Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 121
11-13-2011, 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
It's still more favorable for subbers than DC Universe Online used, which is basically, subbers get $50 worth of extra storage and slots (which they lose if they stop subbing) and a $12 adventure pack expansion every six months for free as long as they sub.

I think this might just be one of many shifts in the industry towards a F2P model that emphasizes the "free" and there are already several games that made the transition with a stipend or any huge benefits for subbers or lifers.

Somewhat reluctantly, I have to acknowledge that this model is probably middle of the road in terms of F2P transitions, with many that gave subbers and lifers almost nothing.

I think everybody is looking at subs in a F2P game backwards. That no company who considers it a sub is doing it right, whether they value it high or low. It should become a $15 microtransaction with a 30 day duration, a service people would pay for periodically, not something that people feel locked into once they start.
Here's the funny thing; I don't play DCUO. I play STO. That DCUO may or may not be screwing players worse than STO is screwing current subbers is irrelevant. STO's F2P conversion is less favorable to subbers than CO's conversion. That both games are owned by the same company (and both are still active) is the point of comparison there. CO's subbers didn't really get screwed. STO's subbers are.

I can pretty much guarantee the industry isn't shifting towards a pi$$ing-off-their-customers model. The games that do so will perform poorly and the ones that don't will do well (all things being equal). If you're okay with a company changing the format of a game you're paying/have paid for to one that devalues the time you've spent acquiring that games' currencies (by unfavorable conversion to the new currency) and by instituting a grind-or-pay mechanic that affects all players, then knock yourself out. Apparently, my standards for treatment by a company are different than yours.

So guess how much money I'll be spending on STO in the future? Guess how many Cryptic games I'll play in the future? Guess how many people I'll recommend any Cryptic game to? Hint: it's zero. That is the direct result of how Cryptic has treated of subbers over the last 8 months.

Here's another funny thing: you have five posts in this thread but have never answered the OP's question. Can you honestly recommend STO?


Z
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 122
11-13-2011, 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zordar View Post
Here's another funny thing: you have five posts in this thread but have never answered the OP's question. Can you honestly recommend STO?


Z
I think I could after F2P with the somewhat hollow endorsement that nobody's out anything but time for trying.

That could turn around dramatically if the new features and episodes down the road come at a more steady clip and are good.

I think the changes are probably hard to love for folks used to the current system but I only know two people IRL who got beyond Lt. 5. One made it to Captain and quit because he didn't want a promotion. The other has a couple of VAs like I do, has never had time to feel the pain of a content drought, and loves the game enthusiastically. So the pain of the changes isn't something most of my friends would notice.

Most of them found the skill trees and gear too confusing and the game to be too involved and were torn because they didn't want to sub to more than one MMO. And they couldn't figure out where to go for their next mission. They didn't care about collecting ships or rate of gearing. I think F2P probably fits most of them fairly well.

As for me, I'm just gonna try to use the advanced warning I have to get the most out of my ship gear and crafting beforehand and turn a tidy profit and focus solelyon my characters who are already geared up and maxed out. With a few Aegis sets on hand, crafted before the changes hit, for any friends who play.

I'm not thrilled with how every change affects me but I think most of the changes probably feel like improvements if you never seriously played before and aren't bad if you have nothing to compare them to.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 123
11-13-2011, 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Englebert
Cryptic are the ones who agreed to the release date. Cryptic put the Klingons in with no content and called them PVP faction. Cryptic chose to ignore PVP.

Cryptic agreed to the launch date of STO before Atari bought them. As it says in this article http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/09/at...yptic-studios/

So you can believe Cryptic's blameless and it's everyone else's fault if you want.
Crypticv ISN'T blameless but \neither is Atari, CBS, or Perpetual Enterainment.

The fact is, we got what we got - and it's up to you as a player to drecide if you just want to abandon the game, or try to get something workable that you can still enjoy. But trying to cast blame at this point is useless as there is plent to go around; and six months top a year more development wouldn't fix the MAIN issue in all tjhis which is Atari (who purchased Creyptic) isn't a company with a long term strategy, and they didn't want (and also didn't understand the long term financial commitment it takes to run an MMO.

WoW's success was due to a lot of fa ctors 9and the game being ready WASN'T one of then as ANYONE who played WoW in it's first year of existence can attest to - so the "If they made a great game, i would have a million plus subs maintained...." is BS (and a lesson I think EA and Lucas Arts is about to learn with SWToR as well in about onne year's time.)

The MMO marhket today is NOT what it was when WoW broke out - and I don't think that level of subscription success will be repeated in the Western MMO market in the current economy.

But in the end, if you like STO at all, you can try and give feedback (althouh I agree to me, it DOESN'T appear Cryptic is listening much to those of us who've been here since launch; and it re,mains to be seen what success their STO F2P impllementation will have.

But nothing will change the past, or the history opf this game tp date; and there's not one thing that would have magically fixed everyting in 2010.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 124
11-13-2011, 11:51 AM
I can, it's fun. it'll be even more recommendable once there's no price tag to get in the door. I'll recommend the heck out of it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 125
11-13-2011, 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armsman View Post
Crypticv ISN'T blameless but \neither is Atari, CBS, or Perpetual Enterainment.

The fact is, we got what we got - and it's up to you as a player to drecide if you just want to abandon the game, or try to get something workable that you can still enjoy. But trying to cast blame at this point is useless as there is plent to go around; and six months top a year more development wouldn't fix the MAIN issue in all tjhis which is Atari (who purchased Creyptic) isn't a company with a long term strategy, and they didn't want (and also didn't understand the long term financial commitment it takes to run an MMO.

WoW's success was due to a lot of fa ctors 9and the game being ready WASN'T one of then as ANYONE who played WoW in it's first year of existence can attest to - so the "If they made a great game, i would have a million plus subs maintained...." is BS (and a lesson I think EA and Lucas Arts is about to learn with SWToR as well in about onne year's time.)

The MMO marhket today is NOT what it was when WoW broke out - and I don't think that level of subscription success will be repeated in the Western MMO market in the current economy.

But in the end, if you like STO at all, you can try and give feedback (althouh I agree to me, it DOESN'T appear Cryptic is listening much to those of us who've been here since launch; and it re,mains to be seen what success their STO F2P impllementation will have.

But nothing will change the past, or the history opf this game tp date; and there's not one thing that would have magically fixed everyting in 2010.
No, it's Cryptic's fault they made this mess. Some people act like Cryptic is blameless and they're still mismanaging the game now that the publisher has changed. A lot of people act like Publishers control every aspect of a game and they don't. Developers for the most part run the game. Publishers may ask for somethings to be done though.

Saying Atari doesn't understand MMO's being a game publisher doesn't make much sense. I would say they didn't realize how bad the products were they were investing in.

WoW was successful because it was a fun game, it was also very diverse. It wasn't one dimensional and appealed to large audience. Players can put up with bugs if you make a real effort to fix them.

They don't really care about feedback. They have went ahead a made major mistakes after them community asked them not too. Listening to your customers and responding to them are two different things. They have always been "we are doing this and if you don't like it leave" and people have abandoned this game.


I know nothing will change what happened in 2010. History is repeating itself they are mangling another launch. People are trying to stop them from yet another disaster.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 126
11-13-2011, 12:55 PM
I have tried to recommend people to play it recently. Some just say no other laughed after reading about the reviews online. I did get a couple to try it for free but would not go buy the game because they didn't like the gameplay.

I tried hard to get the holographic officed never happened because the game is that bad.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 127
11-13-2011, 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armsman View Post
The MMO marhket today is NOT what it was when WoW broke out - and I don't think that level of subscription success will be repeated in the Western MMO market in the current economy.
EA's finances are worse than Atari's are and they're hedging all of their bets on an MMO that will require a million western subscribers a month to be profitable. Even ******** didn't firmly break that threshold until close to the launch of The Burning Crusade.

There are basically three models for MMO development, as I see it:

- Throw time and money at it and attempt to corner the market. Rely on around $15 a month per player, with some minor additional sources of revenue in the form of promotional items in collector's editions or tie in products and, possibly, a modest cash shop. Generally inherent in this model is shiny items which require time to get, bumping up subscriptions, and grouping to get, humping up subscriptions. (TOR, ******** when it launched, DC Universe at launch)

- Apply moderate time and money to it, release as quickly as possible, and rely on a loyal community to overcome the problems caused by inherent flaws. Inherent in this is relying on a smaller playerbase that is sometimes willing to pay much more than $15 in a month. (The Cryptic model, increasingly the ******** model)

- Utilize limited time and money to create an online game which may not be replete with features or cutting edge graphics but does what it does exceedingly well. Rely on intense loyalty and an item shop, often with items that retail for large sums in the $25+ range. (Facebook games, Kingdom of Loathing, many smaller games, League of Legends)

The third model is having success and is swaying games towards it. TOR appears to be the big standout but even TOR will have a pretty profound item shop, including storylines for sale.

I think it's interesting to note how all the many models tend to monetize the thing they value the highest. For Bioware/EA and Guild Wars, it's story monetization. For Cryptic, it's ships/classes (efectively micro-systems) and costumes. For Blizzard, it's traditionally been time spent playing.

On a certain level, an expansion is selling everything equally and represents a rebalancing of the relative value of featured elements because an expansion pack generally monetizes a little of everything.

Cryptic values systems and customization highest.

My big concern with the emphasis on ship sales and free content is that this reflects Cryptic's (and potentially the playerbase's) sense of values, which promotes gameplay systems and ships.

Whereas if they were making everything else free and selling story content, it would indicate that story is what they and their players value most.

I think there may be an unhealthy fixation on ships and systems in STO, both among the playerbase and Cryptic, and that's my big concern. That may change as the community makeup does.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 128
11-13-2011, 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
EA's finances are worse than Atari's are and they're hedging all of their bets on an MMO that will require a million western subscribers a month to be profitable. .
Completely false EA made $221 million profit for the quarter up $96 million from the June quarter.
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/8735...9m-in-revenue/

A rumor I heard was Bioware had enough assets to cover the 200 million development cost of the game. I don't know if that's true or not. I could believe it though. EA and Bioware are in no trouble if TOR isn't a success.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 129
11-13-2011, 01:52 PM
With Bioware's reputation at making great games like Mass Effect, Knights of the Old Republic, and Dragon Age, then it is likely that The Old Republic will be a success.

When STO goes F2P, I could tell any friends to make the decision for themselves since they don't have to pay a cent on it. I can tell some of the problems of STO, but it is your friend's choice to decide whether those problems are meaningless or breaks the game for them. Dismal PvP is a meaningless problem for me since I don't PvP, but is a game breaker for others. STO is enjoyable for awhile and the lack of content only becomes a problem if you play Klingons or get to Endgame.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 130
11-13-2011, 03:40 PM
I can and I have.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:00 AM.