| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (91)

Posted: Feb 5th 2010 9:29AM pcgneurotic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"...But, also both races aren't just 'skins' but actual races with specific bonus stats and such (that makes them different than CO's costumes or any other aesthetic item)."

I'm 90% certain their racial traits are not unique - anyone can make a character and pick those same traits, just like all the other races.
Reply

Posted: Feb 5th 2010 10:04AM Damn Dirty Ape said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Neurotic that would be incorrect. Several of the races (including Klingons) have race specific traits that are not available to other races (such as the vulcan neck pinch). The Klingons first trait is unavailable to everyone else. It is basically a superior version of the 'warrior' trait that is available to unique races.
Reply

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The thing I noticed most about Cryptic early on is Sakura Park. Not the two-word jab, but the situation surrounding it. There was a huge outcry which Cryptic ignored. People still get pissed when I mention it, yet Cryptic has done nothing that would suggest they behave any differently than during that contest.

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But But!!! Portal taught us the Cake is Like!

Ok sorry couldn't resist :)

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:49PM Mr Angry said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This was a super read, thank you very much for being the 'journalist', rather than the 'reporter'! I never doubted the integrity of what you write, but I think it's testament to the Massively contributors that they were clamoring to hear opinions.

I think people are very gun shy of game publishers, and you know what, I think people are as afraid of the community itself as they are the publishers decisions. What I dislike is that bad business decisions make a game less fun to play, which causes unhappiness and as a result, drag down the community, so the game takes a double hit in the 'fun' stakes and it's self perpetuating as worse and worse decisions are made to counteract player dissatisfaction.

I won't be apologetic for criticizing games in the past, I can see Cryptic made a business decision which wasn't good for the player base, STO is unfinished even for a new launched product. For some reason studios take a real long time to appreciate feedback (I will not mention anything to do with SWG here) and so people feel the need to have to bitterly and repeatedly complain just to get heard, even then it seems futile. The need to play catchup, we've seen this before, and people don't want to be out of pocket again.

Now the reason people complain is because they are being asked to live in a virtual world. In real life, if you don't like something, you make changes and these same principles would appear to be reasonable for virtual worlds. However, the rules are not the same, and it's this disconnect between seemingly common sense and what a programming team can actually do causes a lot of anger and bitterness, it doesn't seem reasonable to have to wait.

On the other hand the world is also a business, so rather than looking at natural organic growth seen in the real world, the growth is highly monetized and so appears stiff and unnatural, slow and at times misdirected, as we only have our own personal vision.

A poor game is a poor game, let's not forget we are not taking about a console game here, we pay rent to live in the worlds, we are just letting our landlords know what we want.

Again thanks for your thoughts and the other contributors here at Massively.

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:50PM Its Utakata stupid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just before I get started...

My position of MT's as you may know have always been of intense mistrust. Especially with the ones that you have to pay RMT for respecs. They are potentiall unethical and have game balancing issues in favor of those with robust personal incomes....especially in a game players are already paying a full monthly subscription fee for. I would love to go over with you Seraphina, as to why you think that's a "legitimate source of income." Yes, maybe...if Champions was Allods.

That being said, and getting back to the gist of this article...I have in no way ever believed that you guys are lapdogs to certain gaming companies. Instead, I feel that you guys simpley present news as you see it. Perhaps overly perky or optimistic at times...but it's a fairly safe way to present news without unecessary baggage. And let the controversies about the games fall where they are. Instead allowing us who comment to poke holes in those as we see fit.

I mean really, if you guys are getting paid by those companies to write fluff pieces...I'm not sure those same companies would allow us to post our critical views of them, without arm twisting you guys' arms to banhammer us. I don't see that happening here. I'm not sure why others do. /shrug

It's sad you have to write an article reminding us you don't. It's hurts our reputation for objectivity more than it does Massively. :(

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 8:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"our" reputation for objectivity? Who, the commentors? You and me and everyone else? Don't talk for me, you're not my parent, my priest, or my lawyer. I don't claim to be objective about video games, or anything else I spend money on. I don't have to be.

And I'm sure some people have accused Massively writers of taking kickbacks, but that's crazy talk. It's far more likely that most of the writers at Massively are aspiring game designers who don't want to offend potential mentors or references, or even just huge gaming nerds who, face-to-face with one of their game-making idols, are too starstruck to think "wait, that's bullshit" until the interview's over. The rest are probably just nice people who are maybe too concerned with being nice for their own good; Sera more or less said as much in the Daeke article's comments.

The problem is, you shouldn't assume that the PR guys are nice to you because they like you. That's like assuming the stripper is "into" you; it's their job. So publishing articles where you take the PR guy at his word, don't press him for answers, and then gloat because you got "exclusive" screenshots might lead others to believe you're intentionally glad-handing.
Reply

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:51PM Platypus Man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I see the points, and I think I even understand some of the animosity. But, to me, Cryptic makes little video games where pretty pictures do things when I press buttons... they're fun, it's a stress relief (unless I read the forums) and so I give them my money. When it's not fun, I stop giving them my money. It's that simple.

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:53PM starka1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seraphina, could you perhaps write an article on monthly subs some time? I, for one am tired of hearing other players say it is only to pay access to the servers. Yes, I know it mentions it in their EULA or whatever but no one looks at Xbox Live, no one looks at people playing Diablo still on Battlenet, no one has ever played Team Fortress 2, etc? I know they are not MMOs but they are all online and do not cost a monthly fee to "access servers". Some you pay for extra content, some you do not(TF2) but no monthly fee.

That tells me I am ALREADY paying a premium and I expect a good amount of content included in that price and in special circumstances should I be expected to pay more(e.g. large expansions like Mines of Moria or Wrath of the Lich King). I pay $35/month for my DSL to just access servers and I get a hell of a lot more for that money. You seem to indicate in your article that a monthly fee should go further than it does, especially in the case of Champions so I hope you understand my frustration at some current business practices and players that defend them for what I deem no good reason.

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All online services are not the same. Large-scale persistent worlds are very, very different than small scale persistent worlds, which in turn are very different from non-persistence. The way they design and host the players affects things too (see MW2's 'you host it' vs a centralized hosting system. Guess which costs the company more?)

The amount of server and database needed to keep, say, 1500 WoW players vs 1500 battlefield 2 players is worlds apart.
Reply

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:17PM starka1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's not the way I see it. Those servers can be as big as Texas for all I care. If the content blows, I'm not going to pay $15/month for the privilege of their size.
Reply

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You pay about 5 dollars a month for Xbox Live Gold
Reply

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:28PM starka1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Closer to $4. And I would argue you get more for that than you do $15/month from many MMOs.
Reply

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:02PM Ringu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd like to point out to several people that Cryptic have *not* charged for content on STO.

Charging for a new playable race is not the same as new content: I bought the races, but I have to do exactly the same missions as everyone else, not one word is different.

Personally, I played CoH for years, and moved on to LotRO when CoH's endgame (or lack of it) bored me enough. I bought a lifetime sub on LotRO the first day they were available, and I did the same with STO now. It is always a gamble, no matter whether it's with Turbine or Cryptic or even Blizzard, but at the end of the day, I feel that I'll get my money's worth and I really like knowing I can just go play whenever I want.

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 8:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The way Cryptic's been treating Champions Online, a lot of Lifers are beginning to wonder if we'll get our money's worth... and seeing the same duplicitious and outright deceptive behavior in STO is infuriating.
Reply

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 9:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Give it time. The game only just came out.
Reply

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:06PM Luk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with many things in this article, although my beef with Cryptic and CO started back when they offered lifetime sub before the release of the game and then suddenly ran out of subs, which did not make any sense considering we are talking about access to digital content here. It smelled too much like a ploy and I did not like it, even though I did not believe even back then that CO had enough "meat" in it to warrant a lifetime sub to begin with. To be honest, it felt like a single player console game to me.

This kind of business practices what in the end got Cryptic and CO customers to the state of mistrust and unhappiness that can be seen now. Definitely not a good place for this game's customer base and future revenue.

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Man..Bravo...hit my own sentiments. I'm stuck with CO as a lifetimer...all my friends quit over time..and now since the whole 12 days with little response and no help in the whole Lemuria problems..that they use as the excuse to push out the Kitchen Sink patch...its just been one thing after another. If CO hadn't of been so shallow and they were concentrating on giving us more constant free content like they say they're going to do with STO ... I'd probably be willing to pay for Vibora Bay.

But they're not...and it bothers me. They cash grabbed and used us to test their servers for STO ... servers which went to immediate hell the moment STO's open beta started.

I like Champions...but Cryptic has my serious negative opinion. I'd call it on the level of the NGE folks but...its not quite That bad yet.

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:10PM karnisov said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
to be fair your site is in a tough spot. mmos are your niche so you have to cover them, but because there are not a huge number of up and coming ones in the near future you end up giving alot of coverage to a few. and when the publisher pulls a shady move it ends up making you guys look guilty by association, since you gave so much coverage to the title. thats the way the angry mob sees it.

the reason i find the $3 charge distasteful is not because the amount is large, because its not. i find it distasteful because its a new trend of stacking micro-transactions ON TOP OF subscription fees. sure its just $3 today, but what will this lead to 2-3 years from now. $10 extra fees per month? $20? noone can say. better to stop the trend of greed in its tracks now.

most of the coverage i read of STO implied that Klingons would be "unlocked" with character progression or something similar. this is a serious curveball and i can understand why people who bought the game early and bought the lifetime sub are hot about it. misleading your customers is a very bad way to do business.

i hope alot of players have learned something from this. mainly:
1. Never preorder a game. Wait a couple of months to see how things shape up.
2. Never buy a lifetime sub. No game is worth spending that much before its out less than a month. You have no idea how badly the devs might screw the game down the road.
3. Take the media coverage you read with a large grain of salt. Very large.

Remember its better to wait a little while and save yourself some potential heartache, than to spend alot of money too soon and end up pissed off.

Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:28PM Seraphina Brennan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just to clarify for you, Wolf, most of the coverage that we ran regarding the Klingons (and other sites as well) focused on them being only available in PvP. It's true that once you get to level 6 in STO you're able to create a Klingon character in the Klingon Empire. You get to go out and PvP with Federation players, and the only way the Klingons progress is through PvP.

However, the Klingons in the shops are Federation Klingons. Purchasing them allows you to create a Klingon in the Federation and not the Empire, which was very unexpected. Many thought Klingons would only be available as the PvP race, not as a "purchasable" Federation option.

So, the coverage was right... it's just the rules were changed on us at the last minute. However, if you still wish to play a Klingon and not pay the 3 bucks, you can do so in PvP.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW