Why F2P fails in a competitive RTS

[Commander_McNash]

EA has decided that putting any money into a game these days is not worth it ..so throw it out there a s a F2P and get what ya can off the fan base before ya put the outta of business sign on the front door

You know what is amusing about all of this? CoD is exactly what C&C should have been.

No, seriously, think about it, people complain about CoD being more of the same every year, yet, fans buy it because of that, also CoD has a plot, campaign, recurrent characters, keep the visual style similar, they just keep the story forward, and whenever they want to innovate they just edit a few things without changing the whole gameplay core model.

Hilarious, if C&C had been bought by Activision history would have been completely different.

Oh, anyway, back to see how C&C campaign should have been (jsut switch that guy Menendez by Kane, the soviets or GLA):



Lol, he even is considered the messiah, does this sound you familiar? xD

[UH60L]

I don't get you guys

you are on here crying about no SP

when it is pointed out that SP might be DLC, you cry again - saying you won't buy it.

Do you really just want a box and a DVD or what is your exact beef?

I know that for me I would gladly pay a modest monthly fee to play a well supported Generals 2 like RTS that had 4v4 support, ladders, anti-cheat protection, etc...

Well, gee it's not that hard. Single player should not be "DLC", it should be part of the game. People are/were willing to buy a whole game that included it, as well as offline play to include skirmish mode. I have never knowingly purchased a computer game that I could not play offline or play anywhere I want. Never will. Not whining, stating a fact.