Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Star Trek Online and Cryptic,Vindication
kevjards
Member UncommonPosts: 1,452
Of late crptic have taken a pounding and a lot of abuse really for what happened with STO,but having read the article in this link i,m not really sure they were to blame for the lack of content in the game,what do you guys think..here is the link,give your opinion guys..i know the game is'nt what we were expecting,but which game ever is.
Comments
It's a nice reveal behind the scenes.... and not a big suprise. If people thought that EA was evil. ATARI is far more evil.
ATARI should have died in the end 80's / early 90's! /facepalm to the ones that managed to reboot this horrible company.
Not the same Atari of the 80's. French company Infogrames just changed their name to Atari (since they owned the rights when they took over the paltry remains of Hasbro Interactive). Infogrames thought (correctly) that changing their NA's division name to Atari would give their company better name recognition.
But you are correct: The original Atari was a horrible company, Tramiel's Atari of the 90's was not much better and the current Atari is even worse...
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
Cryptic talked last year about how Star Trek Online seems rushed because when Cryptic acquired the license from Perpetual Entertainment (which ironically enough never shipped a game), they also acquired the date the game had to be completed, putting them a few years behind schedule.
It was talked about in the STOked podcast.
Check out my monthly column on MMORPG.com.
Well that's certainly an interesting take on things. We'll see how Neverwinter does now that Atari is out of the picture.
I had heard that a lot of the issues they had with STO were related to Atari. That doesn't mean STO will magically become the greatest thing ever, but it should certainly become a better game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I understand that Cryptic had issues with Atari but I dont really see this as any sort of vindication as the title suggests. Cryptic had several long-time MMO personel on staff when they agreed to do STO and they made several mistakes
1. If they felt the timeline to get the game done was not enough, why take the job and release poor content? Sweet BaaGeebaa's, the rule in business is dont release until its ready and you never get a second chance at a first impression. If they had any decent management (I'm pointing at you Jack E) they would have turned it down due to the time frame. My guess is they saw the IP and were blinded by the money making opportunities.
2. The terms of work under Atari should have been written out BEFORE they started. It is way too easy to blame Atari for everything. The fact is, Cryptic NEVER made a profit under Atari, you can confirm this by the financial reports. It is only logical for Atari to want to slow down the flow of money into Cryptic after Cryptic released two MMO's to less than good reviews and continued to lose money. If you owned Cryptic and they continued to lose money after two fo their three games, would you continue to pump money into them?
I dont blame the regular devs, I think they did what they could with what they had. I blame the Senior management team at Cryptic, "Dollar" Bill Roper, The CEO that bailed out and Jack Emmert. Jack might have some good game development ideas, but he is a horrible business leader. You guys can blame Atari if it makes you feel better but Cryptic owns just as much responsibility for the poor performance of their games.