In a blog post on the official Command & Conquer website, it was announced that EA’s latest upcoming Free to Play title will be heading into beta early next year. Beyond this it was made known that it will also be the “longest running beta phase in franchise history”, this is most likely because the C&C franchise has produced RTS titles in the past that were vastly different.

In fact one of the main differences between this upcoming C&C title and previous entries into the franchise (Besides the switch to F2P, and the obvious lack of defined franchise abbreviation i.e. Tiberium, Red Alert and Generals), is the game’s focus. No one will argue that C&C titles in the past had -for the most part- strong multiplayer roots, however a large amount of time was invested into the single player campaign as well; something the latest entry into the franchise until recently was not even going to include.

Still, EA is quite aware of their community’s grumblings, and notably takes the time within the blog post to reassure the public that change doesn’t always result in an inferior sequel.

Global community manager EA_CIRE had this to say in regards to players outspoken disappointment:

“Making game relevant decisions isn’t that easy. Choosing one solution for a potential problem often affects so many other portions of the game – It’s just a big mess sometimes. The team here and I know that previous Command & Conquer titles had issues – some less, some more. C&C4 (yes, I just named it!) was especially far below the expectations and standards a lot of us had for C&C games. So we know how you guys feel – and I am talking a lot with our design team to discuss the game mechanics, features and meta-game of our new Command & Conquer in development.”

He goes on to say:

“Yes, the direction is new and many probably would say that this is not a “true” C&C, just as many did when the original Generals came out. For me, Command & Conquer isn’t just about Tiberium, Kane and the crazy Yuri. It’s been more about fun to play, engaging, and high quality RTS experiences. And that’s what we’re aiming to deliver, just in a different way.”

It is good to see a developer aiming to produce a F2P sequel attempting to rival its B2P predecessors, instead of simply adapting the formula for the F2P market. Still, with EA ultimately behind the helm, I can not in good conscious rule out the possibility of a timeless franchise marred by purchasable unit unlocks and underhanded Pay-2-Win practices. When it comes to a genre completely hinging on a delicate unit balance act, there simply is no place for any sort of real money unlocks that affect anything other than cosmetics.

Are any of you veteran C&C players looking forward to the franchise going F2P? Let us know.

15 Readers Commented

Join discussion
  1. MaxHavok on November 15, 2012

    wtf is p2w?? of course you are given an advantage if you pay….wouldnt you want one..oh wait you can get the same advantages..just pay like everyone else..otherwise continue playing for FREE and quit your bytching….bunch of entitled little whiners… UR NOT FKN SPECIAL!!

    • MaxHavok on November 15, 2012

      HOWEVER i will admit that most of these “f2p” “P2w” games are usually more expensive then subscriptions used to be… some times i wonder if this new fad is better at all…sure you have far more choices and can try a game thoroughly before paying a cent…but wheres the quality?? im happy to see c&c comming out with something..hopefully it wont be a disappointment like most f2p games

  2. Francis on November 10, 2012

    Cool

  3. J.Wilson on November 6, 2012

    Soo sad…
    Another great title gone f2p just to ruin it buy letting it go p2w.
    I opt out of f2p that sell anything other than skins or map packs.

  4. sss on November 5, 2012

    not tested but pay to win

  5. ME on November 5, 2012

    I’d rather play End of Nations instead of something with an EA brand

  6. Moznic on November 5, 2012

    As I have seen how AoE has turned out I can’t help, but feel that this game will head to the same direction as they went with AoE online. Age of Empires became mainly pay to win due that so many features that allows players to do quests or races etc. was limited to those that are not paying a dime.

    I mean if you plan on making a F2P game then do it right where both sides are equally balanced.

  7. Sunny on November 5, 2012

    Hahaha. You care about this “P2W” kinda thing? So does that mean you’re another noob that can’t win against money users? This is a strategy game. You think, act, and seize. Just enjoy it.

    • Nevran on November 5, 2012

      the problem with that is that EA dosent make a f2p strategy game that you can really compete in on the same level as a paying player.just look at the other games they have made.

      if this was another company then your point would be very valid but as its EA most of the the good units will have to be aquired in the cs.

      still i hope it wont be that way but again this is EA we are talking about

    • Payback on November 6, 2012

      I’ll tell ya. They will pull of a trick like, rent-a-unit for said battlefund. Upgrade with battlefunds and what not.

  8. Vic on November 5, 2012

    it’s EA, no speculation there, friend.

  9. EA Hater on November 5, 2012

    EA: Nothing we do makes sense! Tee hee!

  10. Saiko on November 5, 2012

    It’s quite idiotic, i for one. Would rather buy the game than dealing with so many unit unlocks that will cost way more than their predecessors initially did. Like a flat i don’t know 60 , 40 bucks? Or maybe a lot more when buying anything else.

  11. DiBBz on November 5, 2012

    quite possible the worst choice EA has made for making this F2P , this game will be a failure you can clearly tell it will be p2w

  12. nubcandy on November 5, 2012

    im quite sure it’ll be p2w and so is doomed to failure

HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY?