The problem with trying to communicate with gamers is that they're so used to having pixels tell them they're The Chosen One, any suggestion that their voice is only one of thousands freaks them out. The only thing "insulting" about this letter is the pitiful attempt at humor.
Clearly this State of the Game is pitched at people who've already decided they're in the game for the long haul. And that's who it should be pitched toward. People who have already decided they hate the game absolutely should be ignored in such an address. And people (like me) who think the game might be worth playing in a year or two don't need to be catered to for. . . well, not for another year or two.
I thought it was really well done. It addresses pretty much everything people want right now (with idle promises and "soon", but it still addresses them meaning they are aware of what's needed), it subtely stakes sides with the fanbois against the ones that "don't get it", and it heavily plays on the emotions of fanbois, constantly saying how much Cryptic cares about "you", even "You 'specifically'" and what "you" think. Playing to emotions like this is perfect considering there's not much in the way of a rational argument that can be made, such as a statement like, "We launched the game without any endgame content because..." All around very well done. I think it's pretty much all BS personally, and the game is going to crash and burn, but still, a good PR move here.
I disagree, this address wasn't very subtle at all. It's very obvious that Zinc is trying to pit the fanbois against those who "don't get it" or "simply don't like it" (in other words, everyone but the fanbois.) In a way, this address is a huge insult to those who bought the game and were thinking of not renewing their subscription. The purpose of this address should have been to retain as many subscriptions after the first month as possible, not burn their bridges with those possible subscribers.
It's not subtle to people critical of the game, but it should come across as subtle to a fanboi. They can still maintain the claim that they value critical threads and posts on their forums while siding with the fanbois with this comment. And to be fair, they do leave way more critical threads open then I've ever seen on a new MMORPG launch.
Of course they leave a ton of critical threads open, if they didn't there'd be no threads left! They couldn't POSSIBLY keep up with all the negative posts on those forums...just...not possible.
The 'state of game' indicator for me is the advertisement email I just got from Atari offering an extra 60 days of free play plus free shipping if I buy the Collectors Edition. Sounds like those warehouses are a might bit overstocked with plastic comm badges.
A game that starts offering extras and discounts within the first month is not off to an auspicious start.
There's clearly a lack of sleep evident in that SofG, so I sense a BIT of honesty there, intended or not. From what I see, it's from a massive contrast. Between the horrible reviews, and an unexpected number of folks playing.
They have an unexpected number of initial players, and possibly an unexpected number of negative reviews. I blame this again on Champions Online, which wasn't rated as a great game, but was VASTLY overrated, nonetheless.
This game is rated accurately, yet has more buyers than were expected, thus crashes and queues abound. But they would be fooling themselves to think this game will grow. Or not???
As the head of all that, how much sleep would YOU get?
Me, not much. And my SotG ravings would be even less sensical. Still, politically, that line is the best line to have. "Let the elite MMO crowd have their silly games where crafting matters and traveling is enjoyable. We're making something totally unique and the tea drinkin' elitists with their "deep" MMO's can go bite one..." .
Good read. They actually seem to adress the most pressing issues there (group content, death penalty, difficulty, non-combat related content aka exploration)... Also ship interiors, additions to officer capabilities (first officers etc) and new playable factions as long-term goals look like a healthy focus. BTW this thread is a nice example of how you could write a 'State of the Game' worth a nobel peace prize and some people would spit and bite like little girls. Could one of you guys tell me what you expect from a state of the game post? Something along the lines of "We're terribly sorry we screwed up so badly and hurt your feelings so much. We're shutting down the game in 2 weeks and give the IP to developer XY for free"...? Would that make you happy? M
Try to wrap your brains around the simple fact that there are people playing the game that like it and that dont care much for your tinfoil head future predictions, because nothing is more ridiculous than someone trying to explain to you why you cant really have fun, even if your having fun.
Also i love how people dissing this ignore 90% of the actual content announcements, while jumping straight to the part they can flame. The guy wrote like several pages, and you manage to get hung up about 1-2 sentences just because they contain flameable material.
What about the deathpenalty getting addressed, this was complained about in this very forum. What about the difficult slider, it was complained the game is to easy in this forum. What about respecs? Groupcontent? Autofire on ground and in space? More diplomacy? Better crafting and exploration? Communication? Dont you see they are really putting an effort into making this game fun?
This is a good State of the Game, it not only proves that the guys are actually paying attention to what we want, but that they actually try to address our problems in a timely manner. And thats damn rare in mmorpgs.
On the other side of the coin, maybe you should look at the numerous below-7 reviews to the game in the professional media, the fact that the game can't crack the top 20 in XFire numbers, the insane fail portions of this State of the Game, like critics "don't get it," and "simply don't like it," not to mention the hilariously ironic bit about the game developers "not water things down and go 'mass market'" when it is incredibly obvious this is exactly what they did when they took an extremely rich IP and made the most barebones, simple, shallow MMO in the history of MMOs, the parts where he admits the developers don't actually know what they'll be doing for the next six months, and finally we come to the part where the author talks about the game's fan base whipping him and basically abusing him!
You saying "there are people playing the game that like it and that dont care much for your tinfoil head future predictions" is kinda like a random Insane Cult Member saying "there are people in our cult who love Insane Cult Leader! They aren't going to listen to your insane tinfoil head future predictions that Insane Cult Leader might make us commit mass suicide!"
Let me open by saying the last time I posted on any forum was back during the Star Wars Galaxies CU. That really irked me that sony would disrespect me so much as to trash most everything I had earned in game. So, I gave my 2 cents and pretty much nailed smedley's character as being an egotistal punk who's management style is more suited to run venezuela or cuba. Now it seems mr. Zinc (Craig Zinkeivich), at least to me, seems to be cut from the same stone.
1. Making this state game update with a some vague and clearly controversial topics at the end of the week... bad move. It is not unlike the company that does layoffs at Christmas and then wonders why its having negative press.
2. The some people get it some people don't comment. I know he did not mean to offend. Yeah there are people who simply can't be pleased. But public relations 101, that comment is completely left to interpretation. You basically offended a significant portion of your fan base. Example.... anyone who came out and said "No" to the ingame death pentalty will likely conclude you think that they "don't get it" based on the way the press release is structured. Couple that with the bit that we are here for the people who do get it.... The same psychology that makes memes work causes people to conclude you are saying they don't get it and they can get lost.
3. Life time subs. Some people (my self included) bought life time subscriptions. The death penalty was not something in the game at the time of purchase. Had it been disclosed I would have reconsidered my purchase. Now, I suspect it won't be very harsh. Honestly, look at champions online. But the principle really irks me. I paid for one thing and to me they are changing a fundamental part of the game. Worse, it seems they are ignoring the elephant in the room. Permit me to document what I have observed.
PVE Bridge officers..... The pathing needs work. My bridge officers get stuck constantly. So I find I have to try to herd them into a position for the fight with the elitish mob at the end of an instance. I entered a ticket about this back on the 18th. Despite their claim they are engaging the community, I did not see any acknowledgement on the ticket until I formally requested a refund for my life time sub (more on that in a bit). The response was a mixed canned thank you with a comment about pathing being difficult... someone more on the ball would have said "hey thanks, we know and we are on it."
War Zones? Well there is only one space war zone. It involves 'decrypting' borg nodes while fighting borg (AI controlled) and klingons (other players). On surface that sounds challenging and interesting. Until you try it. Most of the borg are stuck in the nodes. So you can't target them, but they target you just fine. Nothing like being setup for failure. But I believe in adapting and overcoming... so if you're interested... one of your buddies needs to play decoy target while another flies in and interacts with the node. And least I forgot... you and the klingons spawn right on top of each other.... yep, simply the side with the fewest ships is done right out of the gate. So, its ironic that some folks cite 'zerging' (ie attacking with disregard for your ship and crew) as justification for a death penalty. Ummm... You don't have to be a top military analyst to conclude ... what else are you going to do under that circumstance. And this is the current epic end game instance.
I would like to save everyone more reading by simply stating there are issues with this game. But I firmly believe that if you make a claim, you damn well better back it up with some facts...
Spawning.... Well... Its seems you tend to spawn right in the middle of mobs when doing the space contact encounters in PVE. You have enough time to say "OH SHH...."
PVP.... ouch. I loved the pvp be it rather one sided ... for obvious reasons. For one thing... the teams numerically end up as being unbalanced. So you end up with 5 vs 2 for a good portion of the battle. And to cryptics credit... 5 should kick the snot out of 2. And honestly even when I'm out numbered... there is something just klingon about taking your bat'leth (forgive me I'm not very trek savey) and getting one good swat on each of the feds before they take you out (which has a chance to stun).... it does seem that he bat'leth is king of battle in this game. Now for the real problem here. The fed side of the game is largely PVE. So the fed players have experienced nothing but the AI in combat. The klingon side is nothing but PVP.... its only logical to conclude that under the most numerically and gear wise even conditions which side will dominate (and does). That's just common sense.
So I ask this. Why don't you address these issues? Why not sit down and think through a mission.... if you want people to avoid zerging (aka leroy jenkins) design some missions that make it impossible. But don't discount the fact that sometimes its just fun to wade into mobs and knock some heads together. Obviously someone concluded the proper fix to all this is to add a death penalty. Further, to all you nosey nagging busy bodies who can't keep your nose in your own business. It simply is none of your damn business how another player spends his/her free time playing any game, clearly you need to learn to respect other people's time and property. If you honestly believe someone on the other side of the planet playing a game appart from you is somehow affecting you... you have a mental illness. Seriously, you need to get some help and I strongly encourage you to seek it before you really do hurt someone when you snap. Finally, on principle and disgust I've closed my champion's onilne acount and gotten my lifetime Star Trek Online membership refunded. Cryptic/Atari are now in the 'no chance in hell' bin with Sony Online. I signed up to play a game to get away from this kind of BS...
3. Life time subs. Some people (my self included) bought life time subscriptions. The death penalty was not something in the game at the time of purchase. Had it been disclosed I would have reconsidered my purchase. Now, I suspect it won't be very harsh. Honestly, look at champions online. But the principle really irks me. I paid for one thing and to me they are changing a fundamental part of the game. Worse, it seems they are ignoring the elephant in the room. Permit me to document what I have observed.
I'm sorry but that's a pretty worthless argument. MMOs are ALWAYS changing, sometimes in HUGE ways.
You knew what you were buying into, an MMO. You knew there was no guarantee the game would stay the same, in fact you knew there was a guarantee that the game wouldn't so you've lost any right to complain about its forward movement in relation to being "scammed" into buying a life sub.
You want to play something frozen in time, there's always single player games.
You knew what you were buying into, an MMO. You knew there was no guarantee the game would stay the same, in fact you knew there was a guarantee that the game wouldn't so you've lost any right to complain about its forward movement in relation to being "scammed" into buying a life sub. You want to play something frozen in time, there's always single player games.
Well said. I think a person who bought a lifetime sub and sites a single issue (in this case death penalties) as a reason for remorse must have had a multitude of problems with the game, and was looking around for the best one to blame. But I've never had sympathy for people who bought the lifetime subscriptions. And coming here to complain about it is like showing up at a bully convention with a "kick me" sign on your back.
Warning this might get some haters riled up. Do not read if you cant deal with references to people "not getting" STO and cryptic not caring. Original is easier to read, quote is easier to pick apart, take your pleasure.
by Executive Producer Craig "zinc" Zinkivich
Welcome, you noble purveyors of Federation policy and fierce warlords of the Empire! Welcome one and all! Wait now... Let's just take a moment to de-cloak, disarm and drop our shields, shall we? This State of the Game is of interest to you all. Rest of blah snipped....
Talk from MMO companies taking a beating is cheap. Let's see if they can actually get the rabbit out of the hat first, eh?
Blah blah blah ...soon... blah blah will be great... blah evil hatebois blah blah blah pls wait while you pay blah blah blah... zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Wake me up when they say something substantial.
Love this post. This is exactly what you can expect from Cryptic as your developer. Sweet talk that almost makes you snore, actions that linger and perish faster than Finland in Olympics Ice Hockey against USA.
WoW... So the top man continues the arrogance at cryptic.. Did everyone working there go to the same "Dale Carnegie" class and fail? I have to agree with one of the major post on the official forums .. I don't get it.. What is it that I don't get Mr Zn? Can you talk down to me a lil more and help us all "get it".. As much as he tried to sound funny, I also read a lot of snippy remarks like "those that don't get it" to excuse all the negative post.. I wonder if all the 3rd party reviewers didn't get it either?
The funniest part is that they clearly have no idea how to make MMOs and yet they continue to be arrogant. LOL Ah well, this game will be in the crap bin soon enough.
Yeah the game cant even crack the top 20 on xfire, how many subscription based mmos are in there btw? Lets put it this way, its in the top 5 of subscription based mmorpgs, expecting anything more would have been stupid. Do i expect it to drop further? Yes. Do i expect it to drop like a brick like Warhammer or AoC did? No.
There arent that many commercially successful mmorpgs around anymore if you go by xfire, even grown "traditional" mmorpgs like EQ II are struggling to keep in the top 100. And while EQ is not my cup of tea the game isnt that bad.
Which successful subscription based mmorpg do we have atm? WoW is the king, Aion is doing good atm, then we have EvE. Anything else thats doing really good atm? Cant think of anything. All the others are doing even worse than STO atm, though we have to see how many customers STO can retain.
Yeah the game cant even crack the top 20 on xfire, how many subscription based mmos are in there btw? Lets put it this way, its in the top 5 of subscription based mmorpgs, expecting anything more would have been stupid. Do i expect it to drop further? Yes. Do i expect it to drop like a brick like Warhammer or AoC did? No.
There arent that many commercially successful mmorpgs around anymore if you go by xfire, even grown "traditional" mmorpgs like EQ II are struggling to keep in the top 100. And while EQ is not my cup of tea the game isnt that bad.
Which successful subscription based mmorpg do we have atm? WoW is the king, Aion is doing good atm, then we have EvE. Anything else thats doing really good atm? Cant think of anything. All the others are doing even worse than STO atm, though we have to see how many customers STO can retain.
How long has EQII been out? Oh yeah, over 5 years. In the top 200 for a 5 year old MMO is quite respectable, it mean they have somewhere around 130,000 to 200,000 active accounts.
STO is not even a month old. It has never seen much success on XFire. Age of Conan's highest place on the list was #4; City of Heroes highest place on the list was #10; EVE Online, #6; WoW, #1; Aion, #4; Guild Wars, #4; Warhammer Online, #4; Star Wars Galaxies, #8.
Star trek Online is currently #27, its highest rating was #19! That's the same as the best for DDO, and we all know what happened to that game...
In other words, even despite the big IP name, even despite the endless hype, STO has never been very popular at all. It won't be going up either.
If you have to ask, you obviously didnt get it. SCNR
Maybe im the only one who actually likes seeing people with some backbone instead of ... well wimps. And i never got whats up with this groveling thats expected from people cause you bought something from them. The guy is the executive producer of the game, thats not the same as the toilet lady calling you out.
So yeah if steve balmer points a finger at you and laughs you do what? Nerd rage a bit? Worst you can do is take your 50 bucks(or in the case of mr balmer probably a lot more) and go to another buisness. And mr balmer looks like he would gladly offer you to help you shoving that 50 bucks where the sun doesnt shine .
So yeah i find it funny, but then again, nothing worse for me than a grown man groveling even though he knows he is in the right. I cant respect people that dont talk up once in a while, and seemingly innocent remarks which could be insults, or well not, its good drama.
i agree with your sentiments. but being at all adversarial towards your customers (or potential customers) is never a good idea...especially when the cancel button is so close by. it makes this guy seem at least a bit loopy to be this way while cryptics two games are bleeding subs. the games they created arent complex masterpieces that take years to master, they are the most basic of mmo design. what dont customers get? what eludes them that if realized, would change their opinion of the game?
Yeah the game cant even crack the top 20 on xfire, how many subscription based mmos are in there btw? Lets put it this way, its in the top 5 of subscription based mmorpgs, expecting anything more would have been stupid. Do i expect it to drop further? Yes. Do i expect it to drop like a brick like Warhammer or AoC did? No.
There arent that many commercially successful mmorpgs around anymore if you go by xfire, even grown "traditional" mmorpgs like EQ II are struggling to keep in the top 100. And while EQ is not my cup of tea the game isnt that bad.
Which successful subscription based mmorpg do we have atm? WoW is the king, Aion is doing good atm, then we have EvE. Anything else thats doing really good atm? Cant think of anything. All the others are doing even worse than STO atm, though we have to see how many customers STO can retain.
How long has EQII been out? Oh yeah, over 5 years. In the top 200 for a 5 year old MMO is quite respectable, it mean they have somewhere around 130,000 to 200,000 active accounts. The top 1 and 3 game is just as old, so much for the theory age has anything to do with it.
STO is not even a month old. It has never seen much success on XFire. Age of Conan's highest place on the list was #4; City of Heroes highest place on the list was #10; EVE Online, #6; WoW, #1; Aion, #4; Guild Wars, #4; Warhammer Online, #4; Star Wars Galaxies, #8. Agreed.
Star trek Online is currently #27, its highest rating was #19! That's the same as the best for DDO, and we all know what happened to that game... Then again the competition is much harder these days, thats easy to see with eve, end of 2008 was place 6, now they have far more players and its only enough for place 13. The list is not a definite about playerbase, its playerbase compared to playerbase of other games including singleplayer.
In other words, even despite the big IP name, even despite the endless hype, STO has never been very popular at all. It won't be going up either. All you said was basicly that holding a high place on xfire for a time never changed anything about a games success. Also i might be wrong but STO doesnt seem to be freefalling like AoC or CO did. And even they are recovering and getting a bit succesful finally(well co not so much).
Yeah the game cant even crack the top 20 on xfire, how many subscription based mmos are in there btw? Lets put it this way, its in the top 5 of subscription based mmorpgs, expecting anything more would have been stupid. Do i expect it to drop further? Yes. Do i expect it to drop like a brick like Warhammer or AoC did? No.
There arent that many commercially successful mmorpgs around anymore if you go by xfire, even grown "traditional" mmorpgs like EQ II are struggling to keep in the top 100. And while EQ is not my cup of tea the game isnt that bad.
Which successful subscription based mmorpg do we have atm? WoW is the king, Aion is doing good atm, then we have EvE. Anything else thats doing really good atm? Cant think of anything. All the others are doing even worse than STO atm, though we have to see how many customers STO can retain.
How long has EQII been out? Oh yeah, over 5 years. In the top 200 for a 5 year old MMO is quite respectable, it mean they have somewhere around 130,000 to 200,000 active accounts. The top 1 and 3 game is just as old, so much for the theory age has anything to do with it.
STO is not even a month old. It has never seen much success on XFire. Age of Conan's highest place on the list was #4; City of Heroes highest place on the list was #10; EVE Online, #6; WoW, #1; Aion, #4; Guild Wars, #4; Warhammer Online, #4; Star Wars Galaxies, #8. Agreed.
Star trek Online is currently #27, its highest rating was #19! That's the same as the best for DDO, and we all know what happened to that game... Then again the competition is much harder these days, thats easy to see with eve, end of 2008 was place 6, now they have far more players and its only enough for place 13. The list is not a definite about playerbase, its playerbase compared to playerbase of other games including singleplayer.
In other words, even despite the big IP name, even despite the endless hype, STO has never been very popular at all. It won't be going up either. All you said was basicly that holding a high place on xfire for a time never changed anything about a games success. Also i might be wrong but STO doesnt seem to be freefalling like AoC or CO did. And even they are recovering and getting a bit succesful finally(well co not so much).
Increased competition? That might be a valid excuse if every game I listed was five years old or older. However, there are games on the list I gave that are little more than a year old!
But hey, keep coming up with the justifications that STO isn't sinking faster than the Titanic.
Yeah the game cant even crack the top 20 on xfire, how many subscription based mmos are in there btw? Lets put it this way, its in the top 5 of subscription based mmorpgs, expecting anything more would have been stupid. Do i expect it to drop further? Yes. Do i expect it to drop like a brick like Warhammer or AoC did? No.
There arent that many commercially successful mmorpgs around anymore if you go by xfire, even grown "traditional" mmorpgs like EQ II are struggling to keep in the top 100. And while EQ is not my cup of tea the game isnt that bad.
Which successful subscription based mmorpg do we have atm? WoW is the king, Aion is doing good atm, then we have EvE. Anything else thats doing really good atm? Cant think of anything. All the others are doing even worse than STO atm, though we have to see how many customers STO can retain.
How long has EQII been out? Oh yeah, over 5 years. In the top 200 for a 5 year old MMO is quite respectable, it mean they have somewhere around 130,000 to 200,000 active accounts. The top 1 and 3 game is just as old, so much for the theory age has anything to do with it.
STO is not even a month old. It has never seen much success on XFire. Age of Conan's highest place on the list was #4; City of Heroes highest place on the list was #10; EVE Online, #6; WoW, #1; Aion, #4; Guild Wars, #4; Warhammer Online, #4; Star Wars Galaxies, #8. Agreed.
Star trek Online is currently #27, its highest rating was #19! That's the same as the best for DDO, and we all know what happened to that game... Then again the competition is much harder these days, thats easy to see with eve, end of 2008 was place 6, now they have far more players and its only enough for place 13. The list is not a definite about playerbase, its playerbase compared to playerbase of other games including singleplayer.
In other words, even despite the big IP name, even despite the endless hype, STO has never been very popular at all. It won't be going up either. All you said was basicly that holding a high place on xfire for a time never changed anything about a games success. Also i might be wrong but STO doesnt seem to be freefalling like AoC or CO did. And even they are recovering and getting a bit succesful finally(well co not so much).
Increased competition? That might be a valid excuse if every game I listed was five years old or older. However, there are games on the list I gave that are little more than a year old!
But hey, keep coming up with the justifications that STO isn't sinking faster than the Titanic.
I just checked 5 min ago. STO dropped to #31 now behind LOTRO, a much older game.
Yeah the game cant even crack the top 20 on xfire, how many subscription based mmos are in there btw? Lets put it this way, its in the top 5 of subscription based mmorpgs, expecting anything more would have been stupid. Do i expect it to drop further? Yes. Do i expect it to drop like a brick like Warhammer or AoC did? No.
There arent that many commercially successful mmorpgs around anymore if you go by xfire, even grown "traditional" mmorpgs like EQ II are struggling to keep in the top 100. And while EQ is not my cup of tea the game isnt that bad.
Which successful subscription based mmorpg do we have atm? WoW is the king, Aion is doing good atm, then we have EvE. Anything else thats doing really good atm? Cant think of anything. All the others are doing even worse than STO atm, though we have to see how many customers STO can retain.
How long has EQII been out? Oh yeah, over 5 years. In the top 200 for a 5 year old MMO is quite respectable, it mean they have somewhere around 130,000 to 200,000 active accounts. The top 1 and 3 game is just as old, so much for the theory age has anything to do with it.
STO is not even a month old. It has never seen much success on XFire. Age of Conan's highest place on the list was #4; City of Heroes highest place on the list was #10; EVE Online, #6; WoW, #1; Aion, #4; Guild Wars, #4; Warhammer Online, #4; Star Wars Galaxies, #8. Agreed.
Star trek Online is currently #27, its highest rating was #19! That's the same as the best for DDO, and we all know what happened to that game... Then again the competition is much harder these days, thats easy to see with eve, end of 2008 was place 6, now they have far more players and its only enough for place 13. The list is not a definite about playerbase, its playerbase compared to playerbase of other games including singleplayer.
In other words, even despite the big IP name, even despite the endless hype, STO has never been very popular at all. It won't be going up either. All you said was basicly that holding a high place on xfire for a time never changed anything about a games success. Also i might be wrong but STO doesnt seem to be freefalling like AoC or CO did. And even they are recovering and getting a bit succesful finally(well co not so much).
Increased competition? That might be a valid excuse if every game I listed was five years old or older. However, there are games on the list I gave that are little more than a year old!
But hey, keep coming up with the justifications that STO isn't sinking faster than the Titanic.
I just checked 5 min ago. STO dropped to #31 now behind LOTRO, a much older game.
It says #27 for me, with it being at #31 yesterday.
Originally posted by dhayes68 Ok so if you don't think the game doesn't capture the Star Trek feel, it is in NO way the fault of the game, but the player's fault for not getting it? Lol. The problem with that reasoning is that it not only doesn't address the problem (the problem he admits to being some don't think Star Trek Online doesn't capture Star Trek) but also that they have no intention of addressing it. Smooth
Being a Trek fan I have to say the game does indeed capture the Star Trek feel. For those that don't think that I have to ask exactly what game were you looking for? What would need to be done to capture the Star Trek feel?
If any part of the answer is being apart of a crew with another player as captain you can throw that out right now. That would never work in a MMORPG setting so don't even throw it into the mix. Having everyone have their own ship is the safest and most logically way to go. So with those two things in place what would capture the Star Trek feel?
I think a game that has to capture the feel of the universe would be one where you travel to various planets and systems. Beam down to them or onto ships. Talk to characters and help them with their problems. Fight enemies in phaser fights or hand to hand combat. Then progress a story. One thing leads to something else and then it might end in a space battle after the ground fight is over. All the while getting feedback from those you left on the ship. Visit locations from the movies, shows, and maybe even books. Seeing the monument in space to those that died at Wolf 359 (when the Borg attacked Earth with Picard as Locutus leading the way) was very enjoyable. You get all of that in Star Trek Online.
You even explore uncharted space and meet random people in need of help. The system they have in place allows it to be random. You could jump into a fire fight to save another ship or come across a planet that need supplies. Or have to beam down somewhere. You want large battles? The Fleet actions allow for that either space combat wise or ground combat. Just did Breaking the Planet fleet action a little while ago. It was fun. They pretty much are giant public quest ala Warhammer Online but they work. In fact they are the only way they could work outside of having organized raids as in other games.
When I think Star Trek I think certain things. All those things are in Star Trek Online. This is why I don't understand at all the hate directed toward it. It's not like they promised Star Trek and what you get was Eve Online where you are stuck in your ship all the time. No beaming, no exploring planets or stations, no getting new crew members, etc.
Is there room for improvements? Yes. I'd like to be able to walk a few decks of my ship. I'd like for my crew members to talk back to me when I go to the bridge. I'd like it if my fleet could have our own star base or base located on a planet. Maybe have to defend it from nps or maybe other factions. I'd like to see more Federation outpost or planets to visit. I see nothing stopping them from adding things as time goes on.
So again how is this not a Star Trek game? It is. Is it a MMO? Yes it is but not along the lines of World of Warcraft or Everquest 2. It never could be while being Star Trek. Could they have made it closer to Star Wars Galaxies. Maybe but then again it would be a SWG clone and then it wouldn't have as strong a Star Trek feel as Trek and Wars are different in significant ways.
What where people looking for in regards to this game that makes them hate it now? Or feel it's a bad game or that Cryptic screwed up?
3. Life time subs. Some people (my self included) bought life time subscriptions. The death penalty was not something in the game at the time of purchase. Had it been disclosed I would have reconsidered my purchase. Now, I suspect it won't be very harsh. Honestly, look at champions online. But the principle really irks me. I paid for one thing and to me they are changing a fundamental part of the game. Worse, it seems they are ignoring the elephant in the room. Permit me to document what I have observed.
I'm sorry but that's a pretty worthless argument. MMOs are ALWAYS changing, sometimes in HUGE ways.
You knew what you were buying into, an MMO. You knew there was no guarantee the game would stay the same, in fact you knew there was a guarantee that the game wouldn't so you've lost any right to complain about its forward movement in relation to being "scammed" into buying a life sub.
You want to play something frozen in time, there's always single player games.
so... Let me present this in another way then..
I own a rental car company and offer a lifetime rental option. You as a consumer decide to purchase one of my lifetime rentals. Everything is fine for a few weeks. Until one day, you are walking to where you parked the car and find a tricylce with a note cheerfully saying enjoy the new ride we provided for you. Now under those extreme circumstances I am pretty sure I would be facing some possible criminal charges for having swapped the car for a tricycle on you. My point is that had there been full disclosure of a death penalty up front, it would have weighed into my buying decision. A point my credit card company readily agreed with and has already refunded my money. This really just comes down to simple ethics. Which takes president over opinion and lengthy disclaimers.
Comments
The problem with trying to communicate with gamers is that they're so used to having pixels tell them they're The Chosen One, any suggestion that their voice is only one of thousands freaks them out. The only thing "insulting" about this letter is the pitiful attempt at humor.
Clearly this State of the Game is pitched at people who've already decided they're in the game for the long haul. And that's who it should be pitched toward. People who have already decided they hate the game absolutely should be ignored in such an address. And people (like me) who think the game might be worth playing in a year or two don't need to be catered to for. . . well, not for another year or two.
Blah blah blah
...soon...
blah blah
will be great...
blah
evil hatebois
blah blah blah
pls wait while you pay
blah blah blah...
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Wake me up when they say something substantial.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I disagree, this address wasn't very subtle at all. It's very obvious that Zinc is trying to pit the fanbois against those who "don't get it" or "simply don't like it" (in other words, everyone but the fanbois.) In a way, this address is a huge insult to those who bought the game and were thinking of not renewing their subscription. The purpose of this address should have been to retain as many subscriptions after the first month as possible, not burn their bridges with those possible subscribers.
It's not subtle to people critical of the game, but it should come across as subtle to a fanboi. They can still maintain the claim that they value critical threads and posts on their forums while siding with the fanbois with this comment. And to be fair, they do leave way more critical threads open then I've ever seen on a new MMORPG launch.
Of course they leave a ton of critical threads open, if they didn't there'd be no threads left! They couldn't POSSIBLY keep up with all the negative posts on those forums...just...not possible.
You're guna be sleepin' a long time my friend..
The 'state of game' indicator for me is the advertisement email I just got from Atari offering an extra 60 days of free play plus free shipping if I buy the Collectors Edition. Sounds like those warehouses are a might bit overstocked with plastic comm badges.
A game that starts offering extras and discounts within the first month is not off to an auspicious start.
There's clearly a lack of sleep evident in that SofG, so I sense a BIT of honesty there, intended or not. From what I see, it's from a massive contrast. Between the horrible reviews, and an unexpected number of folks playing.
They have an unexpected number of initial players, and possibly an unexpected number of negative reviews. I blame this again on Champions Online, which wasn't rated as a great game, but was VASTLY overrated, nonetheless.
This game is rated accurately, yet has more buyers than were expected, thus crashes and queues abound. But they would be fooling themselves to think this game will grow. Or not???
As the head of all that, how much sleep would YOU get?
Me, not much. And my SotG ravings would be even less sensical. Still, politically, that line is the best line to have. "Let the elite MMO crowd have their silly games where crafting matters and traveling is enjoyable. We're making something totally unique and the tea drinkin' elitists with their "deep" MMO's can go bite one..." .
Yes they blew it.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
On the other side of the coin, maybe you should look at the numerous below-7 reviews to the game in the professional media, the fact that the game can't crack the top 20 in XFire numbers, the insane fail portions of this State of the Game, like critics "don't get it," and "simply don't like it," not to mention the hilariously ironic bit about the game developers "not water things down and go 'mass market'" when it is incredibly obvious this is exactly what they did when they took an extremely rich IP and made the most barebones, simple, shallow MMO in the history of MMOs, the parts where he admits the developers don't actually know what they'll be doing for the next six months, and finally we come to the part where the author talks about the game's fan base whipping him and basically abusing him!
You saying "there are people playing the game that like it and that dont care much for your tinfoil head future predictions" is kinda like a random Insane Cult Member saying "there are people in our cult who love Insane Cult Leader! They aren't going to listen to your insane tinfoil head future predictions that Insane Cult Leader might make us commit mass suicide!"
Let me open by saying the last time I posted on any forum was back during the Star Wars Galaxies CU. That really irked me that sony would disrespect me so much as to trash most everything I had earned in game. So, I gave my 2 cents and pretty much nailed smedley's character as being an egotistal punk who's management style is more suited to run venezuela or cuba. Now it seems mr. Zinc (Craig Zinkeivich), at least to me, seems to be cut from the same stone.
1. Making this state game update with a some vague and clearly controversial topics at the end of the week... bad move. It is not unlike the company that does layoffs at Christmas and then wonders why its having negative press.
2. The some people get it some people don't comment. I know he did not mean to offend. Yeah there are people who simply can't be pleased. But public relations 101, that comment is completely left to interpretation. You basically offended a significant portion of your fan base. Example.... anyone who came out and said "No" to the ingame death pentalty will likely conclude you think that they "don't get it" based on the way the press release is structured. Couple that with the bit that we are here for the people who do get it.... The same psychology that makes memes work causes people to conclude you are saying they don't get it and they can get lost.
3. Life time subs. Some people (my self included) bought life time subscriptions. The death penalty was not something in the game at the time of purchase. Had it been disclosed I would have reconsidered my purchase. Now, I suspect it won't be very harsh. Honestly, look at champions online. But the principle really irks me. I paid for one thing and to me they are changing a fundamental part of the game. Worse, it seems they are ignoring the elephant in the room. Permit me to document what I have observed.
PVE Bridge officers..... The pathing needs work. My bridge officers get stuck constantly. So I find I have to try to herd them into a position for the fight with the elitish mob at the end of an instance. I entered a ticket about this back on the 18th. Despite their claim they are engaging the community, I did not see any acknowledgement on the ticket until I formally requested a refund for my life time sub (more on that in a bit). The response was a mixed canned thank you with a comment about pathing being difficult... someone more on the ball would have said "hey thanks, we know and we are on it."
War Zones? Well there is only one space war zone. It involves 'decrypting' borg nodes while fighting borg (AI controlled) and klingons (other players). On surface that sounds challenging and interesting. Until you try it. Most of the borg are stuck in the nodes. So you can't target them, but they target you just fine. Nothing like being setup for failure. But I believe in adapting and overcoming... so if you're interested... one of your buddies needs to play decoy target while another flies in and interacts with the node. And least I forgot... you and the klingons spawn right on top of each other.... yep, simply the side with the fewest ships is done right out of the gate. So, its ironic that some folks cite 'zerging' (ie attacking with disregard for your ship and crew) as justification for a death penalty. Ummm... You don't have to be a top military analyst to conclude ... what else are you going to do under that circumstance. And this is the current epic end game instance.
I would like to save everyone more reading by simply stating there are issues with this game. But I firmly believe that if you make a claim, you damn well better back it up with some facts...
Spawning.... Well... Its seems you tend to spawn right in the middle of mobs when doing the space contact encounters in PVE. You have enough time to say "OH SHH...."
PVP.... ouch. I loved the pvp be it rather one sided ... for obvious reasons. For one thing... the teams numerically end up as being unbalanced. So you end up with 5 vs 2 for a good portion of the battle. And to cryptics credit... 5 should kick the snot out of 2. And honestly even when I'm out numbered... there is something just klingon about taking your bat'leth (forgive me I'm not very trek savey) and getting one good swat on each of the feds before they take you out (which has a chance to stun).... it does seem that he bat'leth is king of battle in this game. Now for the real problem here. The fed side of the game is largely PVE. So the fed players have experienced nothing but the AI in combat. The klingon side is nothing but PVP.... its only logical to conclude that under the most numerically and gear wise even conditions which side will dominate (and does). That's just common sense.
So I ask this. Why don't you address these issues? Why not sit down and think through a mission.... if you want people to avoid zerging (aka leroy jenkins) design some missions that make it impossible. But don't discount the fact that sometimes its just fun to wade into mobs and knock some heads together. Obviously someone concluded the proper fix to all this is to add a death penalty. Further, to all you nosey nagging busy bodies who can't keep your nose in your own business. It simply is none of your damn business how another player spends his/her free time playing any game, clearly you need to learn to respect other people's time and property. If you honestly believe someone on the other side of the planet playing a game appart from you is somehow affecting you... you have a mental illness. Seriously, you need to get some help and I strongly encourage you to seek it before you really do hurt someone when you snap. Finally, on principle and disgust I've closed my champion's onilne acount and gotten my lifetime Star Trek Online membership refunded. Cryptic/Atari are now in the 'no chance in hell' bin with Sony Online. I signed up to play a game to get away from this kind of BS...
That's all. Sionara.
I'm sorry but that's a pretty worthless argument. MMOs are ALWAYS changing, sometimes in HUGE ways.
You knew what you were buying into, an MMO. You knew there was no guarantee the game would stay the same, in fact you knew there was a guarantee that the game wouldn't so you've lost any right to complain about its forward movement in relation to being "scammed" into buying a life sub.
You want to play something frozen in time, there's always single player games.
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
Well said. I think a person who bought a lifetime sub and sites a single issue (in this case death penalties) as a reason for remorse must have had a multitude of problems with the game, and was looking around for the best one to blame. But I've never had sympathy for people who bought the lifetime subscriptions. And coming here to complain about it is like showing up at a bully convention with a "kick me" sign on your back.
Talk from MMO companies taking a beating is cheap. Let's see if they can actually get the rabbit out of the hat first, eh?
Love this post. This is exactly what you can expect from Cryptic as your developer. Sweet talk that almost makes you snore, actions that linger and perish faster than Finland in Olympics Ice Hockey against USA.
The funniest part is that they clearly have no idea how to make MMOs and yet they continue to be arrogant. LOL Ah well, this game will be in the crap bin soon enough.
OK.. someone needs to turn this song www.youtube.com/watch into the new STO theme song.. LOL
Yeah the game cant even crack the top 20 on xfire, how many subscription based mmos are in there btw? Lets put it this way, its in the top 5 of subscription based mmorpgs, expecting anything more would have been stupid. Do i expect it to drop further? Yes. Do i expect it to drop like a brick like Warhammer or AoC did? No.
There arent that many commercially successful mmorpgs around anymore if you go by xfire, even grown "traditional" mmorpgs like EQ II are struggling to keep in the top 100. And while EQ is not my cup of tea the game isnt that bad.
Which successful subscription based mmorpg do we have atm? WoW is the king, Aion is doing good atm, then we have EvE. Anything else thats doing really good atm? Cant think of anything. All the others are doing even worse than STO atm, though we have to see how many customers STO can retain.
How long has EQII been out? Oh yeah, over 5 years. In the top 200 for a 5 year old MMO is quite respectable, it mean they have somewhere around 130,000 to 200,000 active accounts.
STO is not even a month old. It has never seen much success on XFire. Age of Conan's highest place on the list was #4; City of Heroes highest place on the list was #10; EVE Online, #6; WoW, #1; Aion, #4; Guild Wars, #4; Warhammer Online, #4; Star Wars Galaxies, #8.
Star trek Online is currently #27, its highest rating was #19! That's the same as the best for DDO, and we all know what happened to that game...
In other words, even despite the big IP name, even despite the endless hype, STO has never been very popular at all. It won't be going up either.
i agree with your sentiments. but being at all adversarial towards your customers (or potential customers) is never a good idea...especially when the cancel button is so close by. it makes this guy seem at least a bit loopy to be this way while cryptics two games are bleeding subs. the games they created arent complex masterpieces that take years to master, they are the most basic of mmo design. what dont customers get? what eludes them that if realized, would change their opinion of the game?
grovel - no, never.
be realistic about what you are saying - always.
How long has EQII been out? Oh yeah, over 5 years. In the top 200 for a 5 year old MMO is quite respectable, it mean they have somewhere around 130,000 to 200,000 active accounts. The top 1 and 3 game is just as old, so much for the theory age has anything to do with it.
STO is not even a month old. It has never seen much success on XFire. Age of Conan's highest place on the list was #4; City of Heroes highest place on the list was #10; EVE Online, #6; WoW, #1; Aion, #4; Guild Wars, #4; Warhammer Online, #4; Star Wars Galaxies, #8. Agreed.
Star trek Online is currently #27, its highest rating was #19! That's the same as the best for DDO, and we all know what happened to that game... Then again the competition is much harder these days, thats easy to see with eve, end of 2008 was place 6, now they have far more players and its only enough for place 13. The list is not a definite about playerbase, its playerbase compared to playerbase of other games including singleplayer.
In other words, even despite the big IP name, even despite the endless hype, STO has never been very popular at all. It won't be going up either. All you said was basicly that holding a high place on xfire for a time never changed anything about a games success. Also i might be wrong but STO doesnt seem to be freefalling like AoC or CO did. And even they are recovering and getting a bit succesful finally(well co not so much).
and finally we come to the part where the author talks about the game's fan base whipping him and basically abusing him!
....while dressed as female klingons, no doubt
How long has EQII been out? Oh yeah, over 5 years. In the top 200 for a 5 year old MMO is quite respectable, it mean they have somewhere around 130,000 to 200,000 active accounts. The top 1 and 3 game is just as old, so much for the theory age has anything to do with it.
STO is not even a month old. It has never seen much success on XFire. Age of Conan's highest place on the list was #4; City of Heroes highest place on the list was #10; EVE Online, #6; WoW, #1; Aion, #4; Guild Wars, #4; Warhammer Online, #4; Star Wars Galaxies, #8. Agreed.
Star trek Online is currently #27, its highest rating was #19! That's the same as the best for DDO, and we all know what happened to that game... Then again the competition is much harder these days, thats easy to see with eve, end of 2008 was place 6, now they have far more players and its only enough for place 13. The list is not a definite about playerbase, its playerbase compared to playerbase of other games including singleplayer.
In other words, even despite the big IP name, even despite the endless hype, STO has never been very popular at all. It won't be going up either. All you said was basicly that holding a high place on xfire for a time never changed anything about a games success. Also i might be wrong but STO doesnt seem to be freefalling like AoC or CO did. And even they are recovering and getting a bit succesful finally(well co not so much).
Increased competition? That might be a valid excuse if every game I listed was five years old or older. However, there are games on the list I gave that are little more than a year old!
But hey, keep coming up with the justifications that STO isn't sinking faster than the Titanic.
How long has EQII been out? Oh yeah, over 5 years. In the top 200 for a 5 year old MMO is quite respectable, it mean they have somewhere around 130,000 to 200,000 active accounts. The top 1 and 3 game is just as old, so much for the theory age has anything to do with it.
STO is not even a month old. It has never seen much success on XFire. Age of Conan's highest place on the list was #4; City of Heroes highest place on the list was #10; EVE Online, #6; WoW, #1; Aion, #4; Guild Wars, #4; Warhammer Online, #4; Star Wars Galaxies, #8. Agreed.
Star trek Online is currently #27, its highest rating was #19! That's the same as the best for DDO, and we all know what happened to that game... Then again the competition is much harder these days, thats easy to see with eve, end of 2008 was place 6, now they have far more players and its only enough for place 13. The list is not a definite about playerbase, its playerbase compared to playerbase of other games including singleplayer.
In other words, even despite the big IP name, even despite the endless hype, STO has never been very popular at all. It won't be going up either. All you said was basicly that holding a high place on xfire for a time never changed anything about a games success. Also i might be wrong but STO doesnt seem to be freefalling like AoC or CO did. And even they are recovering and getting a bit succesful finally(well co not so much).
Increased competition? That might be a valid excuse if every game I listed was five years old or older. However, there are games on the list I gave that are little more than a year old!
But hey, keep coming up with the justifications that STO isn't sinking faster than the Titanic.
I just checked 5 min ago. STO dropped to #31 now behind LOTRO, a much older game.
How long has EQII been out? Oh yeah, over 5 years. In the top 200 for a 5 year old MMO is quite respectable, it mean they have somewhere around 130,000 to 200,000 active accounts. The top 1 and 3 game is just as old, so much for the theory age has anything to do with it.
STO is not even a month old. It has never seen much success on XFire. Age of Conan's highest place on the list was #4; City of Heroes highest place on the list was #10; EVE Online, #6; WoW, #1; Aion, #4; Guild Wars, #4; Warhammer Online, #4; Star Wars Galaxies, #8. Agreed.
Star trek Online is currently #27, its highest rating was #19! That's the same as the best for DDO, and we all know what happened to that game... Then again the competition is much harder these days, thats easy to see with eve, end of 2008 was place 6, now they have far more players and its only enough for place 13. The list is not a definite about playerbase, its playerbase compared to playerbase of other games including singleplayer.
In other words, even despite the big IP name, even despite the endless hype, STO has never been very popular at all. It won't be going up either. All you said was basicly that holding a high place on xfire for a time never changed anything about a games success. Also i might be wrong but STO doesnt seem to be freefalling like AoC or CO did. And even they are recovering and getting a bit succesful finally(well co not so much).
Increased competition? That might be a valid excuse if every game I listed was five years old or older. However, there are games on the list I gave that are little more than a year old!
But hey, keep coming up with the justifications that STO isn't sinking faster than the Titanic.
I just checked 5 min ago. STO dropped to #31 now behind LOTRO, a much older game.
It says #27 for me, with it being at #31 yesterday.
Being a Trek fan I have to say the game does indeed capture the Star Trek feel. For those that don't think that I have to ask exactly what game were you looking for? What would need to be done to capture the Star Trek feel?
If any part of the answer is being apart of a crew with another player as captain you can throw that out right now. That would never work in a MMORPG setting so don't even throw it into the mix. Having everyone have their own ship is the safest and most logically way to go. So with those two things in place what would capture the Star Trek feel?
I think a game that has to capture the feel of the universe would be one where you travel to various planets and systems. Beam down to them or onto ships. Talk to characters and help them with their problems. Fight enemies in phaser fights or hand to hand combat. Then progress a story. One thing leads to something else and then it might end in a space battle after the ground fight is over. All the while getting feedback from those you left on the ship. Visit locations from the movies, shows, and maybe even books. Seeing the monument in space to those that died at Wolf 359 (when the Borg attacked Earth with Picard as Locutus leading the way) was very enjoyable. You get all of that in Star Trek Online.
You even explore uncharted space and meet random people in need of help. The system they have in place allows it to be random. You could jump into a fire fight to save another ship or come across a planet that need supplies. Or have to beam down somewhere. You want large battles? The Fleet actions allow for that either space combat wise or ground combat. Just did Breaking the Planet fleet action a little while ago. It was fun. They pretty much are giant public quest ala Warhammer Online but they work. In fact they are the only way they could work outside of having organized raids as in other games.
When I think Star Trek I think certain things. All those things are in Star Trek Online. This is why I don't understand at all the hate directed toward it. It's not like they promised Star Trek and what you get was Eve Online where you are stuck in your ship all the time. No beaming, no exploring planets or stations, no getting new crew members, etc.
Is there room for improvements? Yes. I'd like to be able to walk a few decks of my ship. I'd like for my crew members to talk back to me when I go to the bridge. I'd like it if my fleet could have our own star base or base located on a planet. Maybe have to defend it from nps or maybe other factions. I'd like to see more Federation outpost or planets to visit. I see nothing stopping them from adding things as time goes on.
So again how is this not a Star Trek game? It is. Is it a MMO? Yes it is but not along the lines of World of Warcraft or Everquest 2. It never could be while being Star Trek. Could they have made it closer to Star Wars Galaxies. Maybe but then again it would be a SWG clone and then it wouldn't have as strong a Star Trek feel as Trek and Wars are different in significant ways.
What where people looking for in regards to this game that makes them hate it now? Or feel it's a bad game or that Cryptic screwed up?
I'm sorry but that's a pretty worthless argument. MMOs are ALWAYS changing, sometimes in HUGE ways.
You knew what you were buying into, an MMO. You knew there was no guarantee the game would stay the same, in fact you knew there was a guarantee that the game wouldn't so you've lost any right to complain about its forward movement in relation to being "scammed" into buying a life sub.
You want to play something frozen in time, there's always single player games.
so... Let me present this in another way then..
I own a rental car company and offer a lifetime rental option. You as a consumer decide to purchase one of my lifetime rentals. Everything is fine for a few weeks. Until one day, you are walking to where you parked the car and find a tricylce with a note cheerfully saying enjoy the new ride we provided for you. Now under those extreme circumstances I am pretty sure I would be facing some possible criminal charges for having swapped the car for a tricycle on you. My point is that had there been full disclosure of a death penalty up front, it would have weighed into my buying decision. A point my credit card company readily agreed with and has already refunded my money. This really just comes down to simple ethics. Which takes president over opinion and lengthy disclaimers.