Generals 2 DLC

[Thinmints]

You CAN NOT have DLC in an RTS, besides the fact that pulling out pieces of a finished gamed and charging the customer for it is stupid, it will ruin balance of the multiplayer which should be the focus of any strategy game.

In addition it is possible that (mark my words) the decision will be made to restrict player added content so as not to compete with the DLC

I had lost all excitement when i saw that bioware/EA was making/publishing this game and now its just getting worse

Origin

[D3preda7ion]

my number 1 fear! the lack of knowledge of publishers and BS "economists" about the crowd they are about to please. those idiots might think selling us 5 maps and a few new units in a flimsy DLC is enough... oh boy are they going to be wrong!

they should actually try it, why not! and see how MUCH they fail and how different the RTS crowd is to other gamers! there is a reason Blizzard stuck to the Expansion pack model for such a long time, they know devoted RTS and MMO as well as RPG gamers will always go back only should there be a real thematicially new or expansion that is a content filled experience. and through this effort we appreciate and they also win. an expansion is probably less than half the price of the full game to develop, and could sell almost as well and sometimes, even better!

and looking past at Command & Conquer, they should also examine how succeful the true Ex packs are, so yeah if there is any silly telemetry "social diagram" economist at EA who pitch silly ideas of small fimsy money grabbing DLC- fire him!

[Golan2781]

DLCs only need to be based on modular elements, while that's not possible with say individual units, it is very well possible with factions, maps or campaigns without interfering with balance - RTS balance is modular in precisely these factors. For example, GLA vs. China in Gen1 needs to be balanced regardless of whether USA exists or not.
DLCs don't necessarily compete with player generated content, take for example the Fallout series since F3, it has DLCs but also a very powerful modding toolkit.

I too know many bad examples of DLC use but I don't think that BWV will necessarily go that route. At least give them the benefit of the doubt, you can still decide not to buy into it when their plans are made more specific.

[coolness1]

I will personaly send a literaly FLAMING letter to EA and then burn all of my EA made games

[Boonerbasher]

EA have been ruining games and ripping off there customers for years just look at the what theyve done to CnC so far theyve been buying and running games into the ground. On top of that they have the cheek to tell us that we have to pay extra for in game items ect before the games even finished seriously wtf. Just take a good look at theyre latest failure mass effect 3 they found(Hidden) content on the disc WHICH YOU HAD TO PAY TO UNLOCK after they denied that they were forcing day 1 DLC on their customers. Theyre full of crap!

[Commander32]

Flamers much?

I say that DLC would work as like 'digital expansion packs.'

[Klandri]

Depends on how they do it. If they intend to release like 14 DLC's (excluding purely cosmetic ones) then I'm mad as hell. But if they stick to few larger DLC then I have nothing wrong with it.

[stephanovich]

EA have been ruining games and ripping off there customers for years just look at the what theyve done to CnC so far theyve been buying and running games into the ground. On top of that they have the cheek to tell us that we have to pay extra for in game items ect before the games even finished seriously wtf. Just take a good look at theyre latest failure mass effect 3 they found(Hidden) content on the disc WHICH YOU HAD TO PAY TO UNLOCK after they denied that they were forcing day 1 DLC on their customers. Theyre full of crap!

They found only the necessary files for Javik to actually work in the game. Same with Shale, Zaeed and Kasumi (who you had to buy).

Besides, announcing that there will be DLC early on does in no way mean things will get cut to be sold as DLC or anything of the sort. It simply means there will be DLC instead of expansion packs.

[dowmein]

DLC - Maps, factions, units, campaigns = No buy.

No exceptions.

[=LEVIATHEN=]

Flamers much?

I concur. I simply can't stand it when people hate without thinking about what they're hating. And I also can't stand how they let themselves look like idiots by generalizing something; hence, they quite often turn their topic phrase into a completely (or almost completely) incorrect statement.

EA have been ruining games and ripping off there customers for years just look at the what theyve done to CnC so far theyve been buying and running games into the ground.

(I'm not going to debate about the Mass Effect 3 situation, because I have yet to play the game.)
(Also, use better grammar next time you type. I'm likely to keep pointing that out to you if you don't. Nothing personal.)

Look, you may be disappointed in EA for failing in some games, but what can you expect? They're a major video game publisher, and my assumption is that people expect them to pump games out; you can't expect them to get everything as close to perfect as possible, like Valve does.

Besides, EA has made some great games. One of the most memorable was definitely the Battle for Middle Earth series. And, in my opinion, that game never got worse; it only ever got better. I also like EA's C&C games (minus C&C 4; and I still think it's kind of fun).
I've heard some great things about BioWare, particularly from my friend, who's a fan of both the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series.

I'm not saying EA hasn't screwed up with games they publish. I'm saying that the company isn't all bad, and you should learn to, instead of being angry and hateful, be supportive and give constructive criticism.