User blog:Sheldonist/Gens 2 is now C&C F2P

From Command & Conquer Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Generals 2 has been renamed to simply Command & Conquer after the official trailer has been released today at Gamescom. All the respective templates will be renamed accordingly soon. For now, however, see the trailer itself -

Comments[edit | edit source]

I'm with you, Privatejfx141... They took an AWESOME concept, one which I would've dropped $60 for without a second thought (As would've many), and turned it in to a retarded cash-grab that I wont drop a penny on (Like many). I sincerely hope this idiocy costs EA millions.
So this news means we can not simply purchase a box with a couple of DVDs inside and keep it as a part of "Command & Conquer Collection"?
Ugh. Still utterly disgusted with EA, this is a new low. And that's saying something when you've already been voted the worst company in America.
Instead, we get paid our asses off for every single unit and map we play. Free to Play = Pay to Win
Uh, Play to win is exactly what this game should be.
I'll just wait for piracy solutions.
Why didn't you just reply to the existing comment? Also, I don't think you understand... There's nothing to "pirate". The game is already free, just with "paid content". It'd be like trying to pirate Kingdom Rush or Jetpack Joyride...
There's also no single-player. Why do I get the distinct impression you haven't actually read the update?
Make no mistake, I'm cross at the whole thing too (And will not be picking it up), but I feel like you're expecting solutions that simply aren't feasible. Waiting for piracy on a free game is ridiculous, it's just as free as before. And if it's for single player, well that isn't exactly something a patch can take care of, so that's more than a little unrealistic.
A piracy solition is not only for free, also for no more "online registration", "online singleplayer", "patch download" and DLC, etc. I'm OK with paying money to buy a game, but I definitely oppose playing a singleplayer by link to official server. That's tyranny.
I had read, and I'm mad.
Wait, wait, wait, wait... WHAT? Generals 2 is now F2P??? I was looking so forward to this game, hoping for it to revive the C&C franchise after it was ruined by C&C4, now they just make it F2P??? There is even not any singleplayer. I was hoping to beat the sh*t out the GLA for the second time in 2013. And there is already game similar to this called "End of Nations", which is currently being made by, guess what?, Petroglyph Games, so I guess this game won't do any good also. Guys, I think we need to boycott EA!
No one knows General Wild Dog, as none of us have the game. My initial "gut-feeling" though is no, as there wouldn't be things like enemy AI coded in to the game. It wouldn't be a crack so much as a re-design.
Is there any possibility to crack the program and "simulate" a singleplayer? Just like "simulate" you are online when playing C&C4? BTW, I just want to blow EA up sky-high, even I'm a EA supporter, but my loyalty lies with C&C.
If you crack it, you won't be connected to the server and God knows if there'll be skirmishes against the AI.
Sad now these days that most large gaming companies care more about profit rather than their fan's satisfaction. I feel that EA no longer gives a crap about their fans and their franchises. I always seems like now, EA often lies about what their fans say. I would still call this new C&C F2P game Generals with a subtitle, but it won't feel the same. EA is now just mutilating the corpse of Command & Conquer.
Completely with you on that. I had a little bit of hope a few years back - they were giving away free stuff, they were trying new IPs and seemed legitamitely interested in pleasing the fanbase. Now they're worse than they've ever been. And funny you bring up the lying about the fanbase, I thought I was the only one that noticed it. "Most of our fans don't even finish the singleplayer campaign." Yeah right EA, I'm calling shenanigans on that. Same goes for virtually every "consensus" they've pulled in which there's mysteriously no evidence to back-up.
If they don't finish the SP, they surely won't master MP.
"Most of our fans don't even finish the singleplayer campaign," says EA. How could they possibly know? What information is it based on? More to the point, does it matter? People play the game however they want. I'm not a big multiplayer fan, to be honest, and there are people out there who prefer multiplayer. Some people like both. The fact is that if a game has decent singleplayer and multiplayer, everyone is happy. Making a multiplayer-only game is going to let people down.
Good point. In some ways, SP acts as a tutorial of sorts for MP. There's a sort of balance to be struck with having it as a tutorial and actual experience. If it's too much a tutorial, it's basically a botmatch. On the other end of the spectrum, it may not actually help prepare players for MP at all. Looking at how C&C Generals 2 is going, I suspect it's going to have a pretty big MP focus (the whole F2P thing gives it away).
F*** Ea for Killing CnC, It could have been epic, but no!!! Their F***ed out the Game, he makes looks like CnC RA3 Better, F** Ea, i hope you going bankrupt.


Long Live Westwood!!!
Dude, what the hell? Just do one god damn post, it isn't difficult.
Sheldonist, I feel like we should have a mandatory IQ test before allowing the first post/edit. I think this would likely cull quite a large segment of "angsty" users. lol
Quit your stupid WW crap. They're dead and they'd better be. Also, I've merged your posts.
In my Feelings; once the Game was released, the Reviewers will gave bad Scores/Reviews. Time will tell....................
These days? Yeah right. It'll get a ten for being "Faithful but accessible". Any glaringly obvious problems will be ignored by the review for "getting with the times."

I just hope this will be a colossal fiscal failure for EA. Tiberium Alliances didn't make much, but then again, looks like something that wouldn't be out of place on a free flash games site. Generals 2 on the other hand, sounds like it should actually have a fairly big investment, which means a lack of consumers would leave a big hole in EA's pocket.

Then again, if it does flop, I'm sure EA will just blame the hardcore market instead of their own decisions...
Something about that video. It was less "Here's what you can expect in the next C&C game" and more "Look at the explosions and hundreds of units while we play some action music". The map itself looked like something from Call of Duty. On the other hand, the graphics were very good, and some of those new units look pretty interesting. We'll have to wait and see just what EA can manage.
Even if it had cool units and potential, the lack of singleplayer and the F2P crap have effectively killed any chance it had at being good, in my books.
Aye, you're right, it's good in some games, but it most certainly does not belong here. I'm sick of every develloper and their dog going to F2P. We had a good thing going: I give you money, you give me game. Why change that? lol
Aye, I almost do feel like the old guy screaming "Get off my lawn!", but I really do think gaming is headed down a dark path... We've lost the "art" from it, it's a cash-grab these days (Or so it seems). And to answer your question about how to get people to pay, well either they can impose time-limits (Such as what Facebook games and Tiberium Alliances do), which sucks. Or, they can impose content restrictions (Such as what flash games do), which ruins balance (Read: Sucks). Or they can do nothing, and hope that people pay. Which they wont. They should've just stuck to their original concept, that game could've finally pointed EA in the right direction, instead of continuing to lose money hand over fist.
You have a good point. Too many games these days forgo a decent singleplayer campaign. That's not necessarily a problem, if the multiplayer is alright. But F2P? I can see some issues arising from that. There are some good F2P systems out there, but I doubt in belongs in this kind of game.
I miss the old days. Pay for the game, play it as much as you want. At least the developer was guaranteed some money. Now there's nothing stopping someone from playing a F2P game without spending a cent.
It's a shame EA has to use this newfangled mechanic on such an old and well-established franchise. Both of your suggestions probably won't end well for EA or C&C as a franchise. Time restrictions (especially things like monthly subscriptions) belong in Facebook games and MMOs. Content restrictions are worse. I can just imagine being locked out from high-tier units, upgrades, abilities and such. Imagine being restricted to a basic unit set, then jumping online and then get sent to the cleaners by someone who bought the best gear with actual money. I don't hate EA, but I'm really starting to get concerned about how their handling the franchise. It's always disappointing when some dev takes a popular or classic series and tries to make a more modern and "accessible" (dumbed down) version, and ends up making something completely unrecognisable. This isn't always the case, but it still happens. A lot.
Why EA. Whhhhyyyy? :(