Command and Conquer Single Player Hinted At

By Andrew Smee on September 10th, 2012 at 4:00 pm.

Construction Possibly Under Completion

The forthcoming Frostbite-powered free to play Command and Conquer sequel will be enjoying a single player campaign after all, as an interview by Polygon with Frank Gibeau, president of EA Labels announces, going back on the previous No-Single Player reveal. Or will it? It’s not actually that clear. Gibeau sounded perhaps a little defensive in his statement, talking more about fan reaction than detailing the actual game development. The relevant quote: “Does that mean it’s not going to have single-player? No, that’s something we’ve obviously heard loud and clear that is important to people.”

Is that official confirmation of a big story-driven campaign mode? No, that’s a confusingly worded, ambiguous double-negative.

Now, I don’t mean to say I don’t believe this chap. Well, that is, if I knew for sure what he’s saying there. What is he saying? He’s not saying there will definitely be a single player campaign on release. Just that maybe they’ve had a few angry emails and figure that possibly it’d be a good idea to pursue.

The rest of the quote is very relevant: “The beauty of free-to-play, is that we can adjust and adapt to what we’re hearing as opposed to, ‘I’m sorry, it’s two months from ship and it is what it is.’ It’s a very different model because you don’t have to build as much. You build in response to your audience.”

Again, that’s no official confirmation at all. It’s the possibility that thanks to this additive development process, there’s the notion that they could, at some point in the future, develop a single player campaign. Possibly they may already be doing so – but we don’t know for sure. The most the interview says is that they’re thinking about it, but I suppose Possibility Of Command And Conquer Single Player Campaign Vaguely Mentioned By Man isn’t really as attention-grabbing a headline.

Command & Conquer is slated for a 2013 release. Meanwhile, you can register for the beta.

__________________

« | »

, , , , , .

37 Comments »

  1. Quatlo says:

    I think I’ll stick to End of Nations.

  2. JB says:

    Welcome back, Mr Smee. You’ve been quiet.

  3. Dominic White says:

    I’ll just add that EA already have a genuinely good F2P RTS out there. Battleforge is still (albeit slowly) being updated, and has a lot of singleplayer and co-op story content. Why they can’t repeat that here is the only question.

  4. philbot says:

    Generals was amazing. If EA manages to wreck this IP, I will be forever burning up with discontent.

    • Ultra Superior says:

      Yes!! Exactly that. So glad to see kindred spirit here.

      I want Jarmen Kell stealing US dozers, Black Lotus taking over supply stashes, thus creating a GLA chinese subdivision. I want Overlords with propaganda towers.

      /// I want the old game with new graphics and physics. Sell it to me via F2PDLCs I don’t care, just make it as good.

      • Warduke says:

        My friends and I have been saying that for years… Just give us the original game with updated graphics and STABLE multiplayer… We would be throwing money at it..

    • DarkFenix says:

      See Red Alert 3, Command & Conquer 4. Abandon all hope.

  5. Radiant says:

    Maybe as a paid for add on?
    $15 single player.
    I’d buy that.

    Battleforge really that good?

    • Dark Nexus says:

      That was my thought as well.

      I’d be okay with that as a basic concept, actually. F2P base game, and a reasonable lump sum payment for a quality single player campaign.

      Of course, it’s EA we’re talking about here. So we could end up with individual transactions where they charge per campaign level, or full-AAA-release price for the campaign.

      • Dominic White says:

        Battleforge gives you full access to all the missions completely for free. It’s army customization that costs money – it’s CCG style, kinda – but they dropped prices to about a quarter of what they were at launch, so you can get several full faction armies for $15-20, easy.

    • LintMan says:

      “Maybe as a paid for add on?
      $15 single player.
      I’d buy that.”

      I wouldn’t. Not if I’d still be paying for the “f2p” part of the game mechanisms as well. And even then I’d want to be able to play it entirely offline.

  6. killias2 says:

    Listen, it’s clear as day: they’re hardly going to not make a game without a single player campaign!

  7. Moni says:

    Aren’t RTS single-player campaigns just a series of skirmish maps anyway?

    • Xocrates says:

      Only when they’re rubbish.

      • killias2 says:

        Yeah, seriously. Play the single player campaigns for Starcraft, Warcraft 3, or even Starcraft 2 (although SC2′s campaign takes a lot longer to get going, and the story is terrible). Heck, Dawn of War 2′s SP campaigns tend to be even further from the multiplayer. They play almost more like an action RPG than RTT. Some of the Command and Conquer games also have good single player modes. However, it really depends on which ones you play….

        • LionsPhil says:

          C&C1′s, and C&C2: Firestorm, both have good single-player campaigns. The former is surprisingly varied, given its early evolutionary state—what happens to GDI mid-way through makes for some challenging war-on-a-shoestring-budget missions.

          Unlike the tank-rush tank-rush rush-rush rush-tank rush of post-Westwood incarnations.

  8. rrfarmer says:

    EA has seemed to mess up every other vein of what use to be C&C.

    Generals is the last one that was good, and now they will ruin it with F2P.

  9. EpicGlottis says:

    I’m not sure that I won’t probably give this a try, although i wouldn’t say that not getting an official confirmation of single player wouldn’t help getting on my not-to-play list.

  10. int says:

    Does EA still own the rights to Dune?

    I really need a new Dune game.

  11. MythArcana says:

    I’m getting so annoyed at these trendy gimmicks to try to get these games tied to online server checks. We don’t want a game tied online with nothing but multiplayer matches, we need a game in there some place. I’m not sure if it’s just the DRM factor or developers or just that fucking lazy these days.

  12. Azriel says:

    Come on, this is all PR spin from the backlash, they will add some slapped on cheap and horrible singleplayer part just to say it has singleplayer. However, it will be nothing like the original games and it will suck. You know it, I know it.

  13. subedii says:

    “The beauty of free-to-play, is that we can adjust and adapt to what we’re hearing as opposed to, ‘I’m sorry, it’s two months from ship and it is what it is.’ It’s a very different model because you don’t have to build as much. You build in response to your audience.”

    They keep saying this about the new C&C.

    OK seriously, maybe I’m missing something, but in what way do they think that this aspect is unique to the free-to-play model and is really different from other RTS’s? Or heck, a lot of multiplayer games in general? They adapt and change over time, through new balance, new mechanics, new maps, sometimes even completely revamped gameplay systems (I assume we’re talking outside the context of a standard expansion pack here).

    I mean Dawn of War 2 basically went through a massive mechanics reworking once it got released, and continued to evolve over the years. A lot of games have and do. Heck, Total Annihilation even used to get free units to meet fan feedback requests, and that was over a decade ago.

    The ability to adapt your game over time isn’t something unique to the free-to-play model. Unless they were planning on adding in balance changing units and charging for them, then yeah, that would be pretty unique alright.

  14. Gromann says:

    Nope, still not going to touch anything Origin.

  15. Hoaxfish says:

    With the way EA has recently been talking and acting, I won’t believe anything they say until about 5 years after release.

  16. Ninja Foodstuff says:

    Reply fail. Stupid ipad.

  17. malkav11 says:

    Single player doesn’t automatically equal single player campaign. What I fully expect is they will include the ability to play skirmishes against the AI, which is technically single player content and indeed what some RTS fans consider to be the only kind of single player that matters. To me, it’s still just the multiplayer game that I’m not interested in, except against bots.

  18. StAUG says:

    Is this, in any way, linked to C&C4? Because if it is I’m steering well clear of it.

  19. dsi1 says:

    Too bad CoH2 exists.

  20. eleven0911 says:

    Fruit and vegetable processing machine
    Wish you all have a good time here. thank you very much for sharing.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>