Jump to content
We see you're using an ad blocker of some kind. And hey, that's okay! Some of us do, too! We just want you to know
that we don't use conventional spammy ads at CNCNZ.com. We only link to our own internal projects, or other sites
within the Command & Conquer community! Who knows, you might see a mod or download you like! Thanks!

Banshee

Members
  • Content count

    309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About Banshee

  • Rank
    Sergeant Major

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

5,807 profile views
  1. In order to optimize performance, it is better to not use compression, however, to limit all files loaded by the game at the same area of the hard disk drive, which is what .BIG files do on some games from EA, for instance. However, to protect the assets of these games from modders, hackers or the rivals, most developers add encryption, which does not reduce the game size. Most of them are really not caring for compression anymore... but of course, there will be exceptions, specially on medias where space is still limited (certain consoles).
  2. Use DLCs instead. Sell more storyline related content/campaigns.
  3. Necessity? Really? I see that more as a bonus. Games are still able to do a lot of money without loot boxes.
  4. Yes, it is... right now. But I think EA is surprisingly working on a long term for this one.
  5. Same point. Look at the history of this engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_(game_engine) As far as I know EA, it was originally built for Battlefield games (FPS) and EA has been trying to force to use it to every game genre. So, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't designed for a general purpose game engine in first place (differently from Unreal and Unity). However, I cannot fully confirm this information. This kind of article and the experience that I had by playing the Command & Conquer canceled game certainly goes on that direction, but it is not clear how is the engine changed when they have to create non-FPS games and how is it shared between EA development teams for the development of future games. How would the 'core' of the engine is edited when they say they have to "write it from scratch"? As soon as BioWare shares their RPG game code for it, if it is possible, it will become more friendly for future RPG games. If it is not possible, then I will be able to confirm your point about the engine being retarded or totally inadequate for it.
  6. I won't take the merits of Frostbite here, if it is good or retarded, since I've never tried to make a game with it in my life. But, being rational for once, somebody has to start somewhere. They want Frostbite to be compatible with every type of game, so they naturally need to develop the engine. This is why the Victory Games team was given a lot of time to adapt the engine to RTS. Rewriting or extending it? There is a lot of difference between both cases... and none of us are in position to judge it. It really depends on how Frostbite was designed in first place. And again, we do not know Frostbite enough to take this kind of conclusion. It is hard to design good generic game engines. Frostbite is DICE's attempt to do it. It is not as tested and as used as Unreal or Unity because it is restricted to games from EA.
  7. Do you really think that the main reason that EA uses Frostbite in its products is graphical technology? There is more to Frostbite than you know about. It allows EA to hire third party (cheaper studios and workers from India, China, etc) on other countries to work together in a game. It is also an EA engine, so they won't need to pay royalties to other companies. And it is also a way for EA to set their own game production standards. It also allows them to differentiate from other companies in terms of graphical technology. It also prevent different teams to do effort do solve the same kind of graphical/physics/AI related problems... as well as that engine is more integrated with Origin (monetization purposes mostly) than other engines. So, surprisingly, Frostbite was also made to cut costs.
  8. I don't know exactly what kind of scandal he made about this place on Reddit (and you don't need to link it in public if you decide to explain it), but you seem to have a very biased perspective against him. Some of his posts states the obvious, ok... but some others actually contribute with some interesting content for this place, even if he is unable to argue or discuss it properly once someone answers him... Anyway, this one you are saying that he is not seeking transparency can be interpreted in many different ways. I think he posted that for more transparency, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to post it at all, but each person has their own way to filter what is around them.
  9. Why is there so much hostility towards him? He posted obvious stuff as a (failed) strategy to motivate you guys to post your next steps and as a way to say that there are important and relevant changes that are not being announced to the public in this topic. In short, PurpleGaga27 expects more transparency. And it doesn't seem to be any kind of crime to expect that here, is it?
  10. Revisiting EA in a Nutshell video

    Most people here doesn't care as much for other companies as they care for EA, mainly because of the C&C franchise. But it is true that many other companies have policies as bad as EA's (or worse) or simply produce a bunch of trash.
  11. It worries me to see legislators that try to legislate into things that they don't know about. Let's get started with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling The person who buys loot boxes wages for digital goodies on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning better performance conditions in a game (Star Wars Battlefront II, for instance). If the person knows they won't get any money or material goods, then it is not gambling. Let me make something clear here: the loot box system is something extremely unethical and must be boycotted by players. But it is no gambling. What is done there is seen in certain free games like Fire Emblem Heroes, but the execution is worse, since the person buys the game and must pay for the loot boxes (at least originally). For comparison purposes, on FEH, you get heroes form an event with an uncertain outcome, however, you are not forced to pay for it. Of course that those who doesn't pay for it will have a much harder time to find the heroes they are looking for... and in that game, 5 stars heroes are tremendously better than anything else... and getting non-5 stars heroes to become 5 stars for free required an absurdly annoying amount of effort to say the least. In any case, this kind of game is abominable. But I think that constant bad reviews and strong internet noise works much better than laws created by legislators who doesn't know what they are dealing with and that will only create means to get more censorship, make games and their localization more expensive (due to increasing legal costs) and break other games due to misuse and misinterpretation of badly written laws.
  12. That is true for everything in the game. Therefore, while a statement of fact, it is not an argument against microtransactions. I disagree with you here. I think it is a valid argument against almost every microtransaction, unless the microtransaction is just a mean to buy story related content that is playable offline.
  13. My point is that, it becomes gambling if there is a chance that the player will get money with that. I.e.: if you buy loot boxes and use it to your advantage in ranked competitions with monetary prizes, then it is gambling. If there is no chance that the person will get money with that, then it differs from gambling, in my point of view. Of course, it still motivates lame players to pay to win and it is a very lame and stupid thing, but it is just a worse version of collection of figurines, because, at least with figurines, you could exchange the ones you didn't need with your friends.
  14. Gambling usually involves the client spending money to win money. Are you (player) able to get money with Battlefront II with loot boxes? Of course, that doesn't make loot boxes good in anyway. I've never spent cash with pay to win games and I still plan to keep not spending a single penny for them. That's the best thing users can do... and of course, a big noise in the web to scare the hell out of these companies who insist to do this kind of crap. I agree with Nmenth here when he says:
×