The Next Command & Conquer Is Still An EALA Project

[Sonic 296]

Despite all of the recent news about the expansion of EA's Visceral Games brand. Electronic Arts have confirmed that the next Command & Conquer is in fact in the early stages of development and its still an EALA project, not a Visceral one. Some people thought Visceral were in charge due to taking Nick Earl's comments out of context. If you read the C&C & Visceral Games - Clarifications & Further Reading news update from a couple of days ago, it explains the current situation somewhat more clearly. Anyway here's the important quote from GameInformer that states Command & Conquer's home is still EALA.

 

EA confirmed with us that a new Command & Conquer title is indeed early in development, but that it was being handled by an Los Angeles-based team that reports to Earl in Redwood Shores, CA. Command & Conquer 4: Tiberium Twilight (shown above) was developed by EA's LA studio, and although it is unknown at this time if that's the L.A. team that is on this nascent C&C game, given that developer's history with the franchise, we'd be surprised if it wasn't.

Click here for the original article. The one important thing out of all this confusion is that there is new game and C&C is alive and well.

[PurpleGaga27 40]

Anyways back on topic, I knew that EALA would mainly be making the next C&C game, despite the fact now it may be outsourced to Visceral Games to do some of the development. It might be a good move, but we have fair hopes that EALA can do better in the future making better C&C games.

[Silverthorn 0]

Better will only be true IF the greedy ******* executives are not in the way.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

I know I had read that they were doing "distributed collaboration" as seen in this quote, but I wonder exactly what Visceral's role is going to be in this? Management?

 

Specifically, the Visceral brand will now share resources with EA Los Angeles, the company's art-focused Shanghai studio, EA Montreal and the newly-built "from scratch" studio in Melbourne, Australia. "Organizationally, we've gone to a very streamlined model," explains Earl.

[eXCheez 0]

So we can stop panicking now and rest assured that it will, in fact, be rubbish.

[Guest Stevie_K]

Sounds good. Now let's hope for a kickass game that will revive C&C to it's original glory.

 

I hope the developers will let the community help early.

[lkRaven 0]

I think problem with previous C&C titles was not because of the DEV team's. Its due to the short sightedness of the management. If the EA management learned their lessons properly this time, then I think we can at least have a hope of an acceptable C&C title. If not we can again get drowned in the sea of utter disappointment and frustration.

[mirza044 4]

I think problem with previous C&C titles was not because of the DEV team's. Its due to the short sightedness of the management. If the EA management learned their lessons properly this time, then I think we can at least have a hope of an acceptable C&C title. If not we can again get drowned in the sea of utter disappointment and frustration.

I agree with you, but I think part of problem with previos C&C titles WAS (and maybe it still is, we shall see) DEV team's. EA exec's don't do design of the C&C units (units like the C&C4 nod engineer - first version - wormman, or ridicioulsly lookong visceroid, etc.), the don't bring decisions like: are we going to have harvestable tiberium fields or some flying crystals or: are obelisks of light going to have standard laser beam or they going to have some ra2 prism-like beam, etc.

Edited October 23, 2010 by mirza044

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Blame Verdu for everything.

[Johnnyxp64 20]

guys its simple math! actually more like arithetics

 

low money by the managment leeds to low dev level and low passion for creation! which then leads to poor quality games which leeds to no sales! > back to now money for the next game!!!!!!

This is the EA cycle for years they dont seems to get it and try to break it!!!!

nothing is for free specially in the vg bussiness!

 

to make good game you have to invest in order to get sales so that you can make new more good games with less investement due to previous success...

 

EA just doesnt seem to get it!

 

they give 3 they demand production for 8 and they belive they will gain 20!!!! this is mathimatically proven SO damn wrong for years now!!!

are they ever gona wake up those damn money leachers and actually INVEST????? MONEY and TIME????? for their own good future? we are not stupid to buy poor quility and rushed games.(beta unpolished versions with lame story) just because they have a good fransize history background!!!!

 

we are fans not morons!

Edited October 23, 2010 by Johnnyxp64

[Nmenth 291]

we are fans not morons!

Well now... how would EA know that with their own forums as their example?

[mirza044 4]

guys its simple math! actually more like arithetics

 

low money by the managment leeds to low dev level and low passion for creation! which then leads to poor quality games which leeds to no sales! > back to now money for the next game!!!!!!

This is the EA cycle for years they dont seems to get it and try to break it!!!!

nothing is for free specially in the vg bussiness!

 

to make good game you have to invest in order to get sales so that you can make new more good games with less investement due to previous success...

 

EA just doesnt seem to get it!

 

they give 3 they demand production for 8 and they belive they will gain 20!!!! this is mathimatically proven SO damn wrong for years now!!!

are they ever gona wake up those damn money leachers and actually INVEST????? MONEY and TIME????? for their own good future? we are not stupid to buy poor quility and rushed games.(beta unpolished versions with lame story) just because they have a good fransize history background!!!!

 

we are fans not morons!

 

You are mostly right, but how you have to be low on money to draw concept art of something like worman, really?

[Silverthorn 0]

Wow, Johnny, you really speak my language. Damn straight! Or maybe I just don't have the sufficient knowledge & proof in order to say it out loud like you did.

 

Anyway, I'm agreeing with you a lot more here. And it's true, they claim themselves to be "Game Giants", but they are just giants with low money in their savings. So far, I wish they would look at how the other unmerged companies like Valve & Blizzard do, but I got the feeling they continue to ignore those examples and do things their way.

 

And Mirza, don't forget, C&C is also well known for creating tons of CGI back in the Westwood days, today, we do not have them anymore other than outsourced CGI movies, which they are freakin' more expensive than if they were made in-house, but in this case, they do not have a CGI room of their own. Stingy stingy stingy!

Edited October 24, 2010 by Silverthorn

[Inferno 22]

Considering the limited time and money EA's given the developers though, I think C&C3 and RA3 have been pretty damn good.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Inferno

[PurpleGaga27 40]

Considering the limited time and money EA's given the developers though, I think C&C3 and RA3 have been pretty damn good.

 

RA3 was more rushed than C&C3. C&C4 was more rushed than RA3. Both RA3 and C&C4 weren't good enough due to the cartoonish graphics and design that some players didn't like.

 

[Revolutionary 0]

RA3 was more rushed than C&C3 ... RA3 ... weren't good enough due to the cartoonish graphics and design that some players didn't like.

 

Speak fo your self, it might have been rushed but the design was a lot better than C&C3. RA3 is the best Command and conquer made since they started puting EA logo's in the intro videos

[Johnnyxp64 20]

Considering the limited time and money EA's given the developers though, I think C&C3 and RA3 have been pretty damn good.

 

i agree with that, but i am not gona critise the game as other did here before my post because of the art direction (cartoonish or not) this kind of comparison for provving qulity or rushed games its forgive me at least stupid to try and do!!!!

to understand rushed games you look at

(polishing, details, angine, performance, features, cgi-directors,music,gameplay fan, STORYline,after sales true Support, BUGS, etc)

 

the Ra3 and CnC3 was the ONLY latest games the EA had invested MORE money than other titles like cnc4 etc,

back then they were hiring now they are firing! totally different!

 

because i know some of the background stories and some of them had allready surfised, if you remember cnc3 started to be a really BIG hit,

lots of stuff to get it lots of good guys working on that an suddenly because the needed more time, the Publisher sayd start CUTING stuff!

like hot cgi movies, even with the ingame engine, (remember the promo video with the mamoth? there suposed to be fool of those during the misions!!!)

so the game was nice but still the resources wasnt that much to be a complete success and make it to all time classic!

 

ra3 again got MORE money specially in upgrading the sage engine to support multicrores new textures and lighting and a freaking detailed tutorial, nice and polished units, the really working seriously on this! but yet again with lomited money but not that limited as other titles.

 

to make it look simplier this was a demo of the budget the studio was given to develop

 

---cnc3 started with 10$ cuted to 9$ little rushed --->cuting stuff when the game required 12$ and 6 more months to be perfect!

----Ra3 started with 12$ no cuts just do the best you can do with those money and time to the old aged sage...and they id great job! as i said a polishing sample is the tutorials! still 0$ in all game for after sales support!!!! only super needed patches and thats all!

they dont pay to keep their game active and alive, and they still wish to have incomes from those unsopported games!

this is silly!

 

its true companies like blizzard had place very high the "support bar" for decades in a single GAME! becaues if you keep your fans happy your company earns respect that leads to SALES and not Piracy----> and sales leads to MONEY!!!! that get invested back to new better games!!!!!!!!

 

as i said its simple math

1+1=2 not 11!

 

conclusion

if you DONT have or dont want to spent those Money and Time investing in this franshize then give it to some one else for gods name!

Edited October 25, 2010 by Johnnyxp64

[Silverthorn 0]

Wow, you continue to shout out more, Johnny. I hope you must have read my post I written regarding about their stingy behavior and stingily prepared budgets, not to mention they can't even replicate the good old Westwood style.

 

Regarding your last paragraph, since I know the execs refuse to give C&C away to some other powerful unmerged companies like Blizzard, I bet they continue to keep it for the sake of, as usual, MONAAY!

 

"Money is our blood, if we take C&C away, we'll be dead and be bankrupt by next week! So, NO, we keep it! Business is business, you ******* moronic fans" --- Random EALA exec

Edited October 25, 2010 by Silverthorn

[Guest Stevie_K]

"Money is our blood, if we take C&C away, we'll be dead and be bankrupt by next week! So, NO, we keep it! Business is business, you ******* moronic fans" --- Random EALA exec

 

I fully understand it from EA's perspective. They won't just let go on a franchise that big. For the right price someone may buy it some day.

 

I'm a bit exited about all the rumors going that Apple is considering spending their 51 billion cash to buy a company. Among the mentioned companies are EA, Sony, Disney, Netflix and Facebook.

Those are just rumors however, but it could be interesting if they actually bought EA and gave a shake in the management

 

At this point the rumor seems somewhat ridiculous.

[Silverthorn 0]

I was going to add an additional sentence of but what the hell, "We are NOT your friends, we are here to make MONEY! So stop complaining, we're not gonna listen to you anyways." --- Another random EALA exec

 

--------------

 

Oh, I never heard of those rumors before, if it does, things might go shaky. If EA is bought out by them, some people will be happy but some will be not. Just like Modern Warfare 2, when you kill Zakhaev (EALA), someone who is much worse like Makarov (Apple) will take over. You may never know. But hold your horses first, if Disney is bought out by them, Marvel (which is bought by Disney last year) will also become Apple's property as well.

 

Anyway, since it's just rumors and are ridiculous, then so be it on that. Honestly, I never like Steve Jobs, his product he creates most of the time has so many problems & yet they're pricey for no good reasons, I can't imagine what he's going to to those merged companies if he does. An EA or future C&C game will become twice the price, from your original $30 sky rocket to $60. Just like the Mac computers, they are strong, but they're pricey and only possess middle-end hardwares, that kind of high price is already more than enough to buy a very high end gaming PC like Alienware.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Silverthorn

[Ferret 0]

buy a very high end gaming PC like Alienware.

 

Sorry but Alienware computers are overpriced. You will save a butt load if you just make your computer from scratch.

 

 

 

[Silverthorn 0]

GC, have you compare the prices between Alienware & a Mac computer? You find that Alienware does really are more expensive, but the value is higher than a Mac. I wish I could show you the specs and compare it for yourself. Here are some of the basic outlines I come up with :

 

Mac : 4GB RAM, Radeon HD 4000 series or Nvidia 200 series, middle end i7 processor

Alienware : 6GB (Upgradable to 8GB), Radeon HD 5000 series or Nvidia 400 series, middle end i7 processor (can still be upgraded to a much higher end, like the Extreme Edition)

 

To be honest, a Mac like this is already as expensive as an Alienware, mine is a Studio (Multimedia-class, one step below gaming-class) laptop and it's a lot cheaper by a few hundreds of US dollars or more and yet it's still kickass with games on near max settings. And sure, PCs from scratch should not be too costly compare to a Mac, which is very very costly like hell. Go to a PC site (I surf Dell) & also open up the Apple site, compare them for yourself, you do know that PC rules the market with cost efficiency and yet powerful more hardwares are provided, Macs are the other way round unfortunately. But still, Gates said it before, PCs still control 90% of the market.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Silverthorn