[speculation] So why was C&C: Generals 2 cancelled?

[Gamevizier]

It's been nearly 3 years since the announcement of C&C:Generals' cancellation. even though there were streamers playing and streaming the multiplayer game during it's beta test (alpha test?) for the public to see. the art assets were mostly finished, the general "frame" of the game was actually there and it was nearly a finished product.

but then EA just up and announces it's cancellation and then no more word about the fate of the C&C series.

so my friends and I were recently discussing the reasons for its' cancellation: but we couldn't really come up with a good answer as to why a nearly finished product was never given the light of day. was it due to PC concerns over the general theme of the game? (west vs. middle eastern dictator regimes + terrorists vs. chinese expansionism) or was it due to lack of singleplayer?

there were quite alot of concern over it's online-only nature but why should a game be outright canceled, not delayed, canceled, because of it's lack of singleplayer?

It kinda bugs me because C&C Generals was among one of the many great games that I've spent countless hours on it.

[Bigbazz]

If I'm not remembering the wrong game then wasn't it canned after the beta testers didn't like it, had a bit too much criticism? I mean that's a shitty way to go about it, rather than fix the game it was probably deemed too much risk for worth and just binned. I really liked Command & Conquer games, they are by far my favourite RTS titles and I even really like the not so popular Red Alert 3.. That said I wasn't a huge Generals fan.

[Gamevizier]

well I did watch some of the beta tests and while some of them were critical and some were supporting it, it wasn't by any means a "broken" game. maybe it felt different compared to previous Generals games but it wasn't "broken" or anything, and besides looking at the gall of some of the publishers now (Rome:Total War 2) at releasing broken/unpolished games I don't really understand why a publisher would decide to outright cancel a nearly finished product without providing any alternate or a way for those designed assets to be re-used later. for example cancelling the online-only game only to repurpose that game to a single-player game, like what happened with kingdoms of amalur or mechwarrior online.

[I Push Buttons]

Because Medal of Honor: Warfighter flopped hard and EA closed Danger Close Games (EA Los Angeles) in the aftermath of the game's failure.

[Gamevizier]

Because Medal of Honor: Warfighter flopped hard and EA closed Danger Close Games (EA Los Angeles) in the aftermath of the game's failure.

wasn't it under development by Victory Games though? (later renamed to Bioware Victory)

[I Push Buttons]

wasn't it under development by Victory Games though? (later renamed to Bioware Victory)

No clue then, I assumed EA LA was heavily involved, or at least their employees were, since they made all other C&C games for the last decade.

[Nerraw]

No clue then, I assumed EA LA was heavily involved, or at least their employees were, since they made all other C&C games for the last decade.

EALA was shut down after C&C4.

[Nutri]

Looking at the current RTS landscape I don't think many publishers dare to develop one.
Shame tho, I liked Generals a lot.

[Knslyr]

I have no idea. The game looked really fun from the trailers and gameplay videos.

C&C Generals Zero Hour is my favorite RTS game of all time, and I really hope they still have some plans for a future Generals game.

[Gamevizier]

I have no idea. The game looked really fun from the trailers and gameplay videos.

C&C Generals Zero Hour is my favorite RTS game of all time, and I really hope they still have some plans for a future Generals game.

yes. it's just sad that if a game nowadays features someone like Dr.Thrax then Reddit will explode with SJW anger.

[Gorsameth]

Because the RTS genre is dead and EA has no interest in the tiny niche market that is left.

[Gamevizier]

Because the RTS genre is dead and EA has no interest in the tiny niche market that is left.

want to point out several things here.

1) RTS, like RPG, cannot become a mainstream super popular (read : top seller) game in it's raw form because it fills a niche. in order to break that and make it more appealing to the masses they have to dilute it with other genres (making it a hybrid) which may not sit well with RTS but Bioware for example found a way to make it work with ME series (which is one of the main reasons I DONT like ME3) so IMO RTS is not DEAD, it is just back to it's niche position.

2) now, as to WHY companies don't make many good RTS games I think that only a select few shaped the RTS genre. Westwood and Blizzard being the most prominent ones, with Westwood and Bullfrog dissolved by EA and no other alternative appearing to fill their position Blizzard became the sole RTS giant with their SC series. which kinda ruined the whole SC vs. C&C rivalry between the two games and their communities and thus creating a stillwater atmosphere in which the dominant company (Blizzard) sees no reason to improve their game because they are assured that the fans will buy the game, because it's the best they can get.

3) kinda related to my previous point. EA moved in and bought some of these companies by either buying them directly or buying the companies they were merged with (such as the case with westwood) and then, looking for top-seller titles instead of the niche-filling games these studios were known for, they ignored and dissolved these talented studios, thus starving those markets and partially dissolving them.

the blame is not with the RTS market or it's genre, it's with AAA companies not understanding how to utilize games aimed for niche markets and refusing to sell those rights to smaller companies who want to continue making those games.

think of it as this : in a country where seafood restaurants are not dominant and eveyone loves pizza and burgers, there WILL be a few very good seafood restaurants that serve loyal costumers and maintain their own niche (but firm) position, and then a giant fastfood company moves in and buys those restaurants and, instead of focusing on maintaining and perhaps EXPANDING that small, niche market, they outright repurpose the restaurant and make it sell mediocre-quality burgers and pizzas...but there are better fastfoods already serving those so they will not expand as good as the company that bought them hopes, so they get disbanded completely. and the seafood market will be left without a good provider.

[Zogarth]

Because the RTS genre is dead and EA has no interest in the tiny niche market that is left.

Dota/LOL are pretty much fulfilling the RTS niche for many these days. I know they are not classic RTS games, but they are still in the same ballpark.

RTS is one of my favorite genres, and I still play some good old RTS games once in a while, but yeah the market for the classic base-building RTS games seem low. But then again, we have not had a major classic RTS game release in a long damn time, so who knows really.

[Gamevizier]

Dota/LOL are pretty much fulfilling the RTS niche for many these days. I know they are not classic RTS games, but they are still in the same ballpark.

RTS is one of my favorite genres, and I still play some good old RTS games once in a while, but yeah the market for the classic base-building RTS games seem low. But then again, we have not had a major classic RTS game release in a long damn time, so who knows really.

yeah but actually, no. they have since kinda formed their own genre, they're not exactly "strategy" games but a "genre-fication" of the unit micro-management, combined with the RPG elements, that warcraft 3 and some of the later RTS games had.

[Verdugo]

Dota/LOL are pretty much fulfilling the RTS niche for many these days. I know they are not classic RTS games, but they are still in the same ballpark.

RTS is one of my favorite genres, and I still play some good old RTS games once in a while, but yeah the market for the classic base-building RTS games seem low. But then again, we have not had a major classic RTS game release in a long damn time, so who knows really.

MOBAs are the spunkgargleweewee of the RTS genre so please, dont call them RTS.

[Zogarth]

MOBAs are the spunkgargleweewee of the RTS genre so please, dont call them RTS.

They are derived from the RTS genre, so technically they are. In fact I find RTS a way better description of the genre they belong to than MOBA.

[Acidbaron]

Because the RTS genre is dead and EA has no interest in the tiny niche market that is left.

Total war: Warhammer says hi!

[Gamevizier]

Sometimes I wonder if the genre didn't do better before services like B.Net and Westwood Online, if only because everyone played casually and didn't realize how bad they were.

imo it should be more focused to make a strategy game (the multiplaye aspect of the game at least) "fun" to play rather than make it "competetive" because most of the people I know and remembered played the game for shits and giggles with their friends. there were even a period of agreed peace at the start of the game during which we only had to build our base, and after the set period was over all hell would break loose.

sure it's more "effective" to rush a base and destroy someone instead of playing the game for like +40 minutes but it wont' be a "fun" match and it was considered a douchy move. for example SC is too fast-paced for a casual player to enjoy, it's built mostly to be competetive.

[endersblade]

Total war: Warhammer says hi!

The Total War series isn't even remotely close. Is it RTS? Sure. Is it ANYTHING like C&C? No. Most RTS fans want more C&C, and less MOBA and Total War.

[Gorsameth]

Total war: Warhammer says hi!

Your right, Total War is doing just fine, hadn't thought of those but they are a very different game compared to C&C, Starcraft, Grey Goo, Act of Agression and who knows what other dead games have been released in recent years. (not that SC2 was doa but it has taken a big big nose dive since then).