Hey, we haven't bitched about Electronic Arts for a while. Let's do
that!

Because EA has released a mobile "Command & Conquer" game and it's
just as terrible as you can imagine. Once again, the company has taken
a beloved PC franchise, trampled over its lore, saddled it with boring
gameplay, and overloaded it with micro-transactions.

It's actually been available - maybe? at least on Android? - for
several months, but you wouldn't know it from any of EA's marketing.
Oddly enough, they're keeping the whole thing on the down-low. Is it
because they recognize that they've created another despicable
monstrosity? Is it possible for EA to feel /shame/? More likely, they
know that this game would only inspire the ire of Command & Conquer
fans, and are hoping to sell it to unwitting rubes without alerting
people who remember when the franchise was good.

And, honestly, that's the worst part of it. If EA were just to release
this game /without/ using the Command & Conquer license - just another
overly monetized mobile real-time-strategy game of the thousands
already out - they'd get away with it. Awful as they are, that's sort
of what we expect from mobile games these days. But, no; EA /has/ to
associate their crap with a beloved franchise.

And for what purpose? If your game is so bad that you know you're
going to offend the fans of the franchise, why associate it with that
franchise anyway? The people who LOVE that franchise aren't going to
buy the mobile version. It will only appeal to 'casuals' who aren't
familiar with the originals and who don't recognize how badly they're
being shafted. Maybe it's like those awful direct-to-video movies made
by studios (like the 1994 "Fantastic Four" movie) just to satisfy
licensing rights?

Anyway, the game is called "Command & Conquer: Legions". Don't
download it. It's not worth your time. Just remember it as another
reason to despise EA.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:30 this Monday (GMT):
>
> Hey, we haven't bitched about Electronic Arts for a while. Let's do
> that!
>
> Because EA has released a mobile "Command & Conquer" game and it's
> just as terrible as you can imagine. Once again, the company has taken
> a beloved PC franchise, trampled over its lore, saddled it with boring
> gameplay, and overloaded it with micro-transactions.
>
> It's actually been available - maybe? at least on Android? - for
> several months, but you wouldn't know it from any of EA's marketing.
> Oddly enough, they're keeping the whole thing on the down-low. Is it
> because they recognize that they've created another despicable
> monstrosity? Is it possible for EA to feel /shame/? More likely, they
> know that this game would only inspire the ire of Command & Conquer
> fans, and are hoping to sell it to unwitting rubes without alerting
> people who remember when the franchise was good.

That's probably it.

> And, honestly, that's the worst part of it. If EA were just to release
> this game /without/ using the Command & Conquer license - just another
> overly monetized mobile real-time-strategy game of the thousands
> already out - they'd get away with it. Awful as they are, that's sort
> of what we expect from mobile games these days. But, no; EA /has/ to
> associate their crap with a beloved franchise.
>
> And for what purpose? If your game is so bad that you know you're
> going to offend the fans of the franchise, why associate it with that
> franchise anyway? The people who LOVE that franchise aren't going to
> buy the mobile version. It will only appeal to 'casuals' who aren't
> familiar with the originals and who don't recognize how badly they're
> being shafted. Maybe it's like those awful direct-to-video movies made
> by studios (like the 1994 "Fantastic Four" movie) just to satisfy
> licensing rights?
>
> Anyway, the game is called "Command & Conquer: Legions". Don't
> download it. It's not worth your time. Just remember it as another
> reason to despise EA.
>

Weren't they already in hot water this week for removing a game from
people's libraries?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:00:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:30 this Monday (GMT):
>>
>> Hey, we haven't bitched about Electronic Arts for a while. Let's do
>> that!
>>
>> Because EA has released a mobile "Command & Conquer" game and it's
>> just as terrible as you can imagine. Once again, the company has taken
>> a beloved PC franchise, trampled over its lore, saddled it with boring
>> gameplay, and overloaded it with micro-transactions.
>>
>> It's actually been available - maybe? at least on Android? - for
>> several months, but you wouldn't know it from any of EA's marketing.
>> Oddly enough, they're keeping the whole thing on the down-low. Is it
>> because they recognize that they've created another despicable
>> monstrosity? Is it possible for EA to feel /shame/? More likely, they
>> know that this game would only inspire the ire of Command & Conquer
>> fans, and are hoping to sell it to unwitting rubes without alerting
>> people who remember when the franchise was good.
>
>That's probably it.
>
>> And, honestly, that's the worst part of it. If EA were just to release
>> this game /without/ using the Command & Conquer license - just another
>> overly monetized mobile real-time-strategy game of the thousands
>> already out - they'd get away with it. Awful as they are, that's sort
>> of what we expect from mobile games these days. But, no; EA /has/ to
>> associate their crap with a beloved franchise.
>>
>> And for what purpose? If your game is so bad that you know you're
>> going to offend the fans of the franchise, why associate it with that
>> franchise anyway? The people who LOVE that franchise aren't going to
>> buy the mobile version. It will only appeal to 'casuals' who aren't
>> familiar with the originals and who don't recognize how badly they're
>> being shafted. Maybe it's like those awful direct-to-video movies made
>> by studios (like the 1994 "Fantastic Four" movie) just to satisfy
>> licensing rights?
>>
>> Anyway, the game is called "Command & Conquer: Legions". Don't
>> download it. It's not worth your time. Just remember it as another
>> reason to despise EA.

>Weren't they already in hot water this week for removing a game from
>people's libraries?

I dunno 'bout EA. Ubisoft killed "The Crew" a couple weeks ago (31
March this year) by shutting down its servers, even though the game
can be played as a single-player experience and still had a viable
population. But it wouldn't surprise me if EA did something similar.

But EA has taken old IPs and released MTX-heavy mobile-only games that
bore little resemblance to the original franchise. Most famously, both
the "Dungeon Keeper" and "Ultima" games received this treatment (there
are probably others, but those are the two that I remember off the top
of my head). Neither were well received by fans... or indeed, not even
by casuals, since the microtransactions and grid in both were pretty
severe.

EA hasn't been a particularly good custodian of its older IPs in
general, which is baffling since I think there would be an audience
for those older titles. Cheap remasters are always a safe (if lazy)
bet, but I think new games would be well received too... if they
weren't half-assed. There's still a lot of room for explorations in
franchises like "Wing Commander", "Crusader", "Dungeon Keeper", "Lands
of Lore" and all the dozens of other IPs EA owns. Can you imagine a
modern-day interpretation of "Magic Carpet"? The "Command & Conquer"
franchise is rich for exploitation, not just as a real-time strategy
game but as a shooter or FPS.

But no, all they seem willing to use those old franchises for is awful
mobile titles. It's baffling. Even if EA doesn't want to produce the
games themselves, license out the IP. What value do they get just
letting them moulder?

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:44 this Monday (GMT):
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:00:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:30 this Monday (GMT):
>>>
>>> Hey, we haven't bitched about Electronic Arts for a while. Let's do
>>> that!
>>>
>>> Because EA has released a mobile "Command & Conquer" game and it's
>>> just as terrible as you can imagine. Once again, the company has taken
>>> a beloved PC franchise, trampled over its lore, saddled it with boring
>>> gameplay, and overloaded it with micro-transactions.
>>>
>>> It's actually been available - maybe? at least on Android? - for
>>> several months, but you wouldn't know it from any of EA's marketing.
>>> Oddly enough, they're keeping the whole thing on the down-low. Is it
>>> because they recognize that they've created another despicable
>>> monstrosity? Is it possible for EA to feel /shame/? More likely, they
>>> know that this game would only inspire the ire of Command & Conquer
>>> fans, and are hoping to sell it to unwitting rubes without alerting
>>> people who remember when the franchise was good.
>>
>>That's probably it.
>>
>>> And, honestly, that's the worst part of it. If EA were just to release
>>> this game /without/ using the Command & Conquer license - just another
>>> overly monetized mobile real-time-strategy game of the thousands
>>> already out - they'd get away with it. Awful as they are, that's sort
>>> of what we expect from mobile games these days. But, no; EA /has/ to
>>> associate their crap with a beloved franchise.
>>>
>>> And for what purpose? If your game is so bad that you know you're
>>> going to offend the fans of the franchise, why associate it with that
>>> franchise anyway? The people who LOVE that franchise aren't going to
>>> buy the mobile version. It will only appeal to 'casuals' who aren't
>>> familiar with the originals and who don't recognize how badly they're
>>> being shafted. Maybe it's like those awful direct-to-video movies made
>>> by studios (like the 1994 "Fantastic Four" movie) just to satisfy
>>> licensing rights?
>>>
>>> Anyway, the game is called "Command & Conquer: Legions". Don't
>>> download it. It's not worth your time. Just remember it as another
>>> reason to despise EA.
>
>>Weren't they already in hot water this week for removing a game from
>>people's libraries?
>
> I dunno 'bout EA. Ubisoft killed "The Crew" a couple weeks ago (31
> March this year) by shutting down its servers, even though the game
> can be played as a single-player experience and still had a viable
> population. But it wouldn't surprise me if EA did something similar.

Oh, so it was Ubisoft. Game companies keep doing so many evil things its
hard to keep track of.

> But EA has taken old IPs and released MTX-heavy mobile-only games that
> bore little resemblance to the original franchise. Most famously, both
> the "Dungeon Keeper" and "Ultima" games received this treatment (there
> are probably others, but those are the two that I remember off the top
> of my head). Neither were well received by fans... or indeed, not even
> by casuals, since the microtransactions and grid in both were pretty
> severe.
>
> EA hasn't been a particularly good custodian of its older IPs in
> general, which is baffling since I think there would be an audience
> for those older titles. Cheap remasters are always a safe (if lazy)
> bet, but I think new games would be well received too... if they
> weren't half-assed. There's still a lot of room for explorations in
> franchises like "Wing Commander", "Crusader", "Dungeon Keeper", "Lands
> of Lore" and all the dozens of other IPs EA owns. Can you imagine a
> modern-day interpretation of "Magic Carpet"? The "Command & Conquer"
> franchise is rich for exploitation, not just as a real-time strategy
> game but as a shooter or FPS.
>
> But no, all they seem willing to use those old franchises for is awful
> mobile titles. It's baffling. Even if EA doesn't want to produce the
> games themselves, license out the IP. What value do they get just
> letting them moulder?

IDK. Maybe licensing it out could be seen as risky?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom