Possible Command & Conquer 4 Release Date

[Sonic 297]

A few sources have listed a possible release date for the recently announced Command & Conquer 4. A date of 30th March 2010 has been discovered at GamesTracker. Along with pre-order deals being listed at both EBGames and GameStop. Its way to early to think about pre-ordering Command & Conquer 4 though. As always this release date is unconfirmed and subject to change.

[Guest Stevie_K]

Im like the longer the better. There is nothing worse than a rushed game.

 

I wouldn't care waiting a year longer for a closer to perfect C&C4.

[Sonic 297]

Its not a rushed game. C&C 4 has already been in development for around a year now. APOC confirmed this here http://forums.cncnz.com/index.php?showtopic=12118.

[Silverthorn 0]

Sounds good to me, at least they kept that project a total classified secret for a year and it was the right time to spill it out.

[Luk3us 63]

Yeah March next year sounds about right.

 

As long as I get to play the beta this year of course.

[NODSOLDIERGIRL 2]

Yeah I think they have the right dates at least I hope. I will pre-order it for sure.

[Malevolence 6]

Its not a rushed game. C&C 4 has already been in development for around a year now. APOC confirmed this here http://forums.cncnz.com/index.php?showtopic=12118.

 

Actually it sounds like they spent a year to simply plan, but they have until 2010 jan or something to actually work on it, sounds pretty tight schedule to create something, and the extra 2 months for manufacturing and marketing.

[Gben 20]

I'm happier with that sort of release date, but I would prefer a 3yr cycle between games...

a year of rest and brain storming,

a year of development,

a year of tweaking and balancing the concept to finished result.

[recover 2]

I have gotten the impression that once EA decides on a date, they generally decide to scrap features rather than delay the release date if they run out of time. Anyone got some facts?

[Silverthorn 0]

I also do not mind having delays in case of something goes horribly wrong or in need of more balancing.

 

BUT don't put too many delays like those crazy Blizzard people who can't promise their Starcraft fans. All that delays here and there as well as "When it's done" excuses really make people piss off. It's so not professional when they can't meet the deadlines properly or either by their improper planning.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Guest Stevie_K]

Yeah March next year sounds about right.

 

As long as I get to play the beta this year of course.

 

Did you have to mention that

I know,.. damn I want in!!

[Nmenth 292]

BUT don't put too many delays like those crazy Blizzard people who can't promise their Starcraft fans. All that delays here and there as well as "When it's done" excuses really make people piss off. It's so not professional when they can't meet the deadlines properly or either by their improper planning.

I'd rather have excessive delays and lame excuses than a bad product.

[Malevolence 6]

I have gotten the impression that once EA decides on a date, they generally decide to scrap features rather than delay the release date if they run out of time. Anyone got some facts?

 

From what I know EA (the main big corp.) set specific rules and regulations. So whoever that comes out with a specific deadline, our C&C dev team had to finish it up by that specific dateline, whether they like it or not. So there will not be any delays just to polish up / finish up the product (much to our disappointment). Logical choice, scrapping promised features... there you have it.

[Silverthorn 0]

I'd rather have excessive delays and lame excuses than a bad product.

 

Well, like Mal said, EA does follow some QC rules & policies to ensure they get things done in time. Like an air crash, if it goes down, lessons learned. Similar case to our poor FPS Tiberium, got canceled and it saddens many of us, that's why EA fix up that policy to ensure they get it done in time. And definitely they will not be like Blizzard, Blizzard don't have policies which EA currently has, that's why you see all that delays & excuses they give, from what I know, they are using the excuses to cover up their poor qualities. They are using time to ensure they pass QC check while EA uses manpower to pass QC check.

 

Even if SC2 is going to become the next "Game of the Century" upon release and so forth, but the people around the world WILL remember all the lame excuses & bad delays they made. It is a huge disgrace during development and the "Game of the Century" title given by various famous game sites WILL NOT cover up the past & its slow development state.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Well that would coincide roughly with TW, KW, Uprising, and RA3 PS3 release dates.

[Gben 20]

Truely, I would rather wait, blizzard-length-delays, for a good game. Blizzard and Valve are not omnipotent, but their games are worth the wait.

 

Besides I have an attention span that lasts longer than an tv ad break, and I don't have the spare cash to buy new games every month!!!

[Silverthorn 0]

Valve was not all that bad, Valve even did a bad mistake for creating Left 4 Dead 2 too early when they put too little support on L4D1, thus creating an outcry which results in the boycott. Valve managed to recover from that problem, but not Blizzard, their reputation is getting worse for more delays as well as the LAN problem, worse, Diablo 3's graphics. Fans were angry over the petitions and Blizzard ignores them. Pathetic, instead of getting better, Blizzard is beginning to get worse.

 

But anyway, it's best that things are done professionally. EA did set deadlines specifically to ensure we wait with patience, if there's a major problem, pushing the deadline is ok, but pushing too much is more like becoming like Blizzard, which I don't think EA will do that, they'll embarrass themselves as well as us.

[Malevolence 6]

Truely, I would rather wait, blizzard-length-delays, for a good game.

 

Well I guessed to EA (the main guys), they think that long delays simply waste time and money. If you waste another say 6 months delay to release Product A, you could have used the 6 months do plan on the next product B, in conclusion more products out = more profits.

 

So seriously, save your effort, don't bother arguing and complaining about delaying the game etc, the EALA guys are just small fry in the EA corporation and can't have much to say, and the top leaders of money hungry corporation won't listen. That's how these corp. stuff works.

 

The least these EALA guys could do is to please you guys with patches, and more updates and patches. I think we should thank these EALA folks for the effort.

[Silverthorn 0]

True, I agree. C&C3 was a bad option because of too many balancing issues, until the beta idea was born after that.

 

But not Blizzard, like I said, even if they release the SC2 game in time and even after acquiring the biggest "Ultimate Game of the Century" title, it WILL NOT cover their past slow development & delay excuses. Like the painful C&C Generals, except it's the reverse AND it did leaves a permanent scar on the franchise.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Gben 20]

I think a hard, final, and definite release date only makes good business sense, I just feel the cycle to be too short, and that the cycle should be extended for balancing purposes.