No LAN or dedicated servers for C&C4

By Tom Bramwell Published 22 February, 2010

Due to centralised progression system.

Command & Conquer 4 lead designer Sam Bass has said that the latest game in the long-running real-time strategy series won't support dedicated servers.

Speaking to Destructoid, Bass said this was because of a progression system that relied on centralised internet storage.

"So if you go to another machine - friend's house, internet café - whatever, you can login with your profile and all the stuff you've unlocked is accessible to you there. It all lives on a server so you can't really do dedicated servers with that," he said.

Destructoid said that also went for LAN (local area network) games.

Oh well. Could be worse. (Update: Oh dear, and judging by this post from last July, it may already be.)

Check out our Command & Conquer 4 preview to see what else the game has in store ahead of its 19th March release.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (28) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • ChaK #1 2 years ago

    dorks

    Not buying then, I was still hesitating

  • jellyhead #2 2 years ago

    So it's the same as Ubisoft's then? Not worse, the same. SP modes need to be connected at all times too for 'global player progression', yuch. I couldn't give a damn about comparing my e-wang with a league of worldwide geeks especially in the SP mode.

    "So what about Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but on top of the fact that you need to connected online at all times while playing, Command & Conquer 4 won't have LAN or dedicated server support."

    No thanks.
    Edited by jellyhead at 22/02/10 @ 09:50

  • the_dudefather #3 2 years ago

    Has C&C (or any RTS) ever had dedicated servers?

  • dither #4 2 years ago

    Hopefully they won't implement it as badly as Ubisoft have with Ass Creed 2, forcing you back to checkpoints if you lose your net connection.

  • JahB #5 2 years ago

    does it still matter? they removed base building, which was the heart and soul of this franchise, so as far as i'm concerned, the C&C we used to know is history...

  • Freek #6 2 years ago

    Outside of Renegade, C&C has always been peer to peer, same as pretty much every other RTS. But no LAN is a shame.
    It's still a popular game at our LAN parties.

  • Sunyavadin #7 2 years ago

    Old news. It was one of the reasons I decided last year that I wouldn't be getting it.

  • chrisjm #8 2 years ago

    whats to say C&C4 servers will still be online in 1 or 2 years given EA's record.

  • Dylbot #9 2 years ago

    I can just about understand "centralised progression" being an excuse with single player games, like AC2, but C&C? A series with a huge established fan base centred around LAN gaming? Are they not particularly fond of money or something?

  • FortysixterUK #10 2 years ago

    Command and conquer the MMO then?
    I assume it has singeplayer without the need for online ?
    If the game only works online then aren't you only really renting it ?
    And what if the EA servers close down in 2 years time ?
    EA are shite.
    I've got a cold.

  • daz_john_smith #11 2 years ago

    "Bass said this was because of a progression system that relied on centralised internet storage"

    Doesn't Modern Warfare track and store online progression and unlocks and store that information online, but also let you level up locally and over LAN. Sounds like BS from Bass to me

  • jellyhead #12 2 years ago

    Always online for Single Player modes is what grinds my gears. Seems like gaming is only for the attention whores nowadays :(

  • sneetch #13 2 years ago

    "So if you go to another machine - friend's house, internet café - whatever, you can login with your profile and all the stuff you've unlocked is accessible to you there. It all lives on a server so you can't really do dedicated servers with that," he bullshitted.

    There is nothing there that would prevent a dedicated server working: Steam works like this and Valve have dedicated servers out the wazoo.

    Well, the "always online" requirement means I won't be bothered buying it.

  • KDR_11k #14 2 years ago

    "Dedicated servers"? How the hell does that even make sense beyond raising comparisons to MW2? RTSes are usually peer to peer so the "server" doesn't have more of a CPU load than the clients. Spring has dedicated servers that merely relay the network traffic since NATed players can't host well. Maybe it'd make sense in World in Conflict or something where players constantly join or leave.

    Oh wait, they were turning C&C4 into World in Conflict, right?

  • Artemus #15 2 years ago

    It's not very good anyway, based on what I've played of the beta. No bases, no harvesting and no strategy. Matches just become spam the one unit type until you max out you tiny population cap.

  • FooAtari #16 2 years ago

    As others have said lack of dedicated server support is nothing new in RTS and no big deal.

    But constantly being on-line when playing single player is. Especially given EA's recent track record with shutting down servers...

    I'd rather play through their back catalogue of older games (that I can still play on-line as well) than put up with that in new games.

    Recently it seems I'm about to become a retro PC gamer...

  • Murton #17 2 years ago

    I get the whole "online progression" thing, I don't like it but I get it. But why can't the game feature an unranked, non-stats tracking LAN play mode? Or am I just being too sensible here?

  • ignatiusjreilly #18 2 years ago

    @Murton

    Well I'm sure it's because a LAN mode would not be secure enough. Despite the the reasoning given I'm sure piracy is the main motivation.

  • Corben_Dallas #19 2 years ago

    well no C&C for me then.

    fuck the hell off EA.
    Edited by Corben_Dallas at 22/02/10 @ 13:44

  • davisorle #20 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • Murton #21 2 years ago

    @reilly

    Can they really hide behind the piracy excuse for not having basic features in a game that requires constant contact with an authentication server in order to be played?

    Can we get confirmation if the game will at least support lobbies for playing with pre-selected friends? If not then it's a definite game to fail the test of time and likely be forgotten by the end of the year like so many other games.
    Edited by Murton at 22/02/10 @ 14:32

  • DoctorZoidberg #22 2 years ago

    No LAN and only while online? Im always online eitherway but nooone has the right to force me and put those kind of rules for my gaming.

    I appreciate everyone's frustration, but that is the most retarded thing I've read. If your always online anyway, what exactly is your problem? It won't affect you in any way, you don't need to change anything!!!

    "I won't play this game because I need to always be online (even though I am anyway)" is just ridiculous. "Gah! I'm not buy any CD's any more because my stereo needs to always be plugged in and switched on! None is telling how to use my electricity!!"

    (A bad analogy I understand that, but it is monday afternoon!!)

  • sneetch #23 2 years ago

    @DoctorZoidberg

    I agree to a point, however like many people I'm only almost always online, my crappy internet resets and fails far too often for me to be comfortable with this sort of thing. Now, it's irritating as hell when it happens and I can't log into WoW, for example, but I don't mind that so much because it's an online only game (similarly it's incredibly annoying when WoW itself fails and you can't play).

    If I can't fire up a single player game either because my ISP has decided they need to polish the electrons (or whatever it is they do when they take down my 'net) or some random server has fallen over then it's an altogether different matter. Perhaps it's the mind-set that needs to change, if we just think of everything as if it was online only then it'd be fine. My innate bullshit-o-meter won't let me do that because I know that there's no reason for us to need that permanent connection other than because they want us to have that permanent connection for their own reasons.

  • s11mmy #24 2 years ago

    "Check out our Command & Conquer 4 preview to see what
    else the game has in store ahead of its 19th March release."

    Should't this read:

    what else the game doesn't have instore ahead of its release

  • FooAtari #25 2 years ago

    I wonder if the lack of LAN support has anything to do with trying to make people buy the sequels? Drop support for C&C 4 when C&C 5 comes out and no one can play multi-player without getting the latest game...

  • Buran #26 2 years ago

    Sensationalist journalism. No C&C game used dedicated servers before, and almost no rts game even used dedis. Some one wants to create controversial when is no reason for.

  • hahayou #27 2 years ago

    Everyone who's ever thought "EA are the good guys now" needs to know this. They are liars.

  • KayTannee #28 2 years ago

    No Dedicated servers, no problem. Its RTS. But the whole 'excuse' about character progression meaning its not possible, is complete BS. Battlefield Series managed it no problem.

    Either way, not getting it anyway, got bored of C&C along time ago. Wouldn't even pirate it if the torrent was forced onto my harddrive.