RTCW 2

(endcspice) #1

Hi all

I m a RTCW FAN and i m waiting like a lot of players in all around the world to konw if there will have a RTCW 2 soon?

please tell me if there will be a new part of this wonderfull game

sp!c3

:clap: :banana: :cool:

(Kendle) #2

There already is a RTCW2 in all but name. It’s called Enemy Territory and was released some time ago. Unfortunately it doesn’t have a Single-Player component, but the Multi-Player part is fantastic. :wink:

(pgh) #3

Thought its a bit of a step down or at least, a bit less ‘rush and kill’ gameplay but instead, more objective focused. And unfourtunately, there is no Lt/Fops Airstrike Jumping… :wink:

Nah tho, no idea m8, would wait till the next big games convo or/and Quakecon.

(bacon) #4

There already is a RTCW2 in all but name. It’s called Enemy Territory and was released some time ago. Unfortunately it doesn’t have a Single-Player component, but the Multi-Player part is fantastic. ;)[/quote]

ET was supposed to be a standalone expansion pack, not a sequel…

(The_Jesus_Zeppelin) #5

well, it was an abandoned stand alone exp. thats where SD comes in. and then it was suposed to be packaged with RTCW but instead was just given away. After its sucess it was packages with RTCW. Theres probably some guy sitting at home, reeling on the sucess of E.T. knowing that it could have been money in his pocket. Poor fool!

(sirlagalot) #6

More people should make economic mistakes like this. It would make the world a better place. Perhaps a free Battlefield 1942? Or Call of Duty?

(Garfo) #7

they should re-realese et and put some extra bits in and put it on the self 4 sale,they would make a killing :clap: :banana: :clap:

(Kendle) #8

I don’t think any company can charge money for a game without a Single-Player component. I assume the lack of Single Player was the reason it was free in the first place.

(puubert) #9

I don’t think any company can charge money for a game without a Single-Player component. I assume the lack of Single Player was the reason it was free in the first place.[/quote]

What about Evequest. That was a purely online game. There is a market opening for a sole multiplayer game. RTCW and ET’s popularity is proof enough.

This is my idea, Copyrighted and all that shit. I’ll use Et and WWII as strictly examples.

3 Major Campaigns. Each campaign has different “Axis” and “Allies”. ie Americans V Japanese, Russians V Germans. British V Germans or whatever.

Each campaign has 6 maps, split into 2 minor campaigns of 3 maps each. Each map in the 3 follows on from the last, so the there is a sense of continuity.

So there’s 18 stock maps. 4 different “races”, hence 4 sets of weapons.

Though, I’d have each of the major campaigns seperate so servers cannot run more than 1 at a time. So no 18 map servers. Servers would load up each campaign, running through them, or just keep one up permanently.

Just an idea. Could be set in the future or in the Dark Ages, but for me, that’s enough to justify a purchase.

(evilsock) #10

Q3 doesn’t have an SP game to speak of (SP is vs. bots) and that sold rather well. My personal thoughts are that it’s actually better for not having the SP element. OK, so that might have given some longevitity - to this day I still play a couple of levels on the SP version of RtCW (Chateau), just for kicks, same forQuake’s ‘Zigguart Vertigo’ :slight_smile:

It’d be nice to see someone move in and create an afersales market for maps and campaigns though - maybe if SD had an agreement with Activision wherebyer they could sub-contrct out patches and long-term support for the game - you could potentially charge for that without conflicting with any agreements SD made with Activision. Maps released with patches was the way to go with RtCW (trentoast, ice etc) imho.

(Kendle) #11

I was just wondering about the legalities. I personally wouldn’t pay money for a game I had no legal right to play, which is what MP is. MP requires servers which the individual has no legal right to play on. Unless the company selling the game is going to provide those servers, or you pay a subscription fee as is this case with some MMORPG’s, you could buy a game that only comprises a MP element and find you can’t actually play it.

As you say Q3 had bots. That might not have been the reason you bought it, but that was all you purchased, the ability, and the legal right, to play against bots.

I don’t know anything about Everquest so I may be talking out my bum here. :bored:

(Garfo) #12

i think planetside is mp only [well i know u have 2 pay sony]well anyway i would diff pay £30 4 et if they put some extra things in there as i mostly play online more. like alot of ppl these days

(jkr266) #13

i dont want to sound like an asshole but what the hell are you talking about? i know for a fact that BF1942 and COD specifically advertise the fact that these games can be played online. as im staring at the boxes on the shelf above my monitor. So im pretty sure i have the legal right to play those games online. Now as for finding a server, well you may have a point there, but how many online games have you ever wanted to play but couldnt find any servers at all to play on.

([!]Icon) #14

Games nowadays are being made for the entire intent of being played online. I can guarantee that in 2-3 years everygame that comes out will have a multiplayer. Even consoles are getting online. X-box has just launched a huge online campaign, hoping to sign such games as Battlefield, and a revised version of UT.
Look at it this way, if you buy a game and on the box it says that online play is enabled, does that mean you have no right to play it? There just telling you that your able to play it…but not allowed. Very doubtful.

i think planetside is mp only

It is, but its a dreadful game. Not to mention costly.

I assume the lack of Single Player was the reason it was free in the first place.

wasnt meant to have a single player in the first place. it was a standalone exp for online play.

(Mjolnyr) #15

Well, I do agree.

If ET comes with sufficient contents (more maps/campaigns) and continuous technical support, I dare to pay for this game. Lacking in single-player mode, isn’t a problem to me. The essence of RtCW / ET, is the multiplayer mode.

(puubert) #16

How many times has this been said. ET was originally a standalone expansion to RTCW. It was to contain a SP and MP. Activision and/or id pulled the plug on the expansion, presumable due to Activisions money problems and id’s desire to work on DooM 3. SD finished the MP segment and Activision decided to release it for free rather than let it go to waste.

Kendle, if I was releasing this MP game, the one I envisioned. I would assume that at least my company, and the publisher would put in place several initial servers so people who buy the game first day can play it. It would take some time for a community to build behind the game, but if it’s good enough it will happen. New clans would form or clans would move over to it. But initially, half a dozen servers run by the game developer, free of charge to the player would allow people to play the game online. I don’t see a legal problem. Free servers would be something necessary in if you want the game to be a big success. Everquest and The Sims you pay a monthly fee for server access and it severely limits their scope.

As long as the content justifies a purchase then I don’t see a problem.

Everquest is MMORPG, or a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. People would pay a fee for server access for a month, and it’s essentially a never-ending RPG. You create a character and you fight other people, or team up to complete quests and all that sort of crap. I like RPG’s, especially the Ultimas and I was interested, until I learnt you had to pay for server time.

(Kendle) #17

Sorry, you’re missing the point. BF1942 and COD both have Single-Player elements, that’s what you pay for. The fact you can play them online, and the fact that was probably the only reason you bought them in the first place is besides the point.

The only part of the game you have any “right” to play is the Single-Player. The MP part relies on other people putting their hands in their pockets to provide you with the servers to play on. These servers, being someone else’s property, you have no legal right to use.

In the real world of course it makes no practical difference, I’m merely pointing out that for legal reasons I don’t think publishers can charge money for games that only contain an MP element, at least not without also providing the servers themselves, in which case it would probably be done via monthly subscription charges as per many MMORPG’s.

As puubert points out ET was meant to have an SP element. When the SP was dropped ID/Activision had no choice but to either bin it or give it away free. Thankfully for us they gave it away free, something for which we are all eternally grateful.

I’m still amazed there are so many people who think they have some legal right to play on servers they haven’t paid for themselves, and as yet no-one has given an example of a game which is MP only and for which the game company concerned does not provide some servers or for which the servers are not subject to an additional charge.

(Fusen) #18

but don’t the owners of the servers give everyone there consent to play no them… thats why they are public servers? so your arguement about having no legal right to play isnt quite true as if the owners of the server don’t want you to play on there server they wouldn’t make it public in the first place.?

Vapor genie vaporizer

(Hydra) #19

That they let you play doesn’t mean you have the right, they can ban you for whatever reason they want and you can do nothing about that. A server costs money, the use of a server is a privilege, not a right.

(Kendle) #20

Sorry Fusen, but if I were to kick you from my server, which I’m perfectly at liberty to do (try and tell me I’m not), and every other admin of every other server in the World were to also do the same (as unlikely as it may seem), you’d be left with nowhere to play. If you’d paid money for the game but had nowhere to play it you’d be pretty pissed wouldn’t you?

The fact that someone, out of the kindness of their heart, allows you to use their facilities doesn’t mean you have a “legal right” to do so. Charging people money for something they have no legal right to do must at the very least be highly unethical if not illegal also, musn’t it?

tbh I don’t know the technically accurate answer to that question, but I personally would never pay money for an MP only game that the publishers didn’t also provide servers for. I’d pay money for a game that I only intended to play the MP portion of, if it also contained an SP element.