From http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487002:

So they're reskinning the original Command & Conquer 4 version (before they dumped FMV and solo play into that always on, F2P design)?

Fuck! D:

I was excited for Generals 2, as I adore the first Generals (and still play it regularly), but now I'm not so sure anymore :(

Don't they already have a F2P C&C game?

Just watched the Gamescom trailer, and it looks amazing.

Sadly I don't trust the free2play business modell - I believe gamedesign suffers in order to cater to it, just like all the unfair arcade machines of yesteryear hungry for their next quarter. That said, I've never had any online distributable cash and I've never actually spent money on a free 2 play game - seeing how it's harder and harder not to be in on the digital revolution and play all the great digital-only indie games, I guess I'll soon have to try how it feels to spend money on free 2 play games - as soon as I grab a debit card.

Looks amazing, doesn't it. Shame it ain't a regular retail release.

Ugh

Sounds great, but hey EA.
 
We'll see.

That's interesting. Age of Empires did it, and it went alright for them.

I'm surprised fighting games have not investigated F2P. They already want to sell you additional costumes and colors. Why not do a LoL or SMNC system where there's 6-8 fighters free any week, out of an expanding pool of 20-30 or so. You'll get more people in if they don't have to pay 60 bucks up front, and the hardcore fans will probably put more than 60 overall.

They probably don't have enough faith in what they had so they made it F2P in order to cut their loses. Weird.

I was looking forward to this... now; color me skeptical :/

Oh well, I still got my backlog to go through so not the end of the world for me :)

Pay 2 Win, fuck that.

"The following is actual gameplay"

This game either has the worst camera controls / experience of any RTS from any era or the people who did the caption didn't know what that means and should have use the phrase "The following is rendered entirely in-engine".

Ah well. C&C hasn't really been good for years though. No real loss.

@Shivoa: Sigh, yeah... Good old marketing department for ya ;) Gotta love 'em.

@Seppli said:

Sadly I don't trust the free2play business modell - I believe gamedesign suffers in order to cater to it

Right on the money! Pun intended.

I refuse to play a game whose game design revolves around a "business model".

Looks good to me. Now I won't have to worry about investing money to try it out. Oh wait, is this the thread where we lambast the game before we know any details?

No!!!!!

@mtcantor said:

Ah well. C&C hasn't really been good for years though. No real loss.

CnC 4 was the first bad CnC game that I played.

@Seppli said:

Sadly I don't trust the free2play business modell - I believe gamedesign suffers in order to cater to it

Right on the money! Pun intended.

I refuse to play a game whose game design revolves around a "business model".

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Seppli said:

Sadly I don't trust the free2play business modell - I believe gamedesign suffers in order to cater to it

Right on the money! Pun intended.

I refuse to play a game whose game design revolves around a "business model".

Now you miss out on Pac-Man. And The Legend of Zelda. They both rely on business models.

Dude, I'm obviously not talking about full price games since their game design is not impacted by the pay-once purchase decision... other than them having to be great games that are worth the price. But their actual gameplay mechanics are not structured around further nickel-and-diming the player.

And yes, I missed out on arcade gaming, if you mean that by referring to Pac-Man. And I'm glad I did.

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Seppli said:

Sadly I don't trust the free2play business modell - I believe gamedesign suffers in order to cater to it

Right on the money! Pun intended.

I refuse to play a game whose game design revolves around a "business model".

Now you miss out on Pac-Man. And The Legend of Zelda. They both rely on business models.

Dude, I'm obviously not talking about full price games since their game design is not impacted by the pay-once purchase decision... other than them having to be great games that are worth the price. But their actual gameplay mechanics are not structured around further nickel-and-diming the player.

And yes, I missed out on arcade gaming, if you mean that by referring to Pac-Man. And I'm glad I did.

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Seppli said:

Sadly I don't trust the free2play business modell - I believe gamedesign suffers in order to cater to it

Right on the money! Pun intended.

I refuse to play a game whose game design revolves around a "business model".

Now you miss out on Pac-Man. And The Legend of Zelda. They both rely on business models.

Dude, I'm obviously not talking about full price games since their game design is not impacted by the pay-once purchase decision... other than them having to be great games that are worth the price. But their actual gameplay mechanics are not structured around further nickel-and-diming the player.

And yes, I missed out on arcade gaming, if you mean that by referring to Pac-Man. And I'm glad I did.

No, their gameplay mechanics aren't based around nickel and diming them, they're based on Sixty Dollaring them. You're not talking about method, you're talking about value, and value requires specifics. Comparing all F2P games by some games with bad gameplay is saying that all retail games are ripoffs because of Homefront.

Here's the difference: full price games don't have to directly incorporate monetization strategies into their game mechanics.

In a full-price game, the gameplay mechanics are designed towards the goal of making a great game.

In a F2P game, the gameplay mechanics are designed to make the player buy stuff.

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Seppli said:

Sadly I don't trust the free2play business modell - I believe gamedesign suffers in order to cater to it

Right on the money! Pun intended.

I refuse to play a game whose game design revolves around a "business model".

Now you miss out on Pac-Man. And The Legend of Zelda. They both rely on business models.

Dude, I'm obviously not talking about full price games since their game design is not impacted by the pay-once purchase decision... other than them having to be great games that are worth the price. But their actual gameplay mechanics are not structured around further nickel-and-diming the player.

And yes, I missed out on arcade gaming, if you mean that by referring to Pac-Man. And I'm glad I did.

No, their gameplay mechanics aren't based around nickel and diming them, they're based on Sixty Dollaring them. You're not talking about method, you're talking about value, and value requires specifics. Comparing all F2P games by some games with bad gameplay is saying that all retail games are ripoffs because of Homefront.

Here's the difference: full price games don't have to directly incorporate monetization strategies into their game mechanics.

In a full-price game, the gameplay mechanics are designed towards the goal of making a great game.

In a F2P game, the gameplay mechanics are designed to make the player buy stuff.

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Seppli said:

Sadly I don't trust the free2play business modell - I believe gamedesign suffers in order to cater to it

Right on the money! Pun intended.

I refuse to play a game whose game design revolves around a "business model".

Now you miss out on Pac-Man. And The Legend of Zelda. They both rely on business models.

Dude, I'm obviously not talking about full price games since their game design is not impacted by the pay-once purchase decision... other than them having to be great games that are worth the price. But their actual gameplay mechanics are not structured around further nickel-and-diming the player.

And yes, I missed out on arcade gaming, if you mean that by referring to Pac-Man. And I'm glad I did.

No, their gameplay mechanics aren't based around nickel and diming them, they're based on Sixty Dollaring them. You're not talking about method, you're talking about value, and value requires specifics. Comparing all F2P games by some games with bad gameplay is saying that all retail games are ripoffs because of Homefront.

Here's the difference: full price games don't have to directly incorporate monetization strategies into their game mechanics.

In a full-price game, the gameplay mechanics are designed towards the goal of making a great game.

In a F2P game, the gameplay mechanics are designed to make the player buy stuff.

No. I played 30 hours of Super Monday Night Combat, and that's not true whatsoever. You're just being unreasonable and ignorantly judging an entire field of games because it's either than judging games on their merits. Under your scenario, all arcade games core gameplay mechanics are about getting more quarters. Pac-Man is about avoiding ghosts and eating pellets. Donkey Kong is about climbing ladders and jumping barrels. SMNC is about shooting dudes and spawning bots. LOTRO is about clicking dudes and pressing 1. Trying to divorce the gameplay because of the business model (the VALUE of the game) is nonsense.

1. F2P games HAVE to incorporate incentives to buy stuff into their game mechanics to a certain degree. It's balancing act, and some do it better than others. I, however, want ZERO influence of this kind impacting the actual game design. I want designers to worry only about how to make the game better and not about how to suck as much money out of the players pockets without completely driving them off.

2. And yes, you're right. Arcade games have always been about nickel-and-diming the player.

3. Most importantly, I want to immerse myself into games and say goodbye to the real world for a few hours. That's not possible when the game constantly reminds me of further purchase options. For this reason I'm avoiding certain full price games as well, btw. Diablo 3, for instance.

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam

@Seppli said:

Sadly I don't trust the free2play business modell - I believe gamedesign suffers in order to cater to it

Right on the money! Pun intended.

I refuse to play a game whose game design revolves around a "business model".

Now you miss out on Pac-Man. And The Legend of Zelda. They both rely on business models.

Dude, I'm obviously not talking about full price games since their game design is not impacted by the pay-once purchase decision... other than them having to be great games that are worth the price. But their actual gameplay mechanics are not structured around further nickel-and-diming the player.

And yes, I missed out on arcade gaming, if you mean that by referring to Pac-Man. And I'm glad I did.

No, their gameplay mechanics aren't based around nickel and diming them, they're based on Sixty Dollaring them. You're not talking about method, you're talking about value, and value requires specifics. Comparing all F2P games by some games with bad gameplay is saying that all retail games are ripoffs because of Homefront.

Here's the difference: full price games don't have to directly incorporate monetization strategies into their game mechanics.

In a full-price game, the gameplay mechanics are designed towards the goal of making a great game.

In a F2P game, the gameplay mechanics are designed to make the player buy stuff.

No. I played 30 hours of Super Monday Night Combat, and that's not true whatsoever. You're just being unreasonable and ignorantly judging an entire field of games because it's either than judging games on their merits. Under your scenario, all arcade games core gameplay mechanics are about getting more quarters. Pac-Man is about avoiding ghosts and eating pellets. Donkey Kong is about climbing ladders and jumping barrels. SMNC is about shooting dudes and spawning bots. LOTRO is about clicking dudes and pressing 1. Trying to divorce the gameplay because of the business model (the VALUE of the game) is nonsense.

1. F2P games HAVE to incorporate incentives to buy stuff into their game mechanics to a certain degree. It's balancing act, and some do it better than others. I, however, want ZERO influence of this kind impacting the actual game design. I want designers to worry only about how to make the game better and not about how to suck as much money out of the players pockets without completely driving them off.

2. And yes, you're right. Arcade games have always been about nickel-and-diming the player.

3. Most importantly, I want to immerse myself into games and say goodbye to the real world for a few hours. That's not possible when the game constantly reminds me of further purchase options. For this reason I'm avoiding certain full price games as well, btw. Diablo 3, for instance.

@blueduck: I always said (not in this thread) that I make an exception for purely (!) cosmetic F2P models since those have nothing whatsoever to do with gameplay mechanics. But these approaches are exceptions. Not even TF2's business model is of purely cosmetic nature (at least I was told that apart from the famous hats you can also buy weapons that you otherwise would have to find). You may correct me on that last point.

@blueduck: I always said (not in this thread) that I make an exception for purely (!) cosmetic F2P models since those have nothing whatsoever to do with gameplay mechanics. But these approaches are exceptions. Not even TF2's business model is of purely cosmetic nature (at least I was told that you can buy weapons that you otherwise would have to find). You may correct me on that last point.

@blueduck said:

@CptBedlam said:

@blueduck: I always said (not in this thread) that I make an exception for purely (!) cosmetic F2P models since those have nothing whatsoever to do with gameplay mechanics. But these approaches are exceptions. Not even TF2's business model is of purely cosmetic nature (at least I was told that you can buy weapons that you otherwise would have to find). You may correct me on that last point.

OK well no where in that news release did it say anything about being able to buy an advantage of any sort. I have a feeling that they're using this free game to push origin like Valve is using dota 2 to push steam.

Come on, it's EA.

Aren't they saying in that gamespot interview today that it wont launch with a single player campaign? If so, Im not gonna be bothered.

Free to play always looks strange to me, in an RTS context. In the RPG side (where grinding and some kind of meta-economy are expected) there are usually clear places where monitization can be inserted without really changing game play. For action games, if it is just cosmetic or side grade, there is not really a big issue. But game balance is very critical and difficult to achieve in an RTS games, and tends to run counter to the bolt on RPG and micro transaction mechanics that get added in.

What bugs me is that they've been branding it as a Bioware game. When you say "Bioware", you think "Oh wow fucking incredible story telling!". With a F2P model, there IS no single player, no story.

So where the fuck does the Bioware part come into play?

Also, EA, trying out risky new business models with a beloved franchise is a foolhardy move. Everyone LOVED Generals, Red Alert and Tiberium Sun purist too. You don't wanna step on THAT many toes.

OP, that isn't Command & Conquer: Generals 2. That's a new C&C F2P game.

Also, I want this. Now.

@Brodehouse said:

That's interesting. Age of Empires did it, and it went alright for them. I'm surprised fighting games have not investigated F2P. They already want to sell you additional costumes and colors. Why not do a LoL or SMNC system where there's 6-8 fighters free any week, out of an expanding pool of 20-30 or so. You'll get more people in if they don't have to pay 60 bucks up front, and the hardcore fans will probably put more than 60 overall.

I remember hearing on a podcast somewhere this same thing about why fighting games don't go F2P, and the most logical reason that anyone could give was "it'd be too iterative in terms of making new fighters and too hard to balance the game". Personally, I look at League and think "they handle both of those pretty well"...

@jakob187 said:

OP, that isn't Command & Conquer: Generals 2. That's a new C&C F2P game.

The new C&C F2P game is C&C: Generals 2. They rebranded it as a reboot when they decided to switch to F2P but the settings and assets are showing this is the game that has been previously talked about under the Generals 2 name. Same team, same development, new name, new business model.

After watching the trailer, I will say that I'm feeling a bit excited about the game again, it looks like the GLA is back and they brought Bomb Trucks with them!

Now they better have the US (that's probably a given) and China again at least!

I'm still very interested in the game, as loved Generals and Zero Hour, but I hope they don't fuck it up.

@Village_Guy: " GLA Postal Service.",  " Nobody stops the mail."

Loved all the things units said.

@Shivoa said:

@jakob187 said:

OP, that isn't Command & Conquer: Generals 2. That's a new C&C F2P game.

The new C&C F2P game is C&C: Generals 2. They rebranded it as a reboot when they decided to switch to F2P but the settings and assets are showing this is the game that has been previously talked about under the Generals 2 name. Same team, same development, new name, new business model.

oh....................................... god dammit EA why

@CptBedlam said:

@blueduck said:

@CptBedlam said:

@blueduck: I always said (not in this thread) that I make an exception for purely (!) cosmetic F2P models since those have nothing whatsoever to do with gameplay mechanics. But these approaches are exceptions. Not even TF2's business model is of purely cosmetic nature (at least I was told that you can buy weapons that you otherwise would have to find). You may correct me on that last point.

OK well no where in that news release did it say anything about being able to buy an advantage of any sort. I have a feeling that they're using this free game to push origin like Valve is using dota 2 to push steam.

Come on, it's EA.

so thats it really. your whole arguement was just... fuck EA really.

@Bell_End said:

@CptBedlam said:

@blueduck said:

@CptBedlam said:

@blueduck: I always said (not in this thread) that I make an exception for purely (!) cosmetic F2P models since those have nothing whatsoever to do with gameplay mechanics. But these approaches are exceptions. Not even TF2's business model is of purely cosmetic nature (at least I was told that you can buy weapons that you otherwise would have to find). You may correct me on that last point.

OK well no where in that news release did it say anything about being able to buy an advantage of any sort. I have a feeling that they're using this free game to push origin like Valve is using dota 2 to push steam.

Come on, it's EA.

so thats it really. your whole arguement was just... fuck EA really.

No. I suggest you read my posts.

@jakob187 said:

I remember hearing on a podcast somewhere this same thing about why fighting games don't go F2P, and the most logical reason that anyone could give was "it'd be too iterative in terms of making new fighters and too hard to balance the game". Personally, I look at League and think "they handle both of those pretty well"...

I think those are good reasons. Mainly cause i feel like league of legends does a pretty poor job at them. comming up with new heroes is still fine. But their balance is not.

I think teh biggest issue is that in a moba you kinda want to have a lot of chars available to you. IN a fighting game you wdon't you want to stick to a few so you can actually be good at them.

@Bell_end

Yeah, I don't like F2P and clearly explained why... to some fanboys that apparently translates to "whiny".

@CptBedlam said:

@Bell_end

Yeah, I don't like F2P and clearly explained why... to some fanboys that apparently translates to "whiny".

cos i don't automaticly hate F2P and EA games makes me a fanboy also it seems.

So long Bio ware its been a fun ride, but this is the last straw and this is where I get off.

C&C1 was the best C&C.

I enjoyed C&C3 until it got too hard for me, but ultimately I think it was too complicated with too many units. In other words, it had too much depth.

Honestly I was probably going to skip a $60 C&C game (haven't played a C&C game since Red Alert), but now I will probably play with it.

It will be interesting to see what they do with the payment model.

I don't mined being nickle and dimed if a game's fun. When I was a kid a spent hours in arcades, so the concept isn't ancient to me.

The thing that annoys me about this is the apparent lack of a single player campaign. I have zero interest in competitive multiplayer RTS... mostly because the difficulty curve in competitive multiplayer is a vertical wall. (coop multiplayer vs. computer is fun though)

Oh wow, as if this couldn't get conceivably worse.

I know it's really a cliché at this point to hate EA but fucking hell they really just want me to hate them. Destroying Westwood and C&C, even now it looks like Sim City (2013) is gonna be pretty shite as well.

I like free-to-play, very much so, i think it has a lot of potential for certain genres of games, but to have that model come out for every damn game thats getting released is becoming more of a joke, and we ALL KNOW THE ONLY REASON this game is going for the free-to-play is because of End of Nations, period, that is the only reason to push this model with a RTS like game, the only difference is Command & Conquer isn't a fking MMO, its a story based strategy game which is pushed forward by amazing FMVs, with the ability's to play skirmish modes or go online if you want. I dont take many games online, i couldn't care less about most multiplayer games, i'll do it occasionally for fun, but for the most part especially in RTS,s I play skirmish modes a lot more then SP campaigns, last thing we need a command and conquer MMO!!

I would rather pay for a game, and know exactly what im getting, rather then risk getting a game thats free-to-play then have half of the content its supposed to have, be missing from the traditional ways of how a game gets devs money. I dont wanna pay for booster packs that "might" have a skirmish mode down the line. Everyone in this new gaming industry has a fking harddon for 100% multiplayer, its getting to be really fraustraiting, just like at sim city and whats going to go on with that, that is purely a singleplayer experience, and their adding all this wacky crazy social stuff with facebook and all other kinds of crap, NOT EVERYONE LIKES MULTIPLAYER!!!! omg I litterly feel like im the only person who plays game, that DOESNT actually like going online and playing. Give me bots or AI anyday over playing ppl online where its open house for cheaters and hacks with huge lag spikes.

I WANT TO EAT MY WORDS, but EA's track record with the battlefield series, and what their doing with sim city, it just doesn't bare well for C&C either, and i've been playing these games since the mid 90s when the original came out. I hope and Prey!! there is skirmish mode, but im not going to hold my breathe now, and its sad, its sad they feel they got to do this, and compete with the likes of end of nations, C&C is a brand of its own, it CREATED this genre, THIS is what fans want, not some bsh!t hash to take on a competitor like BF3 with COD.

C&C 4 was an absolute fking mess, it was by FAR!! the WORST C&C game of ALL TIME!!! with no base building, and the absolutely terrible multiplayer! absolutely shocking!!! and this, from what has been said, just feels like a different take of the same fking idea that came from that game.... ITS DONE!! its whats going to happen and nothing we can do it about, but the gameplay just better not be solely MP without the things that make a C&C game. SP and Skirmish mode make so much of a good C&C, to take that out of the picture is INSANITY to its core. Then because your constantly connected to servers, you take out another huge chunk, and thats the community, with no mod tools, no mapping tools, and no lan support, this is so messed up on so many levels... WTF are they thinking? in all seriousness? no one from the gamespot forums wants this either!!! you HAVE TO LISTEN to what is being said, do NOT brush off what we are all saying just because for the most part its negative!! LISTEN!!! to get it done RIGHT!!! you'll pay in the end otherwise. Apparently they are adding all the factions from the whole command and conquer universe (red alert and tiberium universe), this has yet to be confirmed, but if true, WTF!!! really, WTF??? all into one game? that is just simply stupid, im sorry but it is....

as for whats been mentioned, for the Pay-to-win, there is only so much cosmetic micro-transactions you can do before it gets old, boring, and doesn't translate into much money making either!! you HAVE to come up with stuff that affects the game in a good way, not just tank skins, and this, in turn, will create a Pay-to-win scenario, like star trek online currently is.

I was pretty sad to hear about this. I was thinking 2013 could be the year of great strategy gaming again with Total War: Rome 2, Company of Heroes 2 and possibly C&C: Generals 2 coming out next year. But with EA shitting the bed turning this into a free to play game, for now 2013 only has Rome 2 and COH 2 for awesome strategy games.

Looks like I'll go back to playing Star Wars: Empire at War.