Command & Conquer

I completly agree this is the best move EA could have done

Hmmm...

1. It will bring in a ton of new players
"Will" is more like, "Maybe". We'll see how well the hype machine rolls this time around.

2. Free to play works
"Can" work. So I agree here.

3. It’s free
True. Agreed on the benefits of F2P he mentions here.

4. EA will be forced to focus on gameplay
Again, maybe. I understand his reasoning, but "focusing" on it, is a far cry from it actually being any good. He follows on this at the end of point 6, and that hypothetical mess he mentions, doesn't help this point about "focus".

5. EA will be forced to support the game
EA's really not "forced" to to anything.

While it sounds logical to support a game in the interest of convincing players to shell out more cash later on, that's been the logical thing to do for every game, be it F2P, traditional, or what have you. Has EA ever delivered on that logic? The answer is somewhere between not really to kinda. It's done amazing things, like the E-sports initiative for TW, but it's also consistently dropped support the moment a new game rolls around. Each time, with a promise about better support, and once, even a tale about a "Dedicated patch team" which went nowhere fast. The hints of each new C&C game after this being based on this model being pioneered by Ex-G2 doesn't bode well considering this historical pattern of abandonment.

And again like point 4, he torpedoes this argument in number 6.

6. Technically speaking, EA is no longer insane
I'm with him on the first half of this point. The second half of his argument here is where he loses me. EA's "Long record of failures" is precisely why the "hypothetical “'coulds'" are terribly scary. He also mentions that the precise execution of gameplay is still unannounced, so that an EoN style structureless mess is still possible is just another "scary "could".

I can't really see what they can do with free to pay. What would they make there money? If it was units, it would probably be unfair and charging for maps is unfavorable. C&C just doesn't seem like a good game for FTP to me.

i keep hearing from the naysayers here that its all a 'risky' proposition --- but its actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of that, lol.
this is practically the SAFEST move they could ever make..

what were the alternatives anyway?

1) the 'traditional' $60 package with both MP+SP:
Result: EA upper management clearly hasnt changed, so we'll get the same old horrible support we had for the last titles, so that spells instadeath for MP. so if the SP fails (i think after the last titles its obvious that banking on EA's SP-making capability is a huge RISK), the game dies immediately.

plus it wouldnt even remotely live up to gens1's credentials as an MP-centric game.


2) F2P, but with SP first, MP later:
Result: risky because if SP fails, it creates a horrible impression on the game, and people wont buy the MP.
the problem with SP is you only get ONE chance... whereas with MP there's some time where you can rectify the situation with patches etc (until eventually people lose patience if things dont get fixed... but still way more time than SP offers).

MP is also THE platform to stress-test the fundamental gameplay mechanics, and make sure everything fits together -- from balance, faction diversity, to economy/pacing etc

so putting MP first is pretty much a guarantee of quality.


the F2P model keeps the EA bosses happy because they know it makes a great cash-cow, keeps the devs happy because it gives them time/space to work with, the players happy because they pay ONLY for what they WANT.

win-win for ALL

Tl;dr AGM proves once again that he is a pretentious, arrogant [redacted] that can't write while accidentally stumbling on some good points. And some bad ones, do not be fooled.

I didn't get that impression from the blog. Maybe you should have counter arguments instead of insults.

I would but I kinda agree with his overall point... But I don't like his disdain for the "unpure" singleplayer fans, or the non-GR.org community.

This is typical of his posts. The all glorious GR pro that knows everything and we should accept his arguments that only MP is fun and only MP has replay value because he is so holy.

I don't think it was meant that way. I think he means that if the game was like a "B-movie" then SP will be like that. I could be wrong though.

now this is really the billion-dollar question--
what exactly are we paying them for?

just SP or aesthetic content, or units/tech/factions as well? if just the former, would it actually be profitable for them? if the latter as well, how would they balance it?

games like HoN, LoL etc actually offer lots of gameplay content that 'affects' the meta, but in a very subtle way so that it doesnt confer an advantage --- and arguably it works because the games are team-based, so any potential 1v1 imbas are easily overcome with a strong enough team with the right mix of characters

is this game going to be centred on team-play? or 1v1?

if its 1v1-centred, AND offers purchasable units/factions etc, i think we're truly in for one hell of a mess

I'm kinda with you but I'm sure they'll give us more info soon (hopefully).

You could be right. But nevertheless this is more or less in line with what he's been preaching here before so I doubt it.

This guy is just noobsauce. How is he to dictate how I feel? I feel betrayed (coming from a guy who has every CNC since the first one).

By AGM... nope not reading it.

Just the same old. Only multiplayer is fun! **** singleplayer! And so on. You know the drill.