Golan

I was thinking quite the opposite TBH. Cire's initial post read like "we're looking into it, don't count on it though". JVC's “I don’t think we’re making a list of the features yet" interview mentioned SP only as a "could" on top of a core of co-op skirmishes; not an actual quote though. Now this new one is talking about how they heard the cries for SP and how they "can adjust and adapt to what [they]'re hearing" - you don't adjust and adapt if that was what you already wanted to do all along. Alas, they haven't said either position clearly. So that might just be my pessimism speaking. Why so serious? Let's hope they can put a smile on our faces.

What I find alarming is that he's mentioning SP as something of adjusting to the communities wishes. If they couldn't figure that one out on their own, how should they figure out the details of what makes the game? This makes the whole "it's free, just try it" argument void if you're supposed to act like some marketing guinea pig to get even the most basic wishes across.

I can't help but get a totally different vibe for the impression of gameplay and presentation from this one than I do from the F2P announcement trailer.

I'm missing about 2 or 3 games out of that package, that's simply not worth it. I'd rather get the few missing ones when they are on sale.

I am really beginning to wonder if they have a solid plan beyond the first three weeks after launch. There are so many "might be or might not be, we haven't decided yet" cropping up regularly in interviews, it's not funny anymore.

Frankly, I feel this screenshot looks rather mediocre. This would have been entirely possible even with TW SAGE. Also, the units look much more arcade, much less detailed than on the pre-F2P announcement media.

You were asking him why P2W was bad even for SP. He gave you an answer.It's pretty irrelevant for that answer how games that are not P2W fare, because they obviously won't have the problems of P2W. F2P is already being done by EA, and it's being done poorly. Most of them ahve transformed into P2W. And yes, P2W is a problem for SP as well, so if after all they've messed up they now go "there won't be P2W as it'll hurt MP" I'm sure as hell not going to trust them that the same will apply to SP. I too am willing to wait. For them to proove they have changed. Until then, I don't see any reason to assume the opposite.

Blbpaws, I couldn't have put it better myself! Great post. Those games are not P2W. Sadly, that makes them the exception on the market.

Nothing of value in there. Really, he says practically nothing at all. I find some of it quite alarming, actually. He speaks of "build a zillion units" when the more tactical approach was definitely one of Gen1's biggest strengths. He mentions "Tiberium and Red Alert as well as some others as well" which means they must already be working on a crapload of content to sell, one of the major problems of their earlier quantity over quality strategies. The “I don’t think we’re making a list of the features yet (...)" pretty much reads like they have no idea yet what actually to do for eSports.

Well,factions would of course be possible, they are modular by design. Though problems arise when they try to add in more factions then their original design was made for. Units/upgrades could be an option as part of ZH Generals like subfactions. There's lots of room fro game modes, maps and possibly campaigns. While I don't think skins will be as good selling as for MOBA/FPS, they should be an option too. It's just the EA label on all those options that gives me the creeps.

I'm not so much opposed to F2P as much as I'm opposed to EA pulling another marketing fad. Hell, I'm an SP fan but I immensely enjoy DOTA2. It's simply that EA has lost their advance trust and this new system doesn't spell "less risk for gamers" as much as "less risk for EA" for me. Do I like the C&C Free to Play Idea under EA's supervision? No.

A shame to see this quoted here. I don't understand why his frequent insults towards SP gamers are tolerated without a word and even actively spread. Anyways, like so many of AGM's article this one too only focuses on an ideal picture and blatantly disregards the problems of the issue. 1. F2P only attracts players. It doesn't keep them. With a ratio of only 0.6% competitive players per unit sold for the single best MP C&C ever (according to AGM's numbers, no less), attracting isn't the problem at all. 2. F2P also doesn't work for all games. Notably, none of the games listed are RTS. They are all team based, low scale tactical games. That is drastically different from a 1vs1 focused RTS game. The most likely conclusion is that they will seriously rework the C&C formula to appear to a much more casual player base with fancy game modes, flashy and gimicky gameplay and quick games. 3. The base game is free. With the additional content however, which are likely going to be additional factions, maps and other non-cosmetic stuff (also judging from the info available so far), you are simply buying a similar sized poke of smaller but more pigs. 4. This is utter and complete bull****. EA has sold series with lacking gameplay for years, it's one of the prime reason AGM's so riled up against SP. People never care. They want fun stuff, flashy stuff, fancy stuff, whether the gameplay is good or great in any way the article would rate it doesn't count ****. 5. Well, basically the same as 4. People have proven they will stick around as long as EA just promises to do better next time very, very hard. The entire article is prove of how they just have to make a fancy promise and they have vocal PR without actually doing anything of worth. 6. Optimism. After all this, optimism. Seriously. That's the reason why they can go on seelling not-quite great stuff: this naive, blind optimism. It's not the SP gamers that AGM should loathe. Both in the MP and SP crowd, it's people like him that make sure EA can keep going.

That FAQ is rather bare. I'd really like to know some more details about this project, namely how their resources (developers, time constraints) have changed and how far Gen2 was actually in development. In how far can they expect this to be seen as an AAA RTS when it will basically never be a finished product? What I find odd is how they tie the possibility of SP to player feedback - building up a pure MP framework at the start, what do they seriously expect? By the time they could focus on an SP, I doubt there'd be many people interested in SP left.

I like what you did to the place.

It's artwork like this that makes me wish for a C&C themed FPS or RPG.

The Naval Yards will be pre-placed like all other tech structures (but on shallow water instead), you simply have to capture them.

I don't usually like such mashup scenarios, but for some reasons these concept arts have about the right feeling for me. It's a strange but fascinating blend between gritty but overused modern combat scenarios and refreshing but over-the-top comical scenarios.

Indeed it's not that for me either. SP for me means stuff like Deus Ex, great story but more importantly also gameplay, presentation and setting all coming together. Interestingly, I feel it's a game that did the whole "take a pick" approach much better by operating with consequences and impact instead of BW's good/evil meter. This is something that IMO would nicely fit to an RTS which operates on a grander scale anyways, focusing more on large-scale long-term consequences instead of being mean to grannies.

Keep in mind that BioWareVictory (or whatever they call it now) is not the Bioware that made the ME or DA Series. Or BG, for that matter. The BW guys of old are involved in the development but, as far as interview information goes, more in the role of general guidance and advice.

Personally, I'm looking forward to a well made SP. Don't personally care for MP, I've found it to be frustratingly repetitive and requiring too much time to enjoy. Still, I hope they won't let the MP folks down, it's about time C&C gets out of its niche again.

The tanks don't just resemble the WH40k models, they are about 95% direct copies. This goes so far as having hatches, sights and armor plating subdivision match. Contrast this to the WH40k tanks being moronic from a tank engineering standpoint.

It pretty much is. They've copied all major components and even most details.

Didn't realize they were that "similar" until I saw the comparison montages. It's pretty much what a model would turn out if I was given the W40k pictures and instructed to make a 3D model. With so many key shapes and details from the W40k models being present in the TA models, the intent to copy is the only explanation I have.

Never played it despite having a few chances, even with the open beta now I have zero urge to give it a try. The game simply doesn't appear to be any more than a time sink to me.

Someone seems to like WH40k. Not what I would have picked for The Forgotten, but it fits the overall style. That placeholder text really is telling. ^^