking at YOU, CnC 4), and they were very meticulous in almost every aspect of the game.

Then came Red Alert 3 and the DRM fiasco. Then CnC 4 and the absolute destruction of what is CnC with the crawlers. Now this free-to-play-pay-to-win nonsense.

EA, here's a tip that will get you plenty of money: Make the game fun, make it competitive, take it seriously, and support the game for a long time. The classic business model still works if you don't try to latch all the current business buzzwords (DRM, Pirates, Online, Free-to-play) on to it.

Do what you did with CnC 3. You might be surprised how well it works.

 

[deas187]

"I've got a present for ya!"

 

[DrPizza]

My heart is breaking.

 

[Nonapod]

What "platform" is this launching on? Does EA have a Stream type service in development or something?

 

[LimpBagel]

Why is F2P becoming so popular? Do people end up spending more money than they would have by buying upfront? I haven't purchased a single item in TF2 but gladly bought the Orange Box back when it launched.

I just want to get the full game and play it and know that I can do anything in the game. I don't want to start playing and find out a jet is $1 or requires N hours of play or some other nonsense.

 

[Your Rocinante]

The in-development game formerly known as Command & Conquer Generals 2 will no longer be a retail product, but will launch next year as the "first of many free offerings" on the new platform, which will grow to encompass "Red Alert, Tiberium, and beyond," EA said in a statement.

Wait, which platform? I think I missed something in the article.

 

[Loizos]

Well, since I never play online games (I want to play games on my own schedule, and I play games to relax, not to compete with some anonymous 17-year old that will beat me in no time and make me feel like an idiot to boot) making C&C online-only is a deal-braker.

Truth be told, I was not all that interested in it anyway. I'd lost interest since the C&C franchise has removed the ability to pause the game and still give commands to units. I like strategy games to be about strategy, not a frantic click-fest. I still love playing Company of Heroes, because I can pause the game, study the situation and give commands at my leisure.

 

[LimpBagel]

What "platform" is this launching on? Does EA have a Stream type service in development or something?

Origin. It's been out at least since BF3 launched last October.

 

[smartfud]

Yup, still playing Generals and Zero Hour after all this time, and still love it. Nothing like building 72 nuclear missiles and then wiping the entire map clean down to that last stuck AI unit off by himself in some random corner of the map.

I was so psyched to see the announcement of Generals 2 for next year, but this is not what I was hoping for. Having never played Generals except for LAN games, I'm not interested in playing online. If EA does develop a campaign, great, but I'm not holding out much hope.

 

[xoa]

My heart is breaking.

This god damn it. Title of the article should have been "EA finishes destruction of yet another beloved, venerable franchise". If only we really did have a modified Chronosphere to go back in time with and stop EA with.

 

[Troublesome Strumpet]

My heart is breaking.

This god damn it. Title of the article should have been "EA finishes destruction of yet another beloved, venerable franchise". If only we really did have a modified Chronosphere to go back in time with and stop EA with.

Fear not! After I win the PowerBall lottery I will invent a time machine and travel back to days of yore, where I will purchase Westwood to keep it from EA's stinking hands.

 

[Akemi]

Free to play equals me not playing at all. The way I see it is that this title wouldn't be free to play if it were any good at all.

 

[Nonapod]

What "platform" is this launching on? Does EA have a Stream type service in development or something?

Origin. It's been out at least since BF3 launched last October.

Thanks.

So, like, does this mean I'm gonna have to pay 50 cents to buy gattling gun upgrades for my Overlord Tanks or something? Or will the pay features be limited to cosmetic changes like unit skins and such?

 

[KBKarma]

I think a better path would have been to give the multi-player away as a free to play game but still do a single player campaign and sell that along with some extra buffs for multi-player as a retail product.

I thought that's what the article said they were doing?

“At launch, the focus will be on multiplayer as we are currently focused on building a fun, high quality RTS experience that we want to get in your hands as soon as possible," EA VP and General Manager Jon Van Carnegiea told IGN. "From there, we will continuously evaluate additional content based on a variety of player feedback.”

 

[zero21983]

I've always loathed DLC and I've only purchased couple of them for games I own. I just want to pay the whole cost up front. That's why I waited until the GOTY Edition of Civ5 before purchasing. Certain types of games can work very well with this model. For example, the Pinball Arcade tables are all purchased seperately.

But Free-to-play typically means I will avoid it. I have recently started playing World of Tanks, but that's just because my friend wants to play it so I'll play it with him. The biggest thing for me is the way purchasing items in game breaks the gameplay by the pay-to-win model. You could say that if I just bought everything it might cost the same as the cost of the whole game up-front. But I don't think this is true in most cases. The cost of all items would probably be more than the cost of a normal game. Plus these items don't really go on sale, which is when I buy my games.

 

[Matrices]

Really does look like the kind of PC games that got me into PC gaming are well and truly dead.

 

[Raptor's Boomstick]

Dammit.

I don't want to play multiplayer. I love RTS games, but I've never played a single game against a random player on the internet. I don't plan to start.

Dammit. I was looking forward to another Generals game.

 

[Vince-RA]

Ugh. So sick of multiplayer. I'm going to go sulk in the corner and play Zero Hour now.

 

[Kyle Orland]

The in-development game formerly known as Command & Conquer Generals 2 will no longer be a retail product, but will launch next year as the "first of many free offerings" on the new platform, which will grow to encompass "Red Alert, Tiberium, and beyond," EA said in a statement.

Wait, which platform? I think I missed something in the article.

Platform in this case doesn't necessarily mean something like Steam or Origin, but just an encompassing launching-pad for the free-to-play C&C games. It's a PC game. "Platform" is kind of a nebulous term these days... sorry if there was confusion.

 

[garapito]

My heart is breaking.

This god damn it. Title of the article should have been "EA finishes destruction of yet another beloved, venerable franchise". If only we really did have a modified Chronosphere to go back in time with and stop EA with.

Fear not! After I win the PowerBall lottery I will invent a time machine and travel back to days of yore, where I will purchase Westwood to keep it from EA's stinking hands.

While you're at it, bring back their wicked Monopoly game. Man, I spent hours and hours on that thing!

 

[DebtAngel]

Why is F2P becoming so popular? Do people end up spending more money than they would have by buying upfront? I haven't purchased a single item in TF2 but gladly bought the Orange Box back when it launched.

I forget if it was Kyle's or KUCHEEERRRRRAAAAA's KOTOR free to play article I read the statistic in, but Valve's making six times as much on Team Fortress 2 since they "switched to a mainly hat-based economic model."

 

[xoa]

If anyone is curious to get a glimpse inside the mind of an EA manager, watch some of "Paying to Win: Battlefield Heroes, virtual goods and selling gameplay advantages". You will get to enjoy listening to a truly scumball strategy that has since been enacted in spades. Helps put this announcement in better perspective.

Dammit. I was looking forward to another Generals game.

In fairness, it was pretty clear the franchise was dead after C&C3. If that didn't put the writing on the wall for people, RA3 and C&C4 should have driven the point home, through the floor, through the foundation, and then through a significant portion of the continental plate. I guess though that since Generals was more original there could still be some hope it'd somehow escape the twisted, fetid claws of the rest of EA, but that hope was a vain one.

 

[killing_time]

Holy fuck. I loved Generals (yes, I liked the campaign...), and I was seriously looking forward to this after a disappointing C&C 4... I'm going to go cry in a corner now... T_T

i wasn't sure of my reasons for feeling the same, i think though it was just that i am tired of the game in general.

 

[xoa]

Command & Conquer 3: Tiberian Twilight concept stuff, the game Westwood was working on back before EA nuked it in favor of the Tiberium Wars we eventually got instead. EA Quality (TM) always saves the day.

 

[LLJKCicero]

Well, since I never play online games (I want to play games on my own schedule, and I play games to relax, not to compete with some anonymous 17-year old that will beat me in no time and make me feel like an idiot to boot) making C&C online-only is a deal-braker.

Translation: I'm really bad at games and feel insecure about this fact.

Truth be told, I was not all that interested in it anyway. I'd lost interest since the C&C franchise has removed the ability to pause the game and still give commands to units. I like strategy games to be about strategy, not a frantic click-fest. I still love playing Company of Heroes, because I can pause the game, study the situation and give commands at my leisure.

Translation: I don't like games where you have to think quickly, because my brain is too slow to handle a "frantic click-fest."

You know, there is a whole genre of strategy games where you have as much time as you want to give orders? It's true!

 

[wjousts]

Well, since I never play online games (I want to play games on my own schedule, and I play games to relax, not to compete with some anonymous 17-year old that will beat me in no time and make me feel like an idiot to boot) making C&C online-only is a deal-braker.

Truth be told, I was not all that interested in it anyway. I'd lost interest since the C&C franchise has removed the ability to pause the game and still give commands to units. I like strategy games to be about strategy, not a frantic click-fest. I still love playing Company of Heroes, because I can pause the game, study the situation and give commands at my leisure.

Agreed. I have no desire, or time, to play online with strangers.

 

[drksilenc]

@LLJKCicero lol really i dont like to play online for some rts's sometimes i just like to play the single player because of the story. i agree with loizos about this i also was in the top 100 back in red alert days of cnc also was a member of a cnc renegade clan that was pritty well known actually the first 3 letter of it are still on my name.

 

[donlo]

Am I correct in assuming Westwood is long gone and this C&C game wasn't being made by the "original" creators anyways? I loved the oringal General ("AK47s for EVERYBODY!!!") but I never played multiplayer. I'm not really into playing an RTS online since I just don't know how to counter rushes and such.

 

[Facekhan]

I liked Generals even though the multiplayer got very predictable due to not very many units and a focus on quick rush games and rapid game-ending super weapon deployment. The nice things about it from an RTS perspective was that you could play a lot of short games and get pretty good at it fast compared to the drawn out slugfests of a lot of other RTS games where the game seldom finished fast enough for frequent multiplayer to be practical.

 

[H2O Rip]

It's possible to make a good F2P RTS, though in many cases it's a huge learning experiment for the producers, companies, and franchises as a whole. For example, Age of Empires Online is in a much better place (game design / quality wise) than when it was released a year ago, and imo provides a pretty darn good game for zero investment required. But ofc I'm biased since I work there.

I will say though, it's incredibly tricky. In many situations f2p is not treated by larger publishers as something you take a AAA title and build a game around. The guys that have done it most successfully have entire production schedules and team design done differently than how most production houses are comfortable with. The question is whether EA is going to 'zyngafy' the brand or if they will treat it as a more mature f2p title that's worth your time. The former route is very risky with a brand like C&C, as we found with AOE it takes a lot of work to win over the hardcore dedicated fans.

 

[groghunter]

well, the original generals was basically multiplayer only anyway (5 missions per faction does not a SP campaign make) but I'm sure hoping this is hats for tanks, not paying for angry mob.

CHECK OUT OUR NEW TOW MISSILE! (you can purchase TOW missile for 4.99, please enter credit details below.)

 

[pappypappy]

Am I correct in assuming Westwood is long gone and this C&C game wasn't being made by the "original" creators anyways? I loved the oringal General ("AK47s for EVERYBODY!!!") but I never played multiplayer. I'm not really into playing an RTS online since I just don't know how to counter rushes and such.

Generals wasn't made by Westwood either, but by EA. Westwood hasn't existed for nearly a decade after being shut down in the wake of such hits as Renegade and Earth & Beyond .

 

[sinnix]

F2P multiplayer focused? Do. Not. Want.

Generals and the excellent Zero Hour are some of my favourite RTS games of all time. This news... I can't even put it into words. I'm very disappointed.

There are some games that I think fit well into the F2P model. I've played them, I've spent money on them, they're okay.

But there are a lot of other times when I just want to lay down my cash and get 'the complete experience' without having to think about it. This, unfortunately for EA, is one of those times.

 

[kbar1]

First SimCity, then this. No one else could actively destroy their fanbases so easily even if they tried.

 

[Jackattak]

I just want more CnC Kane's Wrath story!