Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sonic

CNCNZ.com Poll: Do You Like the New C&C Free to Play Idea?

Recommended Posts

If you have been following the news all day you would have heard about the big changes for Command & Conquer and its new Free to Play concept. So with that in mind, it is time for the new poll. So tell us, Do you like the new C&C Free to Play Idea? Is this a great move for the future of the franchise or maybe you think this is a terrible idea and not what C&C needs. But you could be one of the undecided people.

 

If you are reading this update on the main page, just look to your right and vote in the poll box. If you're reading this via the forums, click here to cast your vote. And, as always, don't forget to share any feedback or comments about this poll as well.

 

61.png

 

Here are the results of our previous poll, In what way will EA's Origin influence your purchase of Generals 2? Although these results are kind of irrelevant considering the changes to the game, 50% said Origin would not be a deciding factor in the purchase of the new C&C. The full results of this poll can be found right here.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind the move, it just depends on how they handle the PAY part.

 

Maybe they're be like Battlefield 3, where you grind to get everything, or you pay a 'small fee' and get everything straight away. Or they might go the EVIL Mass Effect 3 route, were you pay for 'packs' that give you 'random items'.

 

But if it becomes free to play, pay to win. Then nope, it'll just be a ****.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. It's a good move. Especially now that it's multiplayer only. Removing "Generals 2", maybe not that good of an idea (we'll see).

 

In C&C4 it was impossible to get in an online game a month after it had been released. THAT was absolutely ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post

NO, I despise the move.

Edited by Sonic
Part if this comment has been removed. Direct insults towards EA staff or anyone here will not be tolerated

Share this post


Link to post

The move is fine if they do it right. Like release new armies or factions for $10 or something. New content while making sure the old is still battle capable is a fine idea. They need to watch out for power creep and I have some, but not much, faith in EA to do this well enough that it's not a bad way to enjoy C&C.

Share this post


Link to post

I just heard about this news through Nerdcubed's latest video (Go watch that actually, you may like it!)... I was shocked.. I dunno what to make of this.. I was actually looking forward to Generals 2!

 

I'll go out on a limb here though and say that it could be one of EA's best ideas to date (kill me if you wish)... I've played Petroglyph's End of Nations Beta, and it is bloody brilliant (not to keen on the overkill UI though)... This too can be something special and enable some great multiplayer opportunities.

 

However, the game play from the C&C trailer reminds me of an old Free to Play MMORTS Linux game:

 

 

I wonder if EA took the basic model from Hive Rise and ran with it??

Edited by Saracen

Share this post


Link to post

The move is fine if they do it right.

 

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post

The move is fine as long as there's solid SP content.

Share this post


Link to post

The move is fine as long as there's solid SP content.

 

This too. Actually I only care for SP content related to Tiberian universe (and to some degree SP content related to RA universe).

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't like the move by EA, but I could have thought that Bioware/Victory could have done something better than F2P. The problem is that they can't come up with a new SP campaign for Generals 2 with an epic modern warfare story and make it into a $60 blockbuster release. The last time a game that I knew that had excellent and balanced SP and MP was Warcraft III with UT2004 as runner-up. The big question now is will the EU and GLA factions remain in this F2P game?

Share this post


Link to post

The big question now is will the EU and GLA factions remain in this F2P game?

This has been said many times - YES, they will remain, as all Generals 2 material was reused in C&C2k13.

Share this post


Link to post

So I guess EA has yet to come up with a new subtitle for C&C. My guesses: C&C Modern Warfare, C&C Modern Arena, C&C Generals Alliances (don't think EA may be going for that).

Share this post


Link to post

The problem I have with the free to play model only appears in conjunction with the RTS model. EA will want to sell things to players in order for the game to make money. But what can you sell via microtransactions or otherwise, in an RTS, without altering the balance?

 

In order to achieve those requirements, the sale items would have to be not units, not factions, not powers or upgrades or tiers. Any kind of progression in an RTS divides the community and unbalances the game whenever you play against someone who doesn't have the exact same access as you do.

 

With that said, what's left?

 

And that's why I say this is a bad thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

The move to a F2P type of game isn't all that welcome in my book. I guess our classic C&C generation has truly come to an end. What really p***ed me off is the fact that they just demolished Generals 2 in a blink of an eye and are trying to "reboot" a whole series (I remember something about revisiting the Tiberium universe in the future being mentioned...). Why call the game Command and Conquer, that's the name of the whole series and of course the game that started it all - C&C 1. That's just not right... And transferring parts of the original Generals universe (the GLA for example) to a newer reboot-type world (so they exist in two separate games)? You've gotta be kidding me. :(

 

So I guess EA has yet to come up with a new subtitle for C&C. My guesses: C&C Modern Warfare, C&C Modern Arena, C&C Generals Alliances (don't think EA may be going for that).

I don't understand why you even bothered to post this... :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post

I don't like how "cartoony" the units and animations are looking from the trailer. I think this is a move by EA to lessen the blow of having a radical, terrorist group in the fray (with suicide bombers, etc).

 

However, that doesn't really dwell on my thought about this too much. I was initially a bit perplexed and upset, but we'll see. I'll wait till I play to judge it. But, from EA's history and the seeming indecisiveness and lack of communication they have with the community regarding the game's development -- my hopes aren't high.

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.

×