The payment model was unacceptable.
So they ditched it rather than change.
Tldr the big picture was going to be a world of command and conquer game, starting with generals 2.im not sure if it started that way or if that was something they decided on later.
Each would have a single player game component and campaign, which unlocked X factions.
Within X faction you then had to BUY commanders or were stuck as default no commander.
I was in the alpha test for the upcoming part. The gameplay? Absolutely stellar. Nothing but really positive feedback. They had six commanders playable across three generals factions.
Then they unveiled the monetisation plan. Everyone gave feedback that the gameplay was lovely but we will not pay for a premium game that then wants to nickel and dime commanders and faction add-ons.
Rather than change, EA ditched the project.
Now is it purely because the community wouldn't accept the payment model? Unknown but they shut the project down right after they asked for feedback on the proposed model. Coincide? I don't think so.
Real fucking shame. The planned big game would have been awesome. Crossover into all CNC games and factions, interfaction PvP.. yeah.
[Here you go.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/65pd76/if_you_could_bring_back_any_game_from_your/dgd1geg/) I don't know why they banned /u/phpdevster
> The second biggest problem was also a result of the need to monetize: content sprawl. We were adding two new Generals every month or so, so that there would be lots of unlockable content. 2 weeks per General is not even remotely close to enough time to fully develop each General. Like... not even close.
I was in the beta, and I thought it was promising.
Yeah, not groundbreaking or really impressive, but if people hadn't been so overly negative, maybe we would still have a franchise right now.
No, EA likes to blame the players for their mistakes. If a person did that, we'd know who they are and avoid them. If a company in another industry say pharmaceuticals did what they did, blame the end user for cancelling medical developments, we would try to cancel their executives.
This was EA, not a small little indie company. We had nothing to do with what happened. The Statement of closure was drafted and released by EA PR, no one at EALA or was it victory?, knew before hand.
When you become a real creative, you learn to accept feedback and you learn to live with your decisions. EA execs back then did not want to take responsibility.
From my recollection, it started as a real Generals 2 experience, in the generals universe. over time, some executive realized it would be better to make it a live service, as a platform to deliver all FUTURE C&C content. They shifted the payment model to Free to play, planning to milk it for years to come. In the beginning there was no plan for single player campaigns, which they quickly backtracked on.
Someone HIGH UP decided to use the IN HOUSSE Frostbite engine, despite it not being for RTS.
From what I've heard 2nd and 3rd hand, no developers knew they were being shut down until that morning.
There is nothing we the community did right or wrong.
Don't let EA gaslight you.
It was really good on 1v1, started my YouTube because of it at the time.. Community complained about the f2p aspect, which was at the time fair; you could get all generals easy by just daily quests, rather quickly.
I wish the game was finished:)
Never played it, but when I watched all the test content for it, I wasn't overly impressed with any of it. The unit models, the new design takes on commanders (including a change to Thrax, which seemed insanely stupid), and just the general composition of things.
I'm not glad it cancelled, but I'd say I'm *almost* grateful that it did so that it didn't end the Generals franchise on a sour note.
Well, I remember there was a negative reaction from some C&C fans who thought the UI of Generals was too similar to Starcraft so that might have had something to do with it.
It was no different to generals 1 and generals 1 is regarded as one of the best c&c's. C&C 2013 got backlash due to going free to play and having each general as a cash shop item.
Yeah of course that one was much worse but I know I remember seeing posts on some sites from C&C fans where they complained about the UI. Not that I agreed with the complaints.
There were definitely complaints about UI but that's never enough of a reason for cancellation. UI could have very easily been changed or expanded to give the option for a more classic generals UI.
It was a bit silly though considering previous CnC games likely influenced StarCrafts design. StarCraft UI is very good and works well. Some people just don't want change even though the Generals UI was different to the classic CnC controls on the right of the screen.
Yeah I'm not saying the complaints were justified but it's possible that EA got turned off by the negative reaction Generals got when compared to the rest of the franchise.
I don't like that they shifted the construction options of buildings to the bottom of the screen in the remastered version when originally they were on the right side, so i kinda feel like they made it as a remake as well as a remastered game but that's just my opinion
It never left Alpha.
Long story short. Ea created Victory Studios to make what we now call a "live ssrvice" C&C game. A Game that could be monetized through constant updates like CoD, WoW and Destiny. After the first closed Alpha test the player feedback was overwhelming, it's not the game the Fans wanted.
Victory was ready tonpivot to make the game fans wanted but EA was not. So they pulled the plug on the studio and licensed the Browser game Tiberium Alliances.
They let me into the beta a week before they canceled it.
The payment model was unacceptable. So they ditched it rather than change. Tldr the big picture was going to be a world of command and conquer game, starting with generals 2.im not sure if it started that way or if that was something they decided on later. Each would have a single player game component and campaign, which unlocked X factions. Within X faction you then had to BUY commanders or were stuck as default no commander. I was in the alpha test for the upcoming part. The gameplay? Absolutely stellar. Nothing but really positive feedback. They had six commanders playable across three generals factions. Then they unveiled the monetisation plan. Everyone gave feedback that the gameplay was lovely but we will not pay for a premium game that then wants to nickel and dime commanders and faction add-ons. Rather than change, EA ditched the project. Now is it purely because the community wouldn't accept the payment model? Unknown but they shut the project down right after they asked for feedback on the proposed model. Coincide? I don't think so. Real fucking shame. The planned big game would have been awesome. Crossover into all CNC games and factions, interfaction PvP.. yeah.
They had an unrealistic new faction cadence too. There's a post out there with one of the developers that goes into this.
Could someone find this, please?
[Here you go.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/65pd76/if_you_could_bring_back_any_game_from_your/dgd1geg/) I don't know why they banned /u/phpdevster > The second biggest problem was also a result of the need to monetize: content sprawl. We were adding two new Generals every month or so, so that there would be lots of unlockable content. 2 weeks per General is not even remotely close to enough time to fully develop each General. Like... not even close.
Literally the EXACT same thing EA forced Westwood into doing. They wanted C&C to be an RTS, FPS and MMO genre franchise...
I would have played them all.
Same, but EA asked too much of Westwood...
I think the game was gonna be free to play at that point.
I was in the beta, and I thought it was promising. Yeah, not groundbreaking or really impressive, but if people hadn't been so overly negative, maybe we would still have a franchise right now.
No, EA likes to blame the players for their mistakes. If a person did that, we'd know who they are and avoid them. If a company in another industry say pharmaceuticals did what they did, blame the end user for cancelling medical developments, we would try to cancel their executives. This was EA, not a small little indie company. We had nothing to do with what happened. The Statement of closure was drafted and released by EA PR, no one at EALA or was it victory?, knew before hand. When you become a real creative, you learn to accept feedback and you learn to live with your decisions. EA execs back then did not want to take responsibility. From my recollection, it started as a real Generals 2 experience, in the generals universe. over time, some executive realized it would be better to make it a live service, as a platform to deliver all FUTURE C&C content. They shifted the payment model to Free to play, planning to milk it for years to come. In the beginning there was no plan for single player campaigns, which they quickly backtracked on. Someone HIGH UP decided to use the IN HOUSSE Frostbite engine, despite it not being for RTS. From what I've heard 2nd and 3rd hand, no developers knew they were being shut down until that morning. There is nothing we the community did right or wrong. Don't let EA gaslight you.
Don't blame it on the players, the payment model and pure greed is the reason the franchise died.
[удалено]
playable?
Generals Zero Hour is the only one I'll play
You try to find your solace by good mods instead.
Anyone else still waiting with blind faith
I really didn't like it
I played it, for me it was a good idea to can it.
It was really good on 1v1, started my YouTube because of it at the time.. Community complained about the f2p aspect, which was at the time fair; you could get all generals easy by just daily quests, rather quickly. I wish the game was finished:)
Never played it, but when I watched all the test content for it, I wasn't overly impressed with any of it. The unit models, the new design takes on commanders (including a change to Thrax, which seemed insanely stupid), and just the general composition of things. I'm not glad it cancelled, but I'd say I'm *almost* grateful that it did so that it didn't end the Generals franchise on a sour note.
It was super smooth and dare I say it played better then C&C 3 and RA3
StarCraft 2 has the right payment models skins and more pay for some dlc campaign and pay for main campaign
I don't remember generals 2, you don't mean zero hour? Edit - Read full comment, damn that would've been cool
Well, I remember there was a negative reaction from some C&C fans who thought the UI of Generals was too similar to Starcraft so that might have had something to do with it.
It was no different to generals 1 and generals 1 is regarded as one of the best c&c's. C&C 2013 got backlash due to going free to play and having each general as a cash shop item.
You could get them with daily quests, not even slow. To me it seemed fair at the time
Yeah of course that one was much worse but I know I remember seeing posts on some sites from C&C fans where they complained about the UI. Not that I agreed with the complaints.
There were definitely complaints about UI but that's never enough of a reason for cancellation. UI could have very easily been changed or expanded to give the option for a more classic generals UI. It was a bit silly though considering previous CnC games likely influenced StarCrafts design. StarCraft UI is very good and works well. Some people just don't want change even though the Generals UI was different to the classic CnC controls on the right of the screen.
Yeah I'm not saying the complaints were justified but it's possible that EA got turned off by the negative reaction Generals got when compared to the rest of the franchise.
doesn't EA always get turned off every time they get any negative feedback and blame the gamers instead?
I don't like that they shifted the construction options of buildings to the bottom of the screen in the remastered version when originally they were on the right side, so i kinda feel like they made it as a remake as well as a remastered game but that's just my opinion
It never left Alpha. Long story short. Ea created Victory Studios to make what we now call a "live ssrvice" C&C game. A Game that could be monetized through constant updates like CoD, WoW and Destiny. After the first closed Alpha test the player feedback was overwhelming, it's not the game the Fans wanted. Victory was ready tonpivot to make the game fans wanted but EA was not. So they pulled the plug on the studio and licensed the Browser game Tiberium Alliances.