C&C Generals 2 now just Command and Conquer; free-to-play

In December 2011, Electronic Arts announced plans to release Command and Conquer Generals 2, the next game in the long running RTS series and the second in the slightly more realistic portion of the franchise. EA has been quiet about its plans for the series since then but today, the publisher revealed two big changes for the game.

The first was a name change; the new game will now simply be called Command and Conquer. The second, and bigger, change is that the game will no longer be released as a retail product but rather as a downloadable game that will be "free to play".

In an FAQ page on the official Command and Conquer website, EA said that Generals 2 will simply be the first of many additions for the new free-to-play Command and Conquer game. It will still be delivered as a downloadable stand alone client and it still will use the Frostbite 2 engine first used for Battlefield 3.

The new game will just be a multiplayer-based title, although EA hints that a single player campaign could be released later on. There's no word on when the free-to-play Command and Conquer will be launched but the website is taking signups for a beta test.

Source: Command and Conquer website

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Elop reaffirms Nokia commitment to Windows Phone

Next Story

Netflix coming to Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland

18 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I love CnC but really, they MUST keep this named :Generals.
I don't really like the idea of free-to-play... sounds like they'll keep offering "upgrades" to pay $$ just so you can remain competitive, and keep on doing that.

Sounds like they weren't confident in the product as a retail item. Theres no reason for them not to sell this as a proper product unless that was the case, and the lack of single player campaign which has been a hallmark of virtually every C&C RTS game also speaks to that affect.

And *all* of you missed that single-player (likely including sandbox) will be added later - it just won't be part of the game at launch. The real question is will single-player be free as well - if it is (and I'm generally not a fan of online RTS titles) then I'll be all over this.

There is a browser-based game in the Tiberium Universe that is not really a sequel to C&C 4 (which took a lot of heat due to the lack of base-building) - it's called Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances, and has been out for a while.

No EA, no!

Command and Conquer + 2, 3 and 4 take place in the tiberium universe. You can't just rename Command and Conquer: Generals to Command and Conquer. It was called Generals because it was set in a different universe to the games called Command and Conquer.

And no single player? No thanks. The campaigns are what makes a C&C title. A free to play multiplayer game basically means "pay to win" to me.

TCLN Ryster said,
A free to play multiplayer game basically means "pay to win" to me.

That is what is sounds like to me. No interest at all.

Just wish for another World in Conflict. That game was epic and better put together than any of EA's C&C's. Although I do have a guilty pleasure of watching the overdone movies in between battles!!

Eh.... Gameplay footage doesnt impress me. I miss the days of "realistic" RTS, rather than this futuristic garbage. The animations aren't smooth at all which worries me. Generals had very smooth and realistic turning/flying. I give them props though, for the destructible environments and the explosion effects. And out of all the C&C games I would have hoped that Generals would have been more of an RTS Simulator than an action game.

Edited by xbamaris, Aug 15 2012, 3:49pm :

I love the first one but I've not liked any of the other ones released after Zero Hour. Not sure if free to play will make it awesome or below average.

Gaffney said,
I love the first one but I've not liked any of the other ones released after Zero Hour. Not sure if free to play will make it awesome or below average.
my guess is it'll be crap, why else would a money hording company like EA make it free-to-play

dead.cell said,
People bitch at EA for being greedy. They make it free to play, people still bitch. Okay...

With F2P as soon as you start paying you usually end up spending way more than you would have spent if you bought the game at full price.

Fedr0 said,

With F2P as soon as you start paying you usually end up spending way more than you would have spent if you bought the game at full price.

Depends on who's doing it really. Still, my point stands.

Fedr0 said,

With F2P as soon as you start paying you usually end up spending way more than you would have spent if you bought the game at full price.

I think "Free to Play" means the game will totally suck. What are the two reasons people play RTS games? Either to run through the campaign or to play online. This game has no campaign, fine. But, with F2P we can assume there are in-game purchases. In RTS games players expect balance, even more so than with other games. The idea of RTS is that every decision you make during the game builds up to the final outcome, win or loss. If the person who spends more money has better or stronger units then strategy goes out the window and no one will take it seriously.

I am sad by this news. I loved the first Generals game and have played C&C games all the way back to the begining. I was looking forward to BUYING Generals 2, but hearing that is will be free almosts makes not not want to try it (probably still will).

Perhaps they're hoping to create something along the likes of League of Legends for the RTS gamers? Just a thought, since LoL is F2P too, yet has a crazy backing behind it.

CPressland said,
As long as it has Skirmish with AIs thats fine

Command & Conquer: Pay2Win

That will be £40 for that add-on option, it's EA after all.