Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sonic

New Article: The Future of the Command & Conquer Franchise

Recommended Posts

Keep in mind, this topic is about the future, not the past. I know I opened the door, bringing up the past ten years, but try to not go further off topic with it.

Share this post


Link to post

(Nmenth - I think the 2008 retrospective article is a great idea. I'd be really interested in reading your findings.)

 

In one of the articles I quickly found in the googlemachine - 2008 was a year that EA was claiming loudly and proudly about all the original content it was producing and not some lame license tie-in. It's a risky strategy that, among other things - didn't pay off for EA. Moving forward I guess you need to pay the bills and so you tend to stick to sure bets. For the good of the franchise - we need some risk/innovation - and this is the very reason that that EA should probably sell the IP... But in business you don't want to help your fellow competitors by giving them a free-kick to make money off you, and so the very reason you block other people developing your content. So no joy there.

 

.

.

.

I think an engine release is a good way to keep faith with the fans. What I like about this model - is simply it takes the pressure of the House of EA to develop content in the short term - and keep the value of the IP alive. For the purpose of an EA full retail release in the future.

 

I would probably be happy to pay a monthly subscription for an engine that allows fans to develop free mods; and depending on the quality I could probably imagine myself investing in small in-game purchases to reward individual mod teams.

Share this post


Link to post

(Nmenth - I think the 2008 retrospective article is a great idea. I'd be really interested in reading your findings.)

 

In one of the articles I quickly found in the googlemachine - 2008 was a year that EA was claiming loudly and proudly about all the original content it was producing and not some lame license tie-in. It's a risky strategy that, among other things - didn't pay off for EA. Moving forward I guess you need to pay the bills and so you tend to stick to sure bets. For the good of the franchise - we need some risk/innovation - and this is the very reason that that EA should probably sell the IP... But in business you don't want to help your fellow competitors by giving them a free-kick to make money off you, and so the very reason you block other people developing your content. So no joy there.

 

.

.

.

I think an engine release is a good way to keep faith with the fans. What I like about this model - is simply it takes the pressure of the House of EA to develop content in the short term - and keep the value of the IP alive. For the purpose of an EA full retail release in the future.

 

I would probably be happy to pay a monthly subscription for an engine that allows fans to develop free mods; and depending on the quality I could probably imagine myself investing in small in-game purchases to reward individual mod teams.

I kinda like this idea actually. Also, they could take it a step further and have a sort of competition/contest where the community can vote on which original mod they like the best and EA can give the winners a bit of a cash prize and make that the next C&C game. I know this would never happen with them of course but man, would that not be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post

While it's a great article, Sonic, a few other things:

1) Rebooting C&C can be a good thing, but it cannot start with F2P and retail DLCs. I mean F2P is the wrong way for C&C, especially with the exception of Tiberium Alliances which is still struggling to keep it going despite tedious gameplay at times.

2) A C&C FPS is great with any graphics engine (but I would prefer third-person shooter on a Frostbite engine), but EA does not have the experience to bring it on alongside other great EA shooter games like Battlefield, Medal of Honor and Dead Space. If only EA hired Totem Arts, DICE or Bioware to re-develop Tiberium or Renegade 2 with a budget (and a good story and better gameplay mechanics), it would be a good presence for the C&C community all over again who wanted to play action games.

3) People wanted Generals 2, but EA doesn't seem to be interested in getting a retail version of Generals 2, unless a SP campaign with a story is made other than MP content. As for C&C5 and RA4, they might happen unless EA comes up with a new story(s). What C&C really needs now is a new polished retail game..... refreshed, revamped, rebooted, reloaded..... and with experienced RTS developers, not new ones.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

DICE, just like VG, is wholly owned by EA.

 

There's a team at DICE responsible for the tech. They did most of the big internals work on the engine - it was a dedicated effort. Not closed sourced.

Oh, I know EA owns them both. It was just kinda strange how they said they had to go back and forward between their team and Dice to get their changes made. It seems like they built it all into the original engine rather than just splitting off the RTS one from the main one.

 

In fact, that would be a very good reason for them not to release the engine...

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×