E3 2018

Falthyron

Falthyron wrote: »

#NotMyKane

I honestly believe the bar has dropped when it comes to expectation of quality in computer games in the last couple of years. Early Access has numbed what we have come to expect and in an industry where people offer loyalty to brands like it was water, everyone is all too keen to argue in defence of their 'brand' franchise. EA could make a good RTS game if they hired the right developers, gave it a fair budget, and allowed an experienced director to make the vision they want without interference. But, they choose not to. We would all prefer a solid standalone RTS, but when some cheap, micro-transaction riddled mobile game is given to us, we lap that shup and say "Thank you, master!". Fúck that. We shouldn't be 'grateful' for a cynical cash-grab using nostalgia to get into your pocket, we should be laughing and seeing through their bullsh

EA don't think they can make all the money from a standalone RTS so they won't make the game. So, we should be grateful to get something? Nah. Lets have some standards and call this stuff out, not lap it up like the zombie consumer EA believes we are.

Why would they invest millions in developing a game that may not make a profit? You do realise that video game companies are like any other and exist to make a profit for shareholders. If a C&C RTS title isn't going to make money then why would they bother.

Also if the RTS genre was one that gamers wanted to see more of why is it that 90%+ of all RTS game released over the past number of years seem have kickstarters and years of early access. If the genre was one that there was a genuine demand for they why has no other Triple-A publish cashed in on it?

awec

I'd play C+C on my iPad so long as it isn't free to play, microtransaction nonsense.

CastorTroy

Falthyron wrote: »

I knew all their 'good guy' stuff about no more lootboxes was too good to be true. The toxic underbelly of EA had to ooze out somewhere, its just a shame it was on to the CnC franchise.

It's like EA have a hero complex. Crete a problem yourselves then enjoy the praise when you fix it.

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

After star lord apparently whenever the hell that will release .

Star Lord's holding up Elder Scrolls? Get him in here to answer these accusations! :pac:

Falthyron

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would they invest millions in developing a game that may not make a profit? You do realise that video game companies are like any other and exist to make a profit for shareholders. If a C&C RTS title isn't going to make money then why would they bother.

Also if the RTS genre was one that gamers wanted to see more of why is it that 90%+ of all RTS game released over the past number of years seem have kickstarters and years of early access. If the genre was one that there was a genuine demand for they why has no other Triple-A publish cashed in on it?

Because the RTS genre doesn't translate well on to consoles (which happens to be the main revenue source for publishers). And, as many here have argued already, an RTS game can turn a profit. Look at what Relic are doing, look at Stardock Entertainment, look at the Total War series (not strictly RTS, but certainly falls within the Strategy genre). It can be done, its just about margins. Modest budget, modest game. Nah, that's not the EA way though. Huge budget to be countered with heavy monetisation (usually) resulting in a pretty mediocre game.

A CnC title (if done properly) would easily make money. It won't rival Battlefield V for total profit, but I reckon it would do a lot better than a Yarny 2, or A Way Out, or even Titanfall.

Falthyron

Falthyron wrote: »

Because the RTS genre doesn't translate well on to consoles (which happens to be the main revenue source for publishers). And, as many here have argued already, an RTS game can turn a profit. Look at what Relic are doing, look at Stardock Entertainment, look at the Total War series (not strictly RTS, but certainly falls within the Strategy genre). It can be done, its just about margins. Modest budget, modest game. Nah, that's not the EA way though. Huge budget to be countered with heavy monetisation (usually) resulting in a pretty mediocre game.

A CnC title (if done properly) would easily make money. It won't rival Battlefield V for total profit, but I reckon it would do a lot better than a Yarny 2, or A Way Out, or even Titanfall.

You do realise that you have contradicted yourself, you start by saying "It can be done, its just about margins. Modest budget, modest game. Nah, that's not the EA way though. Huge budget to be countered with heavy monetisation (usually) resulting in a pretty mediocre game." and then you mention a number of EA titles which was made on a moderate budget and are what could call moderate games. So what is it, are they incapable of making a moderate game or aren't they?

Falthyron

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise that you have contradicted yourself, you start by saying "It can be done, its just about margins. Modest budget, modest game. Nah, that's not the EA way though. Huge budget to be countered with heavy monetisation (usually) resulting in a pretty mediocre game." and then you mention a number of EA titles which was made on a moderate budget and are what could call moderate games. So what is it, are they incapable of making a moderate game or aren't they?

Yes, because the majority of games made by EA are over-inflated budgets with high monetisation mechanisms to offset the excessive cost. Sure, they publish one or two small titles (like the mobile CnC and Yarny 2), but my point is: if they are willing to publish a Yarny 2 or a CnC mobile, why not put that money into a fully fledged RTS title instead? Because, it won't play well on a console and can't be on console, which means your possible profit is hindered greatly. Instead, as a 'concession' they dole out some half-arsed micro-transactioned CnC game as 'a favour to the fans'. Also, I should add: Yarny 2 and A Way Out aren't made by an EA developer, they just publish them on behalf of the developer. Almost 100% certain on that. Where as, they own Westwood and it would be an in-house developed and published game, i.e. it will cost them their own money.

Would you prefer to play a proper CnC RTS or are you content with this cheap F2P mobile cash-cow? If you are the latter then I don't see how you can be a RTS fan to begin with. If you are happy to get milked by whatever shít they produce by tapping into nostalgia, then I am delighted you are getting the game you want on mobile. I would prefer we saw this 'effort' by EA for the cynical avaricious stunt that it is.

Gbear

Varik wrote: »

Capital is limited, they could always make more doing something else.

It's not the only limit though.

There's a limit to how many executive saloons Mercedes could sell. They're not going to add another E class clone to compete with themselves.

There's only so many big summer blockbusters that the market will support at any given time.

Their revenue streams aren't just blended into "gaming".
It's sports games, with a niche for each sport depending on popularity, strategy, RPGs, ARPGs, shooters, MOBAs, etc...

If they actually made a decent go of it, it's unlikely anyone other than Blizzard could come up with an RTS that could sell as well.

I think the main problem is that they don't give a **** about any one IP. Unlike the creator of something, they have no investment in it. They know they can run something into the ground with random collections of development teams they have scattered around, and then just move them on to a new project, and themselves onto a new IP to chew up.

It seems like ID have a free hand to develop things along the lines they wish, and then you have an independent company like CDPR that's headed up by ground-level developers. EA is run like a company where the design philosophy isn't dictated by people who know anything about games and they could just as easily be a property management firm.

Star Lord

CastorTroy wrote: »

Star Lord's holding up Elder Scrolls? Get him in here to answer these accusations! :pac:

:eek:

Rory28

Star Lord wrote: »

:eek:

Thats not a denial. Get the pitchforks boys.

Falthyron

Falthyron wrote: »

Yes, because the majority of games made by EA are over-inflated budgets with high monetisation mechanisms to offset the excessive cost. Sure, they publish one or two small titles (like the mobile CnC and Yarny 2), but my point is: if they are willing to publish a Yarny 2 or a CnC mobile, why not put that money into a fully fledged RTS title instead? Because, it won't play well on a console and can't be on console, which means your possible profit is hindered greatly. Instead, as a 'concession' they dole out some half-arsed micro-transactioned CnC game as 'a favour to the fans'. Also, I should add: Yarny 2 and A Way Out aren't made by an EA developer, they just publish them on behalf of the developer. Almost 100% certain on that. Where as, they own Westwood and it would be an in-house developed and published game, i.e. it will cost them their own money.

Would you prefer to play a proper CnC RTS or are you content with this cheap F2P mobile cash-cow? If you are the latter then I don't see how you can be a RTS fan to begin with. If you are happy to get milked by whatever shthey produce by tapping into nostalgia, then I am delighted you are getting the game you want on mobile. I would prefer we saw this 'effort' by EA for the cynical avaricious stunt that it is.

Outside of the sports titles there is little monetisation in any other title, Battlefront 2 had them but they were quickly removed. Have you played C&C Rivals or are you just assuming? Looking at the games announced at E3 tacked on monetisation seems to absent from any of the titles, sure FIFA and others will have ultimate team but that's option and you can still play the games and never spend a penny. I got into FIFA 18 on the Switch and not spend a single real world cent ingame.

Also, who says an RTS can't play well on a console. Plenty of damn fine RTS games have been released on console and the PS4 supports mouse and keyboard for any RTS console fan.

I really like the C&C franchise and would love a new PC entry but also recognise that the RTS market is not what it used to be. Sure a few stragglers still make a decent profit but if the RTS genre was as healthy as you seem to imply then why has no developer jumped on it?

super_furry

As someone who doesn't really care about C&C outside of the awesome cutscenes of the later games, this mobile game appeals to me. I like Clash Royale as a good five minute toilet game and if this can scratch the same itch, I'll be all over it.

Rory28

super_furry wrote: »

As someone who doesn't really care about C&C outside of the awesome cutscenes of the later games, this mobile game appeals to me. I like Clash Royale as a good five minute toilet game and if this can scratch the same itch, I'll be all over it.

You are whats wrong with the world. Its all your fault Super. If there was a fist shaking emoji id be using it right now.

Billy86

Falthyron wrote: »

Because the RTS genre doesn't translate well on to consoles (which happens to be the main revenue source for publishers). And, as many here have argued already, an RTS game can turn a profit. Look at what Relic are doing, look at Stardock Entertainment, look at the Total War series (not strictly RTS, but certainly falls within the Strategy genre). It can be done, its just about margins. Modest budget, modest game. Nah, that's not the EA way though. Huge budget to be countered with heavy monetisation (usually) resulting in a pretty mediocre game.

A CnC title (if done properly) would easily make money. It won't rival Battlefield V for total profit, but I reckon it would do a lot better than a Yarny 2, or A Way Out, or even Titanfall.

Also not 'proper' RTS but how how has Xcom 2 fared commercially on console? I only got it on PC about a year back, still love it to bits (in the middle of replaying a heavily modded LW2) and will be getting silly hours out of it down the line too. But playing in controller might be tricky, and it is unmistakably a strategy game (not sure if it counts as AAA but it must be there or thereabouts?), so I figure it might work as a barometer of sorts for future attempts?

Penn

Billy86 wrote: »

Also not 'proper' RTS but how how has Xcom 2 fared commercially on console? I only got it on PC about a year back, still love it to bits (in the middle of replaying a heavily modded LW2) and will be getting silly hours out of it down the line too. But playing in controller might be tricky, and it is unmistakably a strategy game (not sure if it counts as AAA but it must be there or thereabouts?), so I figure it might work as a barometer of sorts for future attempts?

It's actually on PS+ for free this month. Not my type of game but might attract some new fans.

johnny_ultimate

The sentient banana game is definitely one of the few titles to catch my interest so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaPBAKg3VT4

Another hyper violent 2d shooter isn’t itself a particularly enticing prospect, nor is a slo-mo combat system... but as I was watching the trailer I couldn’t help but be fascinated and wonder how it’s goofily balletic movement and acrobatics actually work with a controller in the hand.

The talking banana also helps its case.

Falthyron

Deleted User wrote: »

Outside of the sports titles there is little monetisation in any other title, Battlefront 2 had them but they were quickly removed. Have you played C&C Rivals or are you just assuming? Looking at the games announced at E3 tacked on monetisation seems to absent from any of the titles, sure FIFA and others will have ultimate team but that's option and you can still play the games and never spend a penny. I got into FIFA 18 on the Switch and not spend a single real world cent ingame.

Also, who says an RTS can't play well on a console. Plenty of damn fine RTS games have been released on console and the PS4 supports mouse and keyboard for any RTS console fan.

I really like the C&C franchise and would love a new PC entry but also recognise that the RTS market is not what it used to be. Sure a few stragglers still make a decent profit but if the RTS genre was as healthy as you seem to imply then why has no developer jumped on it?

I played Red Alert 3 and Tom Clancy's End War on Xbox 360 (for my sins!) and it really doesn't work well. A mouse and keyboard are essential. StarCraft 2 is a huge success and that has Blizzard/Activision in charge, but its PC only.

The point I am making is: just because a genre doesn't appear as profitable as a GTA V or COD, doesn't mean the genre is 'dead' or no longer viable. As I have already said, if you want to accept EA's logic that RTS now belongs on mobile then that is your prerogative, but there are many examples: CoH, DoW, Homeworld, Starcraft, Ashes, and to a further extent, Total War and XCOM, to prove that money can be made from the strategy genre. EA won't do it, because it isn't enough money. Instead, they will dish out a cheap mobile title, otherwise they are sitting on an IP that isn't making money for them. Cheapest investment for maximum return, that is how mobile gaming has gone and CnC Rivals is just another stunt into that platform.

It would seem there is a majority out there who agree that EA's CnC Rivals is a cynical cash grab:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-06-10-as-the-internet-slams-eas-command-and-conquer-mobile-game-the-developers-call-for-a-fair-shake

Falthyron

Falthyron wrote:

I played Red Alert 3 and Tom Clancy's End War on Xbox 360 (for my sins!) and it really doesn't work well. A mouse and keyboard are essential. StarCraft 2 is a huge success and that has Blizzard/Activision in charge, but its PC only.

As I said PS4 has support for both.

And plenty of RTS titles do well on console, just because you have difficulty playing them on a controller doesn't mean everyone does or that they wouldn't use a mouse and keyboard.

There's a small number of RTS that have done well but if there is this huge market that you claim exists why are other devs not going after it?

Falthyron wrote:

It would seem there is a majority out there who agree that EA's CnC Rivals is a cynical cash grab:

If down votes and tweets were the bar by which we judged attitudes toward gaming trends then we'd have very few games being released.

I think I'll at least have the decency to try the game before crying about it online.

Falthyron

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said PS4 has support for both.

And plenty of RTS titles do well on console, just because you have difficulty playing them on a controller doesn't mean everyone does or that they wouldn't use a mouse and keyboard.

There's a small number of RTS that have done well but if there is this huge market that you claim exists why are other devs not going after it?

I already explained this: because RTS games don't translate well on to consoles which is where most of the profit is made on a game.

As for your claim about RTS titles doing well on console, name two.

If down votes and tweets were the bar by which we judged attitudes toward gaming trends then we'd have very few games being released.

I think I'll at least have the decency to try the game before crying about it online.

Trends and attitudes certainly had an impact on big titles like Call of Duty and Battlefront 2. Community trends can not be ignored: see Ubisoft on DRM, see Lootboxes, see MS and removing second hand game support, see Bethesda on bugs, etc. etc.

Nobody is crying, there is no need for the hyperbole. You are okay with EA making a cheap CnC cash cow on mobile and I am saying it doesn't have to be this way. I like to see ambition and there is evidence today of RTS games being successful, but EA's greed and what they interpret as 'successful' is the main barrier to a proper CnC RTS title. It has nothing to do with the genre being dead or no longer viable.

Falthyron

Falthyron wrote: »

I already explained this: because RTS games don't translate well on to consoles which is where most of the profit is made on a game.

As for your claim about RTS titles doing well on console, name two.

Halo Wars, Xcom, Shadow Tactics...

Falthyron wrote: »

Trends and attitudes certainly had an impact on big titles like Call of Duty and Battlefront 2. Community trends can not be ignored: see Ubisoft on DRM, see Lootboxes, see MS and removing second hand game support, see Bethesda on bugs, etc. etc.

Nobody is crying, there is no need for the hyperbole. You are okay with EA making a cheap CnC cash cow on mobile and I am saying it doesn't have to be this way. I like to see ambition and there is evidence today of RTS games being successful, but EA's greed and what they interpret as 'successful' is the main barrier to a proper CnC RTS title. It has nothing to do with the genre being dead or no longer viable.

The thing is, I would love to see a big budget C&C game on PC but I also recognise that the market that existed is no longer there with most hardcore RTS fans having migrated to MOBAs. I also don't have an issue with a mobile title, will I play it well doubtful but I'm not getting upset and looking to cry at a developer because they made a game for a platform I don't generally play. You say greed and earlier you were saying that the reason there was no new C&C game was that EA only do huge budget games that they can monetise but then in the same paragraph talk about how a C&C game would easily outsell EA's smaller more moderate titles? So which is it as you seem to contradict yourself repeatedly.

You seem to think that anyone who has no issue with a mobile title has been brainwashed by the published but maybe it's just that some of us understand how business works and that a dev/publisher will look at ways to maximise return. I would order a new C&C RTS on PC soon as I saw some reviews of it but I understand why we have not seen one.

No one said that RTS titles aren't successful, there's a handful that are but there's not been an RTS that has blown up in years, do you really think that a developer would sit on an IP like C&C if there was a huge demand for a new game that they thought could be profitable? If I'm not mistaken, Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight was never intended for a stand-alone release outside of Asian markets and only came out over here in a bid to boost sales for the franchise which had been performing very poorly.

If RTS is such a strong genre why are there so few RTS being released, why have none of the big devs cashed in on this profitable market?

Falthyron

Deleted User wrote: »

Halo Wars, Xcom, Shadow Tactics...

The thing is, I would love to see a big budget C&C game on PC but I also recognise that the market that existed is no longer there with most hardcore RTS fans having migrated to MOBAs. I also don't have an issue with a mobile title, will I play it well doubtful but I'm not getting upset and looking to cry at a developer because they made a game for a platform I don't generally play. You say greed and earlier you were saying that the reason there was no new C&C game was that EA only do huge budget games that they can monetise but then in the same paragraph talk about how a C&C game would easily outsell EA's smaller more moderate titles? So which is it as you seem to contradict yourself repeatedly.

Firstly, yes, Halo Wars was moderately successful on Xbox. Sold under 1 million units, but as for longevity and popularity, well its no CnC or CoH or DoW. The other two you have listed aren't RTS games. They are strategy, but tactile and small scale action games.

... EA didn't develop their moderate titles like A Way Out and Yarny 2. They went to a developer's conference (like the Cannes Film Festival) saw some prototype games/finished builds looking for publication and offered to publish the likes of A Way Out and Yarny 2. I don't know if you are being deliberately spurious or just not aware of the difference between developing and publishing. To put it simply: EA didn't pour millions into the development of Yarny 2. They simply offered to publish Yarny 2 after the work had been done in exchange for a cut of the profits made from that title. Developing CnC would require EA putting their own money into development AND publication. A far greater expense than merely publishing someone else's work. So, yes, I do believe a RTS game in the CnC franchise properly developed and marketed would have a far greater return potential than a small indie game like Yarny 2 or A Way Out. However, EA aren't prepared to do that because the amount they would spend on developing and publishing wouldn't match (here's the key part) their expectations in returns. That's not to say it wouldn't be a profitable game, for another developer/publisher, CnC's hypothetical returns could be a positive boon to their financial statements, but to EA, its simply not enough. If it isn't making Battlefield or FIFA money, its not worth being developed.

You seem to think that anyone who has no issue with a mobile title has been brainwashed by the published but maybe it's just that some of us understand how business works and that a dev/publisher will look at ways to maximise return. I would order a new C&C RTS on PC soon as I saw some reviews of it but I understand why we have not seen one.

High-roading and subtle insults don't work here. EA have shown their ethics and priorities countless times now and they don't always reside with producing a good game, rather they prefer to produce a profitable one, and excess has no limitations in that department.

No one said that RTS titles aren't successful, there's a handful that are but there's not been an RTS that has blown up in years, do you really think that a developer would sit on an IP like C&C if there was a huge demand for a new game that they thought could be profitable? If I'm not mistaken, Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight was never intended for a stand-alone release outside of Asian markets and only came out over here in a bid to boost sales for the franchise which had been performing very poorly.

Again, you aren't understanding the key point I continually make. If a proper CnC RTS game was developed and launched by EA, costing 30 million to make, and returned a healthy intake of 40 million, that would be considered a failure by EA. They only made a 10 million return. They want more than that. To most other publishers that is a positive return. Its a good healthy profit. But its not enough for EA. CnC 4 is a poor example as it was also caught up in peak DRM controversy. It was a bad game to begin with because Westwood was gone by that stage and those credited with making solid CnC games had been moved on.

If RTS is such a strong genre why are there so few RTS being released, why have none of the big devs cashed in on this profitable market?

You keep asking, and I keep answering.

StarCraft 2 is made by Activision/Blizzard. It received TWO expansion packs in addition to the main game. It is a true RTS and has a big eSports following. Activision/Blizzard also made some other games you might have heard of, like COD and Overwatch and WoW. Is that a big enough developer for you?

Company of Heroes 2, made by Relic Entertainment. The lads who made DoW franchise. Originally owned by THQ (Big publisher) and then later bought by SEGA (Big developer and Publisher). They have been asked to make the next Age of Empires game by Microsoft (Big developer and publisher).

Do you need me to go on or have I answered your question yet?

wes

So Kait is the main character in the next Gears, which is cool. I think they will switch it to Del in 6, so that each of the 3 new characters will get there own game.

nix

a new C&C game could make a killing, it has a loyal fan base and with the right marketing has the potential to make an even bigger fan base (Its been far too long without a proper C&C game). And throw in the right actors for the cut scenes, can be very easily marketed..

I've always enjoyed RTS games but im not the biggest RTS fan, Star craft 2 is a great game and proof that RTS games like that can work and do well, and there was a time where C&C was the top RTS brand. I never got into company of heroes though, sadly.

However id love a new C&C game (even if it is EA making it), and especially if its a Tiberian sun version

Falthyron

nix wrote: »

a new C&C game could make a killing, it has a loyal fan base and with the right marketing has the potential to make an even bigger fan base (Its been far too long without a proper C&C game). And throw in the right actors for the cut scenes, can be very easily marketed..

I've always enjoyed RTS games but im not the biggest RTS fan, Star craft 2 is a great game and proof that RTS games like that can work and do well, and there was a time where C&C was the top RTS brand. I never got into company of heroes though, sadly.

However id love a new C&C game (even if it is EA making it), and especially if its a Tiberian sun version

Steam Sale should be hitting around June 21st and you should be able to get them both for less than 12 euro. Wonderful games! Not as detailed as a CnC (less base building and more micro-management of squads) but the sound effects, the tactics, and the overall feel is very satisfying. Keep away from multiplayer though, there are some incredible players on there who will destroy you pretty quickly! I usually play with two friends and we work together against AI. Really intense games!

FAILSAFE 00

I really wish the Playstation show would be on a bit earlier. I might watch its recording in the morning but I'd like to watch it live.

What I am looking for:

More gameplay of Days Gone. I want to see what makes it different from the last of us and I'd like to see more swarms of zombies that were shown in the games first reveal. The hordes seemed absent from the gameplay shown last year.

Some gameplay from the samurai game they teased last year. That looks very promising.

An announcement of a new Playstation console to close the 4k gap. To at least match the Xbox One X power or better it. I've a really good TV so the next Playstation will compliment it nicely.
A good bit quieter than the Pro would be really appreciated too.

Some new IP's announcements.

Falthyron

Falthyron wrote: »

Firstly, yes, Halo Wars was moderately successful on Xbox. Sold under 1 million units, but as for longevity and popularity, well its no CnC or CoH or DoW. The other two you have listed aren't RTS games. They are strategy, but tactile and small scale action games.

So you contradict yourself again, you asked for 2 RTS titles doing well on console and when provided with a couple you then change the game and now request ones as successful as the genre leaders. Shadow Wars is a real time strategy which is pretty much an RTS with a twist.

Falthyron wrote: »

... EA didn't develop their moderate titles like A Way Out and Yarny 2. They went to a developer's conference (like the Cannes Film Festival) saw some prototype games/finished builds looking for publication and offered to publish the likes of A Way Out and Yarny 2. I don't know if you are being deliberately spurious or just not aware of the difference between developing and publishing. To put it simply: EA didn't pour millions into the development of Yarny 2. They simply offered to publish Yarny 2 after the work had been done in exchange for a cut of the profits made from that title. Developing CnC would require EA putting their own money into development AND publication. A far greater expense than merely publishing someone else's work. So, yes, I do believe a RTS game in the CnC franchise properly developed and marketed would have a far greater return potential than a small indie game like Yarny 2 or A Way Out. However, EA aren't prepared to do that because the amount they would spend on developing and publishing wouldn't match (here's the key part) their expectations in returns. That's not to say it wouldn't be a profitable game, for another developer/publisher, CnC's hypothetical returns could be a positive boon to their financial statements, but to EA, its simply not enough. If it isn't making Battlefield or FIFA money, its not worth being developed.

Can you please show me any proof that A Way Out and Unravel Two were only picked up by EA after they saw a prototype or finished game as I'm pretty certain that both titles are part of the EA Originals program which is dedicated to funding small independent games and not just publishing them. I'm also pretty sure that EA came on board A Way Out very early when one of the higher ups approached Fares because they loved Brothers. As far as I understand it EA paid for development costs of A Way Out, think they gave them $4 million or so and let Fares and his small team have complete creative control.

For Unravel Two Coldwood did sign a publishing deal with EA but it also looks like development money was forthcoming as well.

Falthyron wrote: »

High-roading and subtle insults don't work here. EA have shown their ethics and priorities countless times now and they don't always reside with producing a good game, rather they prefer to produce a profitable one, and excess has no limitations in that department.

Maybe take your own advice then. You seem to think that anyone who isn't offended by the idea of a C&C mobile title has been brainwashed by the big bad publisher.

Falthyron wrote: »

Again, you aren't understanding the key point I continually make. If a proper CnC RTS game was developed and launched by EA, costing 30 million to make, and returned a healthy intake of 40 million, that would be considered a failure by EA. They only made a 10 million return. They want more than that. To most other publishers that is a positive return. Its a good healthy profit. But its not enough for EA. CnC 4 is a poor example as it was also caught up in peak DRM controversy. It was a bad game to begin with because Westwood was gone by that stage and those credited with making solid CnC games had been moved on.

Has EA been including you in boardroom meetings for some time as you seem to know quite a bit about what to them constitutes a successful game? How do you know that a 10 million dollar profit would not be seen as a win if it meant that it was all pure profit? There is a reason why a game such as The Sims making a profit of say $40 million is better to EA than a game like FIFA making $60 million profit. Same with C&C as they own the rights to the titles and profits are not shared.

Falthyron wrote: »

You keep asking, and I keep answering.

StarCraft 2 is made by Activision/Blizzard. It received TWO expansion packs in addition to the main game. It is a true RTS and has a big eSports following. Activision/Blizzard also made some other games you might have heard of, like COD and Overwatch and WoW. Is that a big enough developer for you?

Company of Heroes 2, made by Relic Entertainment. The lads who made DoW franchise. Originally owned by THQ (Big publisher) and then later bought by SEGA (Big developer and Publisher). They have been asked to make the next Age of Empires game by Microsoft (Big developer and publisher).

Do you need me to go on or have I answered your question yet?

You really don't, you do realise that StarCraft 2 is a decade old, Company of Heroes 2 is 5 years old. of the three you mentioned only one has had an entry in 5 years. THQ hasn't been a big publisher in a long time, in fact, they went out of business some time ago so maybe this huge market for RTS games really isn't there. If these big developers are so sure that RTS games are such a big market why are there so few of them, bar Dawn of War III there hasn't been a new RTS from a big developer or publisher in 5 years. If that big company behind WoW are so sure that the RTS genre is huge why have we not seen a new Starcraft in almost a decade? Why aren't you attacking Blizzard for ignoring the RTS genre and not producing another RTS game since 2010?

FAILSAFE 00

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

An announcement of a new Playstation console to close the 4k gap. To at least match the Xbox One X power or better it. I've a really good TV so the next Playstation will compliment it nicely.
A good bit quieter than the Pro would be really appreciated too.

The difference between the Xbox One X and the PS Pro are negligible and in fact, many games look and play better on the Pro than the One X already so why would they release another console.

nix

nix wrote: »

a new C&C game could make a killing, it has a loyal fan base and with the right marketing has the potential to make an even bigger fan base (Its been far too long without a proper C&C game). And throw in the right actors for the cut scenes, can be very easily marketed..

I've always enjoyed RTS games but im not the biggest RTS fan, Star craft 2 is a great game and proof that RTS games like that can work and do well, and there was a time where C&C was the top RTS brand. I never got into company of heroes though, sadly.

However id love a new C&C game (even if it is EA making it), and especially if its a Tiberian sun version

Company of Heroes is well worth a play through, genuinely great games that you can return to time and again.

Rossi IRL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The difference between the Xbox One X and the PS Pro are negligible and in fact, many games look and play better on the Pro than the One X already so why would they release another console.

Got to agree, I am a user of both the X and Pro.

Thought I read an article lately about the latest Siege update. Neither the Pro or the X will be capable of running that game it full 4k.

Both consoles are as good as they are going to be for this generation, I reckon, and I'm OK with that.

Falthyron

Deleted User wrote: »

So you contradict yourself again, you asked for 2 RTS titles doing well on console and when provided with a couple you then change the game and now request ones as successful as the genre leaders. Shadow Wars is a real time strategy which is pretty much an RTS with a twist.



Can you please show me any proof that A Way Out and Unravel Two were only picked up by EA after they saw a prototype or finished game as I'm pretty certain that both titles are part of the EA Originals program which is dedicated to funding small independent games and not just publishing them. I'm also pretty sure that EA came on board A Way Out very early when one of the higher ups approached Fares because they loved Brothers. As far as I understand it EA paid for development costs of A Way Out, think they gave them $4 million or so and let Fares and his small team have complete creative control.

For Unravel Two Coldwood did sign a publishing deal with EA but it also looks like development money was forthcoming as well.




Maybe take your own advice then. You seem to think that anyone who isn't offended by the idea of a C&C mobile title has been brainwashed by the big bad publisher.



Has EA been including you in boardroom meetings for some time as you seem to know quite a bit about what to them constitutes a successful game? How do you know that a 10 million dollar profit would not be seen as a win if it meant that it was all pure profit? There is a reason why a game such as The Sims making a profit of say $40 million is better to EA than a game like FIFA making $60 million profit. Same with C&C as they own the rights to the titles and profits are not shared.





You really don't, you do realise that StarCraft 2 is a decade old, Company of Heroes 2 is 5 years old. of the three you mentioned only one has had an entry in 5 years. THQ hasn't been a big publisher in a long time, in fact, they went out of business some time ago so maybe this huge market for RTS games really isn't there. If these big developers are so sure that RTS games are such a big market why are there so few of them, bar Dawn of War III there hasn't been a new RTS from a big developer or publisher in 5 years. If that big company behind WoW are so sure that the RTS genre is huge why have we not seen a new Starcraft in almost a decade? Why aren't you attacking Blizzard for ignoring the RTS genre and not producing another RTS game since 2010?

Which sport are you playing because I can't find the goalposts anymore.

Good luck with your quest to prove to the world that RTS games are dead and gone, with MOBA being the future. I'll just wait for the CoH3 announcement this evening or in the near future. Followed by the AoE4 trailer which will be along shortly. I'll also wait and see what a great RTS developer will show off soon. Perhaps I will check out Iron Harvest and Anno 1800, too? If they don't pique my interest, I can always fall back on what new features will be added to Ashes of the Singularity in the coming months. Failing all of that, I reckon UbiSoft will announce a new Settlers game soon. That would be a welcome addition!

I hope your conviction about CnC Rivals being the best EA can do with the license right now brings you great satisfaction. If you have to pay €2 to play more than 3 games per day, I am sure paying that will give you a great sense of pride and accomplishment.

kunst nugget

Releasing a more powerful Pro wouldn't be a good idea and most likely blow up in their faces with a lot of people of people who've already bought the Pro being very pissed off. They'll be concentrating on their exclusives and VR. Hopefully, they'll be showcasing some new IPs.