There's Klingons in the screenshots now, screenshots now No more screenshots of space for Star Trek Online. Here's a look at how the Klingons are shaping up in the upcoming MMO.... read more
At first impression it might be easy to dismiss the graphics as being sub-par and similar to "Quake 3" levels, yet bear in mind this is intended for a MMO game which means the developers (and publisher) likely wants to keep spec requirements down in order to increase their potential user install base. From that perspective I think it looks quite good.
A pity it's going to be a subscription based MMO. I would almost have killed to get my hands on a vast multi-faction, space opera, single player game set in the Star Trek universe. That's not going to happen if it's a subcription-based MMO where I'm concerned. The same goes for BioWare's planned "Star Wars: Old Republic" MMO. _________________ "Unfounded optimism is no worse than relentless pessimism."
Yeah I was anti-subscription first. Then I realized that the $13 a month isn't that much considering there's plenty of content. More than any $60 single player game has, which is usually played thru in a day or a weekend at most.
Additional benefits include unending develpoment and bug fixes and the sub fee keeps the riff-raff out. (And by that I mean little kids and people who are there just to ruin other players day. Sure, there's still plenty of bad seeds, but at least the game is not overrun by them)
About Star Trek Online. I'm plenty excited about it. Sounds great fun, and they're following canon as closely as humanly possible.
Sorry, but i gotta laugh at anyone that wants even a half decent mmo and want it to be completely free, sorry but that world doesnt exist.
For the sub prices even a kid that gets pocket money everyweek can afford to pay a regular subscription fee so really you have no excuse.
Good thing there is no occasion for you to laugh in this regard then, isn't it? If you had actually comprehended what I typed in my previous post you would have noticed that at no point was I asking for a "free MMO" (if I want that I will turn to "Guild Wars 1" and the upcoming "Guild Wars 2" which are just that: free to play MMOs). No, what I want is a single player game. Multiplayer functionality is fine, but I will likely always prefer having a strong SP experience over a MP only game which, let's face it, is a pivotal part of MMOs and they require online connectivity to be playable. The less I have to rely on any single aspect of a game to function at all the better.
Feel free to lap up the regurgitated excrement that developers and publishers deign to toss you as scraps from their dinner table. The joke is on you since you not only pay for the installation package but you are then also forced to continue paying a monthly fee year in and year out in order for that installation package to offer you anything worthwhile. Talk about taking the hook, line and sinker. If this is the average financial sense of people it's little wonder so many are up to their necks in debt. Apparently it is with financial sense the way it is with common sense, and Voltaire may have stated it best when he expressed, "The problem with common sense is that it is not so common".
I require no "excuse" not to jump on the bandwagon of folly that is monthly subscription based games. That I can easily afford it is immaterial; besides, a fool and his money are soon parted. Even with a robust personal economy you will find that if you do not take care it will quickly cease to be robust. It is an ongoing labour much like fitness and knowledge. _________________ "Unfounded optimism is no worse than relentless pessimism."
To me it sounds like you're trying to say that anyone who pays out for a monthly sub is an idiot. Maybe you're not trying to say that and it's just the way I read it... but if I read it that way then others surely could do too.
With regards to sub based models, the way I look at it the initial outlay on a game is to cover the costs of making it and the monthly sub is to cover the additional costs of running the servers, updates, wages, etc. I know they probably charge more than is necessary but then I get charged more than is necessary for a pack of smokes, or my utility bills, or repair bills on my car. They would still have to charge something, unless it went P2P. Now people complained about P2P for MW2 and this was one of the reasons some people wouldn't buy it (along with the fact Acti are bastards). But then people want dedicated servers and aren't willing to pay for them. People seem to forget that it costs money to run these servers. So realistically the dev/pub would need to charge something for the servers and pass that charge to the users. I know that in Shooters most users wouldn't ever need to pay out for a dedicated server as there were/are kind hearted souls out there (such as myself back in the day) that would pay for them for others to enjoy, and for the purpose of clan matches. But we can't expect everyone else to lump up the funds and then get a free ride when it comes to MMO's. Think of it like buying a Skybox... you've paid for the product, you may even have got a deal that gave you so many months at a reduced rate or even free, but eventually you would need to pay the standard rate to get the service. The service cannot be provided free otherwise the company would go bust.
Also I, personally, don't consider Guild Wars an MMO. There might be more than 4 players in towns but once in the field (which isn't a shared field, just an instance) you never see anyone else, other than your own party. To me it feels more like NwN2. That was an RPG... with online multiplayer. But I wouldn't consider that an MMO either. Maybe GW's has changed now... I played it for a few months back when it came out but I haven't touched it since. I didn't like how cut off I felt from all the other players when on a run, when getting disconnected and automatically removed from the party, taking out 2 bots and a human player when there was no-one else around to join, etc. I'm not saying you're wrong to call it an MMO. Others believe it's one too. It's only my opinion
And very quickly, I know that some of those people that complained about the removal of dedicated servers for the PC version of MW2 were complaining more about the choice being removed. Not that they would have necessarily paid out for a server. And that's totally understandable. People like choice, even if they won't use it.
I think you raise some valid points however, let me remove any doubt right now first and foremost: I do not particularly care if any other readers infer that I may consider subscription based supporters idiots. Anti-social as it may be, I remain unmoved. If that is how I actually perceive them, you understand.
As for dedicated servers, the developers/publishers themselves do not have to actually host and pay for the servers. They simply have to allow their game to support it thus giving third parties the choice as to whether or not they wish to pay for it (which is what you mentioned). I also agree that choice, from a consumer's perspective, is generally a positive thing...And that "Guild Wars" counts as an MMO!
That said, the more various developers and publishers push the subscription-based model in the hopes of cashing in on a "get-rich-quick" trick, the more adamant I become in my determination to resist it. I oppose any and all means by private companies gaining more power and control over the habits of customers while remaining unaccountable. This goes for DRM, online activation services (a la Steamworks), as well as monthly subscriptions which render the paid for installation package worth about as much as bucket of cold p**s...and about as useful too should you for whatever reasons not pay the monthly subscription fee on top of the initial investment when purchasing the installation package.
I've stated it before and I'll do so again: If they are going to charge monthly fees then the installation pack must be free of charge or vice versa (if the MMO is big enough hit the smart money would be in making the installation pack free of charge pending costs of development since many people might end up spending enough subscription time online to provide greater profits through that method of payment). Alternatively the price of both the installation package and the montly subscription must both be noticeably reduced. If the companies are going to moan and wail about that then they can go stick it with the nice warm feeling arising from the realisation that if they have done a good enough job with their product, market it well and have just the right amount of luck and timing they can hook millions of players which means that within a handful of months they could theoretically recoup all their development costs. You touched upon this notion in regards to the pricing although comparing it directly to the costs of cigarettes, etc. is not exactly useful/relevant.
The short of the matter is that various chumps and non-chumps are free to get suckered in to this payment trap if they so wish. I will avoid it at just about all costs. Should the day come where single player campaigns that do not require online connectivity disappear completely then that will be the day this gamer retires. _________________ "Unfounded optimism is no worse than relentless pessimism."
"At first impression it might be easy to dismiss the graphics as being sub-par and similar to "Quake 3" levels, yet bear in mind this is intended for a MMO game which means the developers (and publisher) likely wants to keep spec requirements down in order to increase their potential user install base. From that perspective I think it looks quite good."
Yeah right, that must be why EVE online has such s**t graphics....oh wait it doesn't. This looks like a complete turd of a wasted opportunity, why do all Star Trek games always have crap graphics? I mean the money behind the franchise and the size of the fanbase and the games are always below par visually....I'd love to see a really crisp and slick space strategy game, the one they brought out years ago was s**t.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
