Victory Games


  • sovietforger - April 1, 2013 3:47 a.m.

    F2P yeah right after knowing EA they only care about money so it's gonna be a pay2win game or after playing a month or so they start asking money to play it. it's just not right but i'm interested in this and if it's pay2win then screw EA
  • doominatorx6 - February 26, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    Please, EA. Let this series die with whatever dignity it has left. You killed Westwood. But C&C 3 was pretty good. Red Alert 3 was a real love it or hate it thing (personally, I loved it), but Command and Conquer 4? My god. You can't bounce back from that. F2P is not the way to go for this series. If anything, scrap this and bring back that "why the hell was it cancelled" FPS Tiberium. Oh right, it was cancelled for "not meeting EA quality" or something like that. I didn't know such a thing existed. Heh, EA and quality.
  • dlam - February 25, 2013 3:48 p.m.

    hopefully they make Tanya and Natasha super OP, like they were in the original red alert huehueuhueuhueuheu
  • FoxdenRacing - February 25, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    I don't know if this is the smartest move. It's great to see CnC back in action, and I admit that the timeline-crossovers could be a ton of fun [GDI vs Soviets. Round 1: Fight!], but going F2P bothers me in several ways. 1: I don't trust EA to get it right. Not in any way, shape, or form. From the looks of those screens and the text of the article, it's obvious Victory has the best of intentions and is turning this into a labor of love...but I also have no doubts that they'll be fighting an uphill battle against the suits at EA attempting to pollute it with harebrained monetization schemes. 2: F2P is a bubble. As the number of competitors increase, the likelihood of recouping costs is going to plummet. Not only does it have to recoup the dev costs and the server costs, it also has to recoup the ongoing dev costs...all while negating a veritable sea of $0 customers. One needs not look any further than the player numbers for traditional-model games to see how F2P could become extremely high-risk...for every Halo, there's an Ace Combat, for every CoD there's a Chromehounds. When a company's survival banks on the size and longevity of its playerbase...things could easily get extremely ugly. 3: As an old-school gamer, as a guy that's big on retro and gaming history, having whole games that disappear once the plug is pulled bugs me to no end. None of the above is against Victory specifically; I'm just leery of the places the industry is headed, especially with the Big 5's track record of the past few years [Well, Big 4 now. RIP, THQ.] Godspeed, Victory. I'll be watching this looks like they're doing a good job so far.
  • Sovtek - February 25, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. To add to your first point, there is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, that prevents a publisher from taking a developers' free-to-play game and turning it into a pay-to-win. Every single free to play game publisher realizes this sooner or later, and the outcome has been the exact same every single time. Sooner or later, EA will realize that there is not a single good, valid (from a short term gain business standpoint) reason NOT to take the game pay-to-win and damn Victory's intentions and hard work.
  • bass88 - February 25, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    Is the Verhoeven-esque humour still intact? I don't care for RTS (sorry Starcraft fans) but I liked C&C for the over-the-top satire. If it's still there I may actually go ahead and play this.
  • KA87 - February 25, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    Let me guess. It will take me the equivalent of 10-20 hours of play to make enough in game money to buy a $1 item. Oh and where is the real life news to a video game article? I was looking forward to it.

Showing 1-7 of 7 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000