View Full Version : Command & Conquer 4 to Require Constant Internet Connection
scrapser
03-18-10, 02:03 PM
Here we go again.
Raptor1
03-18-10, 02:06 PM
Not 'to', it already does. And this is old news.
C&C was destined to fall when EA murdered Westwood...
scrapser
03-18-10, 02:17 PM
Ah...didn't realize it was out already. No worries. I'm not buying it. I played C&C-3 once and wondered why I bothered. With this new DRM it's a no-brainer decision.
Fincuan
03-18-10, 02:44 PM
EA's community manager had a pretty hilarious view on the subject:
"First thing to be clear about, Command & Conquer 4 has NO DRM. Zip, zero, zilch, none."
Oh, hold on...
"To play Command & Conquer 4, the computer needs to be connected to the internet."
:hmm2:
Source: Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/5496079/command--conquer-copies-ubisofts-awful-drm)
Arclight
03-18-10, 02:49 PM
Not 'to', it already does. And this is old news.Aye, posted it months ago. Noone cared. :-?
No dedicated servers or LAN play either, btw.
conus00
03-18-10, 02:51 PM
Another game to strike off of the "to-buy-list". :nope:
At this point I'm very thankful for the DOSBox....
Lionclaw
03-18-10, 06:20 PM
Well if this is the future of the computer game industry, I can only hope it will cause the collapse of said industry. Something good may come from the ruins.
Gaming needs to go back to its roots.
I've been a gamer since the early 1990's, or even late -80's, I don't really remember my first ever gaming experience.
I didn't get on the PC bandwagon until 1997, Super EF2000 was the first game I played. It was quite fun but I couldn't really get into it so I sold the game after some time. Back when you could sell the PC games!
I grew up with Nintendo 8-bit, Commodore 64 and Amiga 500+. Back then, games were great, they were released in a finished state, they had excellent gameplay, graphics didn't really matter.
It was fun.
It wasn't until mid to late -90's that graphics really started improving. There were some good PC games during that period though. Some of which I didn't discover until many years later.
But then they started to focus too much on graphics, and gameplay suffered.
I'd rather have a great game with mediocre graphics than a mediocre game with great graphics.
Well sometimes some gems with both great gameplay and graphics appear.
And one has to wonder why games are released in the state in which they are released. Half done, shouldn't the price be lower then? I mean if something is half done, why should I pay full price for an incomplete product?
Yes, games are way more complex today than they were 20 years ago, so it's impossible to find and destroy all bugs. But when it's unstable and crashing a lot, one has to wonder if Quality Control exists in some publishing companies.
It seems more to me like an investment to buy games today, so they can actually finish the game. Probably too many people shuffling around papers in offices that are sucking money from budgets.
UNREALISTIC DEADLINES :06: :hmmm:
Well, the businessmen don't care. The only thing they care about is that they're making money. "Whoops! We released a product comparable to excrement. Who cares! MONEY!!"
Raptor1
03-18-10, 06:23 PM
This is not about unfinished games, this is about idiotic game design, which EA is a master of.
Lionclaw
03-18-10, 06:31 PM
Yes I know, it's just frustration of the state of gaming industry as a whole.
Wolfehunter
03-18-10, 06:31 PM
Well if this is the future of the computer game industry, I can only hope it will cause the collapse of said industry. Something good may come from the ruins.
Gaming needs to go back to its roots.
I've been a gamer since the early 1990's, or even late -80's, I don't really remember my first ever gaming experience.
I didn't get on the PC bandwagon until 1997, Super EF2000 was the first game I played. It was quite fun but I couldn't really get into it so I sold the game after some time. Back when you could sell the PC games!
I grew up with Nintendo 8-bit, Commodore 64 and Amiga 500+. Back then, games were great, they were released in a finished state, they had excellent gameplay, graphics didn't really matter.
It was fun.
It wasn't until mid to late -90's that graphics really started improving. There were some good PC games during that period though. Some of which I didn't discover until many years later.
But then they started to focus too much on graphics, and gameplay suffered.
I'd rather have a great game with mediocre graphics than a mediocre game with great graphics.
Well sometimes some gems with both great gameplay and graphics appear.
And one has to wonder why games are released in the state in which they are released. Half done, shouldn't the price be lower then? I mean if something is half done, why should I pay full price for an incomplete product?
Yes, games are way more complex today than they were 20 years ago, so it's impossible to find and destroy all bugs. But when it's unstable and crashing a lot, one has to wonder if Quality Control exists in some publishing companies.
It seems more to me like an investment to buy games today, so they can actually finish the game. Probably too many people shuffling around papers in offices that are sucking money from budgets.
UNREALISTIC DEADLINES :06: :hmmm:
Well, the businessmen don't care. The only thing they care about is that they're making money. "Whoops! We released a product comparable to excrement. Who cares! MONEY!!"This won't kill the PC gaming. It will kill the large coorperate *******s who try to control it. We will win. There are plenty of lesser named PC dev teams out there busting there butts on making quality PC games. Not so nice graphics like Masseffect 2 but hey PC isn't always about the look hehhee its about the size that counts... :O:
Arclight
03-18-10, 06:48 PM
This is not about unfinished games, this is about idiotic game design, which EA is a master of.
I thought that was idiotic marketing. :06:
Raptor1
03-19-10, 12:23 AM
I thought that was idiotic marketing. :06:
That too...
I meant the general decline of the game industry, not this thread specifically.
HunterICX
03-19-10, 04:44 AM
The DRM is the least of the problems I have with the post-westwood C&C games.
when EA had Westwood it went downhill and when EA shut Westwood down it hitted rock bottom.
imo, the games after RA2 do not deserve to carry the title of the franchise.
it's if you ask me a totally different game aimed at a completly different audience then the ones that played the C&C series from the beginning at least to me it felt it didn't do justice to the previous titles of the serie.
HunterICX
I liked the last C&C (3 I think it was). The gameplay was pretty much the same as in the older games, with the exception of some new tactical stuff (like the glider guys for NOD, awesome asset). The story was hastily put together which sucked, as it could've been very good.
The Scrin were something I first hated, but then I started to think about it a bit and IMHO it fits well to the story where the people have started to learn ways to contain the tiberium and suddenly BANG you got a new tiberium related threat in the form of the Scrin. :hmmm:
This new one seems to follow the trend of fast-play RTS' with no base building and resource gathering (well there is but it's kinda stoooopid). Clearly it's aimed for online play as was proved by releasing MP only beta and now this new DRM. And as I don't play RTS' online, the heck with them. :shifty:
Just too bad the genre is dying, WH40k went titties up with Dawn of War II, never liked Starcraft so SC2 doesn't appeal to me (and it seems to be heavily MP oriented). If just the smaller game developers would have the funding and a good publisher to really finish their games this genre would do good.
Camaero
03-19-10, 01:20 PM
Bad news that EA has started doing this... very bad news. :cry:
Camaero
03-19-10, 01:22 PM
I liked the last C&C (3 I think it was). The gameplay was pretty much the same as in the older games, with the exception of some new tactical stuff (like the glider guys for NOD, awesome asset). The story was hastily put together which sucked, as it could've been very good.
The Scrin were something I first hated, but then I started to think about it a bit and IMHO it fits well to the story where the people have started to learn ways to contain the tiberium and suddenly BANG you got a new tiberium related threat in the form of the Scrin. :hmmm:
This new one seems to follow the trend of fast-play RTS' with no base building and resource gathering (well there is but it's kinda stoooopid). Clearly it's aimed for online play as was proved by releasing MP only beta and now this new DRM. And as I don't play RTS' online, the heck with them. :shifty:
Just too bad the genre is dying, WH40k went titties up with Dawn of War II, never liked Starcraft so SC2 doesn't appeal to me (and it seems to be heavily MP oriented). If just the smaller game developers would have the funding and a good publisher to really finish their games this genre would do good.
I'm curious if you have played Sins of a Solar Empire?
I'm curious if you have played Sins of a Solar Empire?
Can't say I have. Not after Homeworld kept me screaming for mercy in some of the missions have I touched another space-RTS. :hmmm:
Arclight
03-20-10, 07:13 AM
Homeworld 1&2 are great, still waiting for Relic to do another one. :yep:
Ever tried Supreme Commander? Should be similar to Total Annihilation, SupCom2 more so. (can't say for certain as I never played TA. Yes, I know, I'm a heretic)
Nordmann
03-20-10, 08:48 AM
I'm curious if you have played Sins of a Solar Empire?
An excellent game, with the added bonus of absolutely no DRM. If anyone has yet to try it, I suggest you do so with all haste.
Ever tried Supreme Commander? Should be similar to Total Annihilation, SupCom2 more so. (can't say for certain as I never played TA. Yes, I know, I'm a heretic)
Yeh, tried the first SC. Hated it, mostly because the map kept getting bigger as new objectives were revealed. Kinda sucks to have been planning your defense etc. for one map and then the game kicks you in the nuggets and ruins the plan. :nope:
Will give Sins try. :hmmm:
Raptor1
03-20-10, 11:44 AM
Homeworld is still one of my favourite RTS games ever, it had great gameplay, really good (and creepy) music and atmosphere, great story, and really well-made cutscenes.
Though those things that dragged off your capital ships and ate them up in one of the last missions are some of the most annoying enemies ever.
Wish they'd make another one...
Bad news that EA has started doing this... very bad news. :cry:
Not really, they almost never release good games anymore anyway.
CaptainHaplo
03-20-10, 12:26 PM
The expanding map in SC was one thing that took getting used to. On the flip side, it introduced a component that had not been seen before - so adaptation was necessary.
I just wrote a SC2 review posted it here - and I have to recommend that if your a SERIOUS rts gamer - avoid it. SC and its expansion were much better. On the other hand, if your a console junkie who only plays the rush - then SC2 will be great for you.
Arclight
03-20-10, 12:59 PM
Yeah, that's the impression I got from the demo to. The developer still claims this one is closer to TA as the previous. :-?
papa_smurf
03-22-10, 05:18 AM
A sad day for PC gamers:wah:
KL-alfman
03-22-10, 05:47 AM
regarding Homeworld:
if new to that RTS, would you suggest to start with part1 or to dive immediately into part2?
thx for your anwers
regarding Homeworld:
if new to that RTS, would you suggest to start with part1 or to dive immediately into part2?
thx for your anwers
Pick whichever you want, ass kicking (your ass) is ensured. :haha:
Raptor1
03-22-10, 06:02 AM
regarding Homeworld:
if new to that RTS, would you suggest to start with part1 or to dive immediately into part2?
thx for your anwers
I would take them in the proper order (Homeworld, Cataclysm, Homeworld 2).
Cataclysm is more of a spin-off than a sequal to Homeworld, and it's story is IMO the weakest in the series, so you could theoretically skip it if you wanted (Though it's still a very good game, so I wouldn't).
KL-alfman
03-22-10, 06:10 AM
ok, excellent!
you've been of great help. great, they released the source-code of part1. this allows me to play during my business-trips on my Linux-laptop.
I will start today with buying it (probably only on-line possible) and will tell about my impressions in the near future.
thx, guys!
Whoever's interested in just the story:
http://www.youtube.com/user/chatthekiller#g/p
Raptor1
03-24-10, 03:38 PM
Not sure I want it to be ruined completely...
Not sure I want it to be ruined completely...
Haha, the game is even worse than it seemed to be. :haha: The new mobile MCV system has no point at all (except for making it blow). You get x amount of MCV's per mission that you can call to a LZ (only one can be in the map at any given time, you have to decommission the last one to call a new one), like already stated there are offence, defense & support MCV's. Now, using all them is like having the the old base building thing, except you have to decomission and call a new MCV everytime you want, say build defensive stuff. I mean, it makes no sense! The offensive MCV is equilevant to war factory, defensive MCV is kinda barracks & normal contruction yard mixed and the support one is air stuff and support powers such as off screen arty etc. It has to be one of gaming history's most stupid ideas... ever.
The only good thing I could find from it after 5 missions was that as with other C&C games, it runs perfectly. Well, that and the cutscenes were nice too. Joe Kucan's such an bad ass. :O:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.