C&C3 Status Report

The Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars Website has a status report on the RTS sequel from producer Mike Verdu that addresses multiplayer issues and what's being done to address them (thanks FiringSquad). Word is:
While I’m delighted that people are having a blast with the single player campaign and skirmish modes of the game, I’m disappointed that we’ve had some teething problems with the online multiplayer. Most of our customers are able to play on-line, but I know that a number of you are having trouble - and I owe you an apology. Some of you can’t connect to C&C Online and others are having issues once on-line. This is unacceptable, especially for a product that we designed for competitive multiplayer game play. I am sorry that you are encountering problems and I want you to know that the development team is working very hard to understand the issues, fix the bugs that affect the largest numbers of people, and roll out patches as quickly as possible.

We have issued one patch already and we have two more in the works. I believe we have a bead on the issues that affect the most people and I expect that we will solve these problems in a matter of days.

Just to be clear: Not everyone is having problems playing on-line… the majority of people are able to get online, play games, and a have a great time. For those that are having problems, please bear with us. We will fix these issues and make C&C the great online multiplayer game it was designed to be – and we ask for your patience as we work through the issues.

In the mean time, as we work to improve the multiplayer experience for those who are affected, we do celebrate the fun that people are having with the single player campaigns and skirmish – and the tens of thousands of multiplayer games that are being played successfully by those who are able to play on-line.
View : : :
25.
 
Re: ...
Apr 1, 2007, 21:54
25.
Re: ... Apr 1, 2007, 21:54
Apr 1, 2007, 21:54
 
> ...Fucktard. Yup, that sums it up. Fucktard. ...
> I (being a reasonable person)...

You were reduced to nothing but uttering vulgarities by the forth sentence of your reply. Reasonable, indeed.

>>C&C3, being 3D, is a fuck load more complex than C&C2, which was 2D.

Let's talk about that new fangled 3D thing you think first showed in an EA RTS with C&C3. Perhaps you've overlooked the other RTSs that EA built in 3D on the RTS engine code base they got from Westwood...the same core technology they used in C&C3. Why don't those account for anything in your worldview? There is absolutely nothing about C&C3 that pushed the bounds of new technology. It's built on a codebase that has been used in every EA/Westwood RTS going back to Dune 2000 on the Commodore Amiga in the early '90s.

I'm in no way bashing EA's decision to use that code. It's a smart business decision to reuse tech that has been invested in and refined. It's not reasonable to give that business a pass on rampant bugs that they introduced into a game built on technological pedigree that seemed to be doing pretty well before. The other EA RTSs that were in 3D, C&C Generals and the myriad LoTR RTSs among others, didn't have these problems.

It wouldn't matter to me if it was EA, UBI, Eidos, MS, or etc... These types of bugs and problems shouldn't exist in a shipping game. Especially in a game that has as much development and refinement behind its core technologies as C&C3 does.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
2.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
3.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
4.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
5.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
6.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
7.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
8.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
     Re: No subject
11.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
9.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
14.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
15.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
17.
Apr 1, 2007Apr 1 2007
18.
Apr 1, 2007Apr 1 2007
19.
Apr 1, 2007Apr 1 2007
20.
Apr 1, 2007Apr 1 2007
   Re: ...
21.
Apr 1, 2007Apr 1 2007
    Re: ...
10.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
12.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
13.
Mar 31, 2007Mar 31 2007
16.
Apr 1, 2007Apr 1 2007
22.
Apr 1, 2007Apr 1 2007
23.
Apr 1, 2007Apr 1 2007
 25.
Apr 1, 2007Apr 1 2007
 Re: ...
26.
Apr 2, 2007Apr 2 2007
24.
Apr 1, 2007Apr 1 2007
27.
Apr 2, 2007Apr 2 2007
28.
Apr 3, 2007Apr 3 2007