anybody buying red alert 3 when it comes out?

[hclarkjr]

i do not buy many games as i only game on occasion but i am an avid red alert 2 fan and am looking forward, sort of, to red alert 3 that is due out October 28th. i do not like the securerom protection they are using on it. what are others here thoughts on this?

 

[Bateluer]

I will not be purchasing Red Alert 3 directly because of the DRM that EA chose to cripple it with. RTS titles typically last longer than FPS titles in terms of replayability, I still play RTS titles from several years ago. I cannot count how many systems my copy of StarCraft has been installed on. With a 5 machine activation limit, RA3's replayability is crippled beyond belief and I will not be paying money to EA so they can continue to rip off their customers.

I'll get off my soapbox until the next DRM related thread is started.

 

[Schadenfroh]

No, I still have not played C&C 3 yet. C&C RA 1 is probably one of my favorite RTS games of all time though.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Nope, not with the DRM.

 

[pontifex]

sigh...someone should make an official "i'm not going to be buying <insert game here> because it has DRM" thread.

It would save a lot time in not having to go through all these dumbass DRM threads every time a game comes out with DRM.

 

[Chriscross3234]

Can anyone explain what the difference between RA3 and Tiberium Wars? Graphics and gameplay look exactly the same to me. Different units and a better cast of actors during cutscenes don't justify buying the same game that was released only one year ago. I'm guessing it has some resemblance of a decent storyline and maybe better balance then Tiberium Wars. Can anyone clarify?

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Chriscross3234
Can anyone explain what the difference between RA3 and Tiberium Wars? Graphics and gameplay look exactly the same to me. Different units and a better cast of actors during cutscenes don't justify buying the same game that was released only one year ago. I'm guessing it has some resemblance of a decent storyline and maybe better balance then Tiberium Wars. Can anyone clarify?

Almost All RTSs are the same, just with different units and a new storyline.

Oh god, FPSs are all the same too, just with different guns and a new storyline.

Why buy any games at all?

 

[Chriscross3234]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Chriscross3234
Can anyone explain what the difference between RA3 and Tiberium Wars? Graphics and gameplay look exactly the same to me. Different units and a better cast of actors during cutscenes don't justify buying the same game that was released only one year ago. I'm guessing it has some resemblance of a decent storyline and maybe better balance then Tiberium Wars. Can anyone clarify?

Almost All RTSs are the same, just with different units and a new storyline.

Oh god, FPSs are all the same too, just with different guns and a new storyline.

Why buy any games at all?

Usually with a newly released RTS, they usually have something unique and innovative about them. SupCom's tactical zoom, CoH squad based units and gameplay in general, World in Conflict, these are just a few examples. I haven't done any serious reading on RA3 so I may be wrong, thus being the whole point of my question, but it seems to me EA is releasing the same damn game they made a year ago, switching units and theme around and calling it RA3. Honestly, CnC 3 was a huge let down for me, compared to playing the original Command and Conquer, RA, and even Tiberium Sun. It would be sad if EA did the same thing to a game that deserves much more.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: pontifex
sigh...someone should make an official "i'm not going to be buying <insert game here> because it has DRM" thread.

It would save a lot time in not having to go through all these dumbass DRM threads every time a game comes out with DRM.

/thread.

 

[Auryg]

Originally posted by: Chriscross3234

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Chriscross3234
Can anyone explain what the difference between RA3 and Tiberium Wars? Graphics and gameplay look exactly the same to me. Different units and a better cast of actors during cutscenes don't justify buying the same game that was released only one year ago. I'm guessing it has some resemblance of a decent storyline and maybe better balance then Tiberium Wars. Can anyone clarify?

Almost All RTSs are the same, just with different units and a new storyline.

Oh god, FPSs are all the same too, just with different guns and a new storyline.

Why buy any games at all?

Usually with a newly released RTS, they usually have something unique and innovative about them. SupCom's tactical zoom, CoH squad based units and gameplay in general, World in Conflict, these are just a few examples. I haven't done any serious reading on RA3 so I may be wrong, thus being the whole point of my question, but it seems to me EA is releasing the same damn game they made a year ago, switching units and theme around and calling it RA3. Honestly, CnC 3 was a huge let down for me, compared to playing the original Command and Conquer, RA, and even Tiberium Sun. It would be sad if EA did the same thing to a game that deserves much more.

There's nothing wrong with keeping classic gameplay that works. I'd love for the now defunct Ensemble to make an AoE2 remake, for instance, and I wish Halo 2 would have played like Halo 1. Adding features for the sake of adding them is stupid - sometimes things like better graphics and slight increments in technology such as more units or better pathfinding is worth it.

 

[Maximilian]

Well DRM or not the core problem of the game being lousy isnt solved so no i wont be buying it.

 

[skace]

RA3 is already boughted, just a waiting game now.

 

[Malladine]

5 install limit? Maybe this has been discussed plenty already, but is that true?!

 

[ViviTheMage]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: pontifex
sigh...someone should make an official "i'm not going to be buying <insert game here> because it has DRM" thread.

It would save a lot time in not having to go through all these dumbass DRM threads every time a game comes out with DRM.

/thread.

that doesn't end the thread...:disgust:

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Chriscross3234
Usually with a newly released RTS, they usually have something unique and innovative about them. SupCom's tactical zoom, CoH squad based units and gameplay in general, World in Conflict, these are just a few examples. I haven't done any serious reading on RA3 so I may be wrong, thus being the whole point of my question, but it seems to me EA is releasing the same damn game they made a year ago, switching units and theme around and calling it RA3. Honestly, CnC 3 was a huge let down for me, compared to playing the original Command and Conquer, RA, and even Tiberium Sun. It would be sad if EA did the same thing to a game that deserves much more.

CoH plays almost exactly like Dawn of War (by the same studio). There was absolutely nothing innovative about that squad-based structure. But it was fun as hell, which is what matters. Yeah it would be nice if every game was innovative but it just isn't (and can't be) the case.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: pontifex
sigh...someone should make an official "i'm not going to be buying <insert game here> because it has DRM" thread.

It would save a lot time in not having to go through all these dumbass DRM threads every time a game comes out with DRM.

No. Music industry forums were inundated with DRM complaints for literally years and of course there were people like you calling for and end to it. Well guess what - the complainers eventually won and DRM-free digital downloads are commonplace. That's what we are aiming for. If you want to continue bending over and getting the long hard shaft of the DRM industry then that's your prerogative.

 

[TidusZ]

C&C games are casual rts games, I'm not a casual gamer. I wont be buying it.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Chriscross3234
Usually with a newly released RTS, they usually have something unique and innovative about them. SupCom's tactical zoom, CoH squad based units and gameplay in general, World in Conflict, these are just a few examples. I haven't done any serious reading on RA3 so I may be wrong, thus being the whole point of my question, but it seems to me EA is releasing the same damn game they made a year ago, switching units and theme around and calling it RA3. Honestly, CnC 3 was a huge let down for me, compared to playing the original Command and Conquer, RA, and even Tiberium Sun. It would be sad if EA did the same thing to a game that deserves much more.

CoH plays almost exactly like Dawn of War (by the same studio). There was absolutely nothing innovative about that squad-based structure. But it was fun as hell, which is what matters. Yeah it would be nice if every game was innovative but it just isn't (and can't be) the case.

Well, CoH had the cover system where troops actually stuck themselves behind spots of cover to protect themselves from incoming fire. Parts of vehicles could be damaged or disabled during attacks.

Thats just off the top of my head as I wake up this morning for work.

Dawn of War was innovative. Company of Heroes developed on that. Dawn of War II is developing futher on that with a confirmed minimum of 25 missions and up to 60 missions depending on how you play. An estimated 20 hours gameplay from SP

RA3... Im annoyed with DRM and C&C3 sucked badly but Im thinking of getting it off EA's Online Store and I would be loathed to think that that has any DRM in it.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: pontifex
sigh...someone should make an official "i'm not going to be buying <insert game here> because it has DRM" thread.

It would save a lot time in not having to go through all these dumbass DRM threads every time a game comes out with DRM.

No. Music industry forums were inundated with DRM complaints for literally years and of course there were people like you calling for and end to it. Well guess what - the complainers eventually won and DRM-free digital downloads are commonplace. That's what we are aiming for. If you want to continue bending over and getting the long hard shaft of the DRM industry then that's your prerogative.

Big difference between 1 song that costs .99 and 1 game that costs $50+.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: coloumb

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: pontifex
sigh...someone should make an official "i'm not going to be buying <insert game here> because it has DRM" thread.

It would save a lot time in not having to go through all these dumbass DRM threads every time a game comes out with DRM.

No. Music industry forums were inundated with DRM complaints for literally years and of course there were people like you calling for and end to it. Well guess what - the complainers eventually won and DRM-free digital downloads are commonplace. That's what we are aiming for. If you want to continue bending over and getting the long hard shaft of the DRM industry then that's your prerogative.

Big difference between 1 song that costs .99 and 1 game that costs $50+.

That 99 cent can can be listened to for years, especially with it being DRM free. With most modern games barely offering 24 hours of gameplay, with limited replayability, and a 3 to 5 activation limit, that 50 dollar game amounts to the ultimate throwaway entertainment.

There should be a public outrage whenever a game is released that uses this BS, with as many complaints as possible at as many outlets as possible when a company uses this crap.

 

[shortylickens]

Ever since I played Generals on a friends system I have ignored C&C.

Got Act of War instead and have been much happier. World In Conflict is nice too.

I have the horsepower to Run C&C 3 and Red Alert 3 well enough, but I dont care anything for their gameplay.