Will there be any update on "announced" rlease date soon, because time is running out

[BobcatBob 10]

I decided to check on this game's website recently, and I saw in a corner somehewre that it says "Q1 2012" release date, there is almost nothing else distplayed on the website apart from like 2 minor updates, some info on a COUPLE of units and a trailer, niether of which suggest the game will release sometime before December ends on the 31st. So the LATEST the game could rlease on the given schedual is only 24 days, so what gives?

[[evo] dan 79]

q1 2012 actually means they have until the end of march to finish the game.

[Dwarden 1125]

there will be update when there is time and reason to make one ...

[metalcraze 290]

If anything I'd have wished for CC to be delayed to get released together with the multiplayer. Rush is never good for games.

[JdB 151]

If anything I'd have wished for CC to be delayed to get released together with the multiplayer. Rush is never good for games.

It surprised me that even nine months (E3, or was it closer to a year?) before the intended release date they already knew that multiplayer wouldn't be included on the release date. That to me almost seems more like a design decision rather than a deadline constraint. Get one thing right on the release date, then gradually implement the other element when it's functioning well enough. A method to prevent getting the game labeled "Completely bugged" on release date like all other BIS games before it and never being able to shake that "fact" after that despite patching and tweaking since the "fact" survives because of people that ditched the game after an hour or never even played it to begin with posting it on every forum and site they can find. Better to have fewer features but working well when the game is just out and still in the spotlights than to have many and have it labelled in the press as unplayable, works for Activision, EA and Ubisoft (except of course they never implement new features or gameplay modes to their existing games other than through overpriced DLC).

Edited December 9, 2011 by JdB

[metalcraze 290]

Many people also don't buy the game if it doesn't have a multiplayer.

I have a feeling that CC may not be as fun in SP if it will be nothing more than grinding islands. Unfortunately it isn't ArmA where you can fire up an editor and have hours of fun dropping random stuff on the map.

But hey that's just my opinion, I'd rather get the full package.

[RichardCranium 1]

Many people also don't buy the game if it doesn't have a multiplayer.

I have a feeling that CC may not be as fun in SP if it will be nothing more than grinding islands. Unfortunately it isn't ArmA where you can fire up an editor and have hours of fun dropping random stuff on the map.

But hey that's just my opinion, I'd rather get the full package.

Then again, there's a lot of folks who couldn't care less about multiplayer.

The original game was quite fun in SP.

[Jokubas 1]

Has it been updated now? (It says Q2 on the website now, so did that happen between the original post and now?)

Not shipping with multiplayer is unfortunate, but there are upsides. It just reminds me of Orcs Must Die! though. An excellent game I haven't really been recommending to my friends because the lack of multiplayer really takes away from it's replayability and, well, the potential of having fun with my friends. This game seems to have more potential to add it in later, at least. Orcs Must Die! seems to be done.

[scrapser 11]

I personally find it detrimental to the entire gaming industry that all games developed today must include multi-player. Whether people realize it or not, it is having a serious impact on the nature and variety of future games. It's like they are all the same at the core but just look different from the outside. It's really a shame that this is the model most developers/publishers feel compelled to follow. The result is like lemmings...all running off a cliff because that's what everyone else is doing...so it must be the right thing to do...right?

Wrong!

[bfcrusader 10]

Multiplayer is all well and good, but there's something to be said for games who are either pure single player or has a single player campaign incorporated into it. I personally like to sometimes play on my own and enjoy some quality alone time every now and again. Especially after some infuriating rounds with other people who play like idiots or behave like trolls.

[scrapser 11]

Multiplayer is all well and good, but there's something to be said for games who are either pure single player or has a single player campaign incorporated into it. I personally like to sometimes play on my own and enjoy some quality alone time every now and again. Especially after some infuriating rounds with other people who play like idiots or behave like trolls.

There you go...that's what we're losing it seems. I can't believe everyone who is so hooked on multi-player is not capable of appreciating this fact. It's like they're short-changing themselves simply to save face or something.