Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Command & Conquer: Generals 2 Part of Free to Play Series

By - Source: PC Gamer | B 27 comments

Command & Conquer is going free-to-play.

EA's seen the successes of the AAA free-to-play market and has slowly waded into the microtransactions pool to take a slice of the profit.

Just a few weeks ago, BioWare and EA announced that The Old Republic massively multiplayer online game, originally running on the monthly subscription model, would be going free-to-play up to level 50.

Now, EA is taking the beloved alternate universe, real-time strategy series Command & Conquer into the free-to-play realm as well. This isn't the first Command & Conquer to go free-to-play—Command & Conquer: Tiberium Alliances gets that credit. However, Tiberium Alliances is a browser-based game. Command & Conquer: Generals 2, the first in the series to be developed by BioWare, will be an AAA title with all the bells and whistles: Frostbite 2 engine, destructive terrain, etc.

Generals 2 won't be the only free-to-play AAA Command & Conquer to come. EA's actually got a whole series of them planned for the future.

There's no release date for Generals 2, just yet. The good news is that EA's opened up signups for the beta on the new Command & Conquer free-to-play site.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 27 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 18 Hide
    Kami3k , August 16, 2012 10:22 PM
    :(  I was so looking forward to Generals 2, along with all of my friends I played the first one with.

    All of them, like me, are no longer going to play this game. EA doesn't do F2P, they do pay 2 win and call it F2P.
  • 16 Hide
    Kami3k , August 16, 2012 10:40 PM
    xaedDude.. you just pretty much described the f2p model, contradicting yourself much?


    His concept is completely different F2P.

    His concept was pretty much you demo a good portion of the game, and if you find it good you buy the complete game.

    It's no wonder the rest of your comment is clueless. Especially the last sentence.
  • 12 Hide
    bunkgoats , August 16, 2012 10:12 PM
    I was excited for this game, but I won't pay to win. Unfortunatly, I will pass on this title that I was antcipating.
Other Comments
  • 12 Hide
    bunkgoats , August 16, 2012 10:12 PM
    I was excited for this game, but I won't pay to win. Unfortunatly, I will pass on this title that I was antcipating.
  • 18 Hide
    Kami3k , August 16, 2012 10:22 PM
    :(  I was so looking forward to Generals 2, along with all of my friends I played the first one with.

    All of them, like me, are no longer going to play this game. EA doesn't do F2P, they do pay 2 win and call it F2P.
  • 9 Hide
    back_by_demand , August 16, 2012 10:22 PM
    EA can't win, if they make a full price pay-for game and it's content sucks ass you will feel rightly P'd off
    ...
    At least with F2P if the gameplay sucks ass you know for a fact you won't pay to carry on, you will just drop it and go to the next game
    ...
    Here's an idea, how about the first couple of levels are free and if you like it you like it you can then decide to buy the full game, you know, like the shareware concept that has been floating around for over 20 FRICKEN YEARS
  • 6 Hide
    mousseng , August 16, 2012 10:26 PM
    I was so excited for the possibility of another GOOD CnC game (something that's yet to happen since Westwood's liquidation). And now that's basically been shattered, too: one of the things I loved the most about CnC was the single-player, which is a feature I've yet to see in a F2P game. Thanks, EA, for taking a dump on one of the best RTS franchises out there (or what's left of it, at least).
  • 16 Hide
    Kami3k , August 16, 2012 10:40 PM
    xaedDude.. you just pretty much described the f2p model, contradicting yourself much?


    His concept is completely different F2P.

    His concept was pretty much you demo a good portion of the game, and if you find it good you buy the complete game.

    It's no wonder the rest of your comment is clueless. Especially the last sentence.
  • 7 Hide
    boju , August 16, 2012 11:02 PM
    Things like this make me want to give up gaming.

    Keeping older games and gone black and blue in the face getting most of them working for lan parties has kept my sanity.
  • 2 Hide
    spartanmk2 , August 16, 2012 11:09 PM
    Making it f2p will let me and others decide if its going to be a worthwhile game to purchase all the civs/perks that would eventually equal $60 bucks EA would have undoubtedly slapped onto it because of how good the first CnC Generals was.

    Learned my lesson after buying into the hype of Diablo 3, /facepalm. Never buying another game until ive atleast tried a demo or "starter edition".
  • 5 Hide
    back_by_demand , August 16, 2012 11:09 PM
    Kami3kHis concept is completely different F2P. His concept was pretty much you demo a good portion of the game, and if you find it good you buy the complete game.It's no wonder the rest of your comment is clueless. Especially the last sentence.

    Well spotted, glad someone is paying attention, in F2P a lot of items/weapons/etc are premium and unless you buy them cannot complete a level or progress in any way, that's how they stiff you on microtransactions
    ...
    They let you hit the level, get annoyed you can't complete it and keep retrying getting more annoyed and frustrated until your ADHD kicks in and you reach for the credit card, that's when they have you and the game never ends as each new mission/level/etc has a different unique item/weapon/etc that again has you reaching for the credit card
    ...
    It would be nice if they made 2 versions of the game, a F2P and premium pay-for, the F2P has all the low-calorie, fat-free, pay-as-you-go stuff and the premium pay-for has all the content up front at install
    ...
    Not saying any one version is better as each has it's own fans, just I would like the choice and also sales on like-for-like would show what the actual consumer prefers - although it is never likely to happen as the F2P model has the potential to hose much more money than a fixed fee over time
  • 7 Hide
    giovanni86 , August 16, 2012 11:12 PM
    What happened to demo's?!? That was once the way to test a game and justify if it was worth the full purchase or not. F2P in my book is a no go, i just feel as if i play the only incentive is to charge a ridiculous amount to play and then charge more for boosts which in reality defeats the purpose of playing the game. All F2P games i've played wasn't interested to spend more money after the initial game seemed lack luster of content. If CnC is among the fallen games which lets just toss out the whole AAA thing and just say stupid and stupid made it to try and make a grade A game and turned into a D-/F+.
  • 0 Hide
    eddieroolz , August 16, 2012 11:17 PM
    I like that Command and Conquer is returning, even though it's a pay-to-win basis. I just hope they don't make this into the horrendous mistake Tiberian Twilight was.
  • 3 Hide
    mousseng , August 16, 2012 11:18 PM
    Quote:
    Making it f2p will let me and others decide if its going to be a worthwhile game to purchase all the civs/perks that would eventually equal $60 bucks EA would have undoubtedly slapped onto it because of how good the first CnC Generals was.

    Those premium perks and such that you buy in a F2P tend to total way more than just $60 - that's why it's a viable business model.

    It's not a viable gaming model, though, because it completely destroys the balance of a game, and for some people it ruins the inherent reward of accomplishing something. Not to mention, F2P games (from what I've seen) are almost exclusively multiplayer (elsewise, how are you going to incentivize your premium BS?), so you've basically completely removed that part of the game, too. I don't find that acceptable, nor worth anywhere near $60. I would honestly rather take a $60 gamble on a game then have it be F2P - but that's my opinion.
  • 5 Hide
    back_by_demand , August 16, 2012 11:28 PM
    moussengThanks, EA, for taking a dump on one of the best RTS franchises out there (or what's left of it, at least)

    Started going downhill after Westwood
  • 1 Hide
    randomizer , August 16, 2012 11:31 PM
    I wonder then if it's going to be MP only.
  • -3 Hide
    master_chen , August 16, 2012 11:55 PM
    Quote:
    Command & Conquer: Generals 2


    And not a single tralala was given in the entire world, that day.
  • 0 Hide
    spartanmk2 , August 16, 2012 11:57 PM
    moussengThose premium perks and such that you buy in a F2P tend to total way more than just $60 - that's why it's a viable business model.It's not a viable gaming model, though, because it completely destroys the balance of a game, and for some people it ruins the inherent reward of accomplishing something. Not to mention, F2P games (from what I've seen) are almost exclusively multiplayer (elsewise, how are you going to incentivize your premium BS?), so you've basically completely removed that part of the game, too. I don't find that acceptable, nor worth anywhere near $60. I would honestly rather take a $60 gamble on a game then have it be F2P - but that's my opinion.


    I agree that not all games work in the f2p model scheme. Age of Empires Online is the only f2p game I own and have only spent $20 out for 2 premium civilizations that get everything the whole game has to offer and im still saving $40-50 on the other civilizations i dont really care to buy and play, so ive saved myself some money.

    But i agree that if the game is strictly or majorly multiplayer, f2p is a real buzzkiller
  • -2 Hide
    alidan , August 17, 2012 12:07 AM
    back_by_demandEA can't win, if they make a full price pay-for game and it's content sucks ass you will feel rightly P'd off...At least with F2P if the gameplay sucks ass you know for a fact you won't pay to carry on, you will just drop it and go to the next game...Here's an idea, how about the first couple of levels are free and if you like it you like it you can then decide to buy the full game, you know, like the shareware concept that has been floating around for over 20 FRICKEN YEARS


    a more modern game, fable does this, i forget which one though, where you buy the game in chapter form, and it added up to full price, first chapter was free.
    spartanmk2Making it f2p will let me and others decide if its going to be a worthwhile game to purchase all the civs/perks that would eventually equal $60 bucks EA would have undoubtedly slapped onto it because of how good the first CnC Generals was. Learned my lesson after buying into the hype of Diablo 3, /facepalm. Never buying another game until ive atleast tried a demo or "starter edition".

    was it age of empires... one of those civ like strat games went free to play, and if you wanted all the content like you would get in a normal full 60$ release, it cost you 120-180$ i forget what it was as it was a long time ago, but know it was at least double the cost and no more than 3 times.

    back_by_demandWell spotted, glad someone is paying attention, in F2P a lot of items/weapons/etc are premium and unless you buy them cannot complete a level or progress in any way, that's how they stiff you on microtransactions... They let you hit the level, get annoyed you can't complete it and keep retrying getting more annoyed and frustrated until your ADHD kicks in and you reach for the credit card, that's when they have you and the game never ends as each new mission/level/etc has a different unique item/weapon/etc that again has you reaching for the credit card...It would be nice if they made 2 versions of the game, a F2P and premium pay-for, the F2P has all the low-calorie, fat-free, pay-as-you-go stuff and the premium pay-for has all the content up front at install...Not saying any one version is better as each has it's own fans, just I would like the choice and also sales on like-for-like would show what the actual consumer prefers - although it is never likely to happen as the F2P model has the potential to hose much more money than a fixed fee over time


    i never played a free to play where you cant earn all the weapons, but i have played f2p where you cant earn cosmetic things. really, i have yet to play a pay to win... well... i probably have but the gameplay was so bad i gave up.

  • 1 Hide
    NuclearShadow , August 17, 2012 12:35 AM
    Great, I can't wait to be dominated by players who are willing to shell out more money than me.

    Command & Conquer has now officially turned into Pay & Conquer. Thanks for ruining the series that I enjoyed since 1995.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , August 17, 2012 1:23 AM
    Horrible idea just as bad as EA supporting Indie, EA does not care for anyone. EA is the downfall of the industry. Figures now they pissed on one of my most beloved franchises.
  • 2 Hide
    DRosencraft , August 17, 2012 1:26 AM
    Too bad this article doesn't mention the other horrors they've done to the game, such as requiring a persistent internet connection and getting rid of a single-player campaign entirely. Won't be touching this even as a F2P.
Display more comments