Command & Conquer revealed in Gamescom

[flarecde]

Two things: No singleplayer means I'm not buying it at launch. I've never enjoyed RTS MP, mainly because I suck at it.

Same. I've owned most of the C&C games, but only played MP on one of the early ones.

Free-to-play is potentially interesting, it remains to be seen how they implement it. Unless they've released more details, anything else is entirely speculation.

[TaurenNinja]

Looks like a typical game these days:
- 2 weeks of fun in single player
- 1 week of fun in multiplayer
- ... and then you go back to SC2 or whatever, something that's actually playable competitively

[Deleted]

Frankly I doubt I'll be playing this over something like End of Nations. I don't see why they would step into the same spectrum of games, they could frankly make a good C&C game for full price, singleplayer and everything. Fans of the genre aren't looking for a multiplayer only F2P game clearly, as shown by the backlash.. How did they not know this earlier? With EA's track record of C&C games as of late I fear this will be a disaster.

[Slavik]

Of all people in the world, I stood by C&C through the good times... and the bad.

C&C was the first game I ever played ever, I still have my original disks in a rather battered box. Westwood made a game which imprinted on me... and through all the other games that have come and gone over the years, the glory of C&C kept me standing by their side.

However this announcement today has left me disheartened. C&C has gone from a fun game with huge armies and a little bit of tactical gameplay to "who has the biggest wallet wins".

Generals 2 was EA's chance to bring C&C back as a fighting force... re-ignite the franchise... but they've blown that. The spark of hope that some part of Westwoods legacy would be given the oportunity to grow has been snuffed for good.

RIP C&C. RIP Westwood. Go to hell EA.

[Deleted]

I bet all haters have already registered for the beta.

[Believeinapathy]

...I fear how F2P will translate to P2W in the RTS genre. Everyone knows EA is all about making that money, they wouldn't make C&C F2P unless they had a serious way to get players to spend. This most likely means things like "Pay to play as Russia" "Pay to have access to certain buildings" "Pay for the availability of certain troop upgrades." "Pay to play on more then 2 maps" RTS is not the place for F2P, especially with a company like EA who will find a way to get people to spend money once they've started playing. "Lolz I win cause' I bought Tesla Coil towers for $10" This whole thing just doesn't sit right with me.

[ComputerNerd]

diablo 3 style

Always someone who has to come up with that rubbish.
The reason for the RMAH is D3 is simple, stupid players who go to 3rd parties forced the need for a legitimate alternative.


Back OT.
Has great potential if EA can actually understand just what Free to Play actually means.
Their recent history suggests otherwise.

Not selling new units, not selling content, not selling power.
Selling aesthetics and convenience only.
Skins, Models, Sound/Voice Packs, XP Boosts.
None of those are game breaking.

The trailer despite supposedly being gameplay is showing us absolutely nothing of value.
I want to see the actual UI, someone actually doing things.
The pretty graphics from very select portions does nothing but look pretty, and be empty of any useful information.

[Nerraw]

I'm seeing a lot people saying they won't buy it. Guess what, it's free to play, as said in the article.

[Lazy Gecko]

My dream sequel to Generals would have been a Paul Verhoeven style satire of the war on terror, complete with live action news breaks for exposition. The tone of the humor would be closer to Robocop, not goofy and light-hearted like Red Alert became.

The first Generals didn't feel that far off from a satire. I can't believe some people took the "America F yea!" attitude from the USA units seriously.

[Deleted]

Didn't feel that far off? It was pretty much just that.
They had a commander called Dr. Thrax for cying out loud.

[link064]

I'm seeing a lot people saying they won't buy it. Guess what, it's free to play, as said in the article.

I did think that was ironic.

I also enjoy the ridiculous logical jumps people make when they decide to start hating something they know nothing about. F2P -> pay2win. The developers said they don't even know what the F2P business model is going to look like, and yet somehow we're already claiming to boycott the game by not "buying" it because it's going to be pay2win.

Actually, from what they've said, it looks like a really good business decision to make it free to play. The best way to get feedback from people who want to pay for your game is to let people play it for free and then let them tell you what they liked/hated. Sure, you'll end up getting some content moochers, but then you also get real feedback from people who might not have outright bought the game given a $60 box price tag. If they do it right, it could make them tons more money than a single box sale ever would. Plus, since it's multiplayer-focused, this will help fill up the matchmaking service with people playing.

I'm still holding my reservations about this game, but it is definitely something to look forward to.

[Verdugo]

complete with live action news breaks for exposition.

They had that in Zero Hour during loading.

[dapperedodo]

If they use the f2p model of lol and have a balance close to what sc2 is atm it has potential. But then we see it's EA so we can be almost certain it will be crap.

[Scorp969]

looks like another online only drm, f2p is only on mmo games

[McNeil]

I'd like to add: the community managers from the C&C forums said that C&C will NOT be Pay To Win. There's a good change that it'll be similiar like LoL, altrough I've never played LoL myself so I can't comment on that.

The game will have DLC, but it will not be gameplay breaking. It will be stuff like more unit skins, models, maps and any other customizable stuff.

[Lazy Gecko]

The great irony about people clamoring for Westwood again to save C&C, is that the ex-Westwood devs who stayed in Las Vegas to form a new company are now also working on a F2P RTS. I've tried a bit of End of Nations, and it feels like both of these projects could go either way at this point.

[Nerraw]

I'd like to add: the community managers from the C&C forums said that C&C will NOT be Pay To Win. There's a good change that it'll be similiar like LoL, altrough I've never played LoL myself so I can't comment on that.

The game will have DLC, but it will not be gameplay breaking. It will be stuff like more unit skins, models, maps and any other customizable stuff.

This is good to hear.

[Wildmoon]

Are they making this to be competitive game with high skill cap like SC/SC2 or other style of RTS?

[flarecde]

looks like another online only drm, f2p is only on mmo games

Considering it's a multiplayer only game I don't see how that's too surprising or unusual.

[KrazyK923]

Still waiting for a legitimate C&C:4. Not that abortion that they used to wrap up the Kane storyline, which is sad in its own right.