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

Reader Comments (91)

Posted: Feb 5th 2010 12:24PM Seraphina Brennan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Only you, Ardua, only you. :3 *returns hug*
Reply

Posted: Feb 5th 2010 12:06PM Crode said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well I am a tough MMO player to please but I did really enjoy the CO and STO betas. (much more than I enjoyed Global Agenda) The solo content was quite fun and non grindy mostly... But I could tell it was short in both games. Its like they concentrated on the low level stuff to fool people into thinking there was plenty to do.

Why I didnt purchase either of them was because of the thoughtless pvp they added. It seems like they spent less than an hour implementing it.

The lifetime thing is a great idea too except for the fact there is not enough content to make it worthwhile. And if they charge for all the new content what is the point of having a lifetime sub.

Posted: Feb 5th 2010 12:44PM lmollea said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"no more Cryptic".
That's an opinion that raised in my guild forum recently. Just after the strange and questionable choices Cryptic made with STO.
We're a guild that looked forward with great expectations to CO, coming for 2+ years of COH and COV, but we found it seriously limited, lacking, unpolished, half-finished. And all the errors we found were simply unconceivable as they threw in the bin all the good choices that they made on COX (scalable instance mission content, heavily team-oriented game, decent pvp modes).
Yes, things have changed, yes, things have been fixed, but to be honest Cryptic marketing moves raised more than one eyebrow (and even some loud curses tbh).

It's sad because we enjoyed the game, we feel that it has really much unexpressed potential, but Cryptic really screwed up with the community throwing an half-finished game at the players. And now they'd like to charge more money just to give us some more content to play, while city of heroes published 16 free expansion (while still creating two paid expansions: COV and the incoming Going Rogue).

Can't say if CO-side this is Roper's fault or not, but for my part, I lost all the trust Cryptic earned from their COX experience.

Posted: Feb 5th 2010 2:32PM starka1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Everyone needs to calm down and read this thread.

http://forums.champions-online.com/showthread.php?t=99546

It is our responsibility as players to keep paying until a mediocre product becomes a good one.

Posted: Feb 5th 2010 3:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sera,

I want to get to the most important aspect of this whole mess.

You look really cute in your pic.

Posted: Feb 5th 2010 5:06PM Lionhearted said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It really seems to me that Cryptic needs new leadership. These problems seem to be the kind of problems when you have Cowboy leadership, leadership who knows they're right, this is the way it's gonna be and everyone else is wrong or unimportant. Now, that may be okay when costumers don't see the byproduct of those problems -- say, you're Coca Cola and you just need to push out tons and tons of cans of Coke... then a rush-rush-rush/don't communicate/just-send-down-the-orders strategy may be fine. However, especially in the software biz, when you're trying to create a product that you need a mass (hundreds of thousands/millions) of players -- just pushing things isn't a smart strategy.

Cryptic needs to start thinking about the players first, because then everything else will follow suit. Don't make them pay extra to have more than 2 federation and 1 klingon slot. Players should have 5 or 6, at least. Don't put character races in the C-Store when those characters have special abilities that actually seem to matter (Klingon's get 5% more damage, 5% more damage resistance and 10% more aggro as a unique racial trait). Be more open and upfront about communications.... hell, I'd almost settle for finishing the site (ie the "Path to" series) before the game comes out. Build that good will, make them happy and they'll keep paying that $15 a month and give the benefit of the doubt when things aren't perfect.

I can understand that, at some level, companies just need to pay the bills -- and I'd have some sympathy for the lack of depth in games like Champions and STO if that $15/month was going to fix it over the course of a year, because it's tough to develop a game up front, given the millions upon millions they cost to develop. If that 37-40 mini expansion in Champions would be free (or very, very cheap - say $5) and if, say, Cryptic said, "We know Star Trek Online doesn't have a real crafting system today, but we're going to work on introducing real crafting measures within the year," I think most people would accept that.

Posted: Feb 5th 2010 6:03PM macallen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Great article. I especially agree with your "Everything seems last minute when it comes to Cryptic" statement. I'm a project manager professionally, so planning is something I do, and Cryptic seems to do very little of it. They don't look at the long view on anything.

Take the STO skill cap for example. Should the game have a skill cap? Maybe. Should the marketing for the game have SPECIFICALLY said there would not be one? Of course not, that was an amazingly bone-headed decision and the dev who said it should be clubbed like a baby seal. You *NEVER* give specific information like that or the fan base will tear you apart when you contradict yourself...which is what happened.

Blizzard's approach of "it's done when it's done" and "we can't release any details right now" is *FAR* superior to "here's some data that we may or may not actually do, but we'll commit to it now because who knows what will happen in the future".

Posted: Feb 6th 2010 4:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One point - everyone is fixated on 15.00/mo as the "magic number". Nothing could be further from the truth, and I think this misunderstanding is what's causing companies to seek alternative ways of making money.

In all of life, you get what you pay for. And 10 years ago, 15.00/mo bought you Everquest 1. Now we're talking about a whole new level of gaming, one which gives you more. So, why are we not talking about 20.00/month or even 25.00/mo as a reasonable price for a game that delivers much more fun?

I think it's because people think it's possible to get something for free. In this case, people want improvements to MMO gaming at the original price. But if development / publishing costs don't go down, how can the game companies give us more for the same money?

I for one would love to be able to pick the quality of my game according to the price point. If I want to buy a game with full features and content, I should need to pay enough of a monthly fee to enable the game company to make it happen without any RMT bullcrap.

Posted: Feb 7th 2010 9:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You're leaving out initial income beyond the $15 subscription fee, which would be box/download sales, (when applicable) lifetime subscriptions, and service fees like name changes.

Also, many MMOs started with monthly rates lower than $15. They have indeed increased with inflation and matched what the market will bear.

Besides, that said, if $15 wasn't sufficient to maintain profitability the other developers would have increased their rates. That's just common sense - for example, despite how successful LOTRO is, if $15 wasn't enough they would have either scaled back on free updates or increased the rate. Neither has happened. Same goes for Blizzard and CCP.

The motivations behind Cryptic's attempt at gouging is, possibly, hidden within Jack Emmert's comments on the official forums: this game (CO) is not bringing in enough revenue, by their estimation and/or needs, so they're planning on charging additional fees on top of the subscription in an attempt to cover their losses.

I find that to be disingenuous myself. Because they're charging for trivial and/or core content from the get go. In CO the advancement system is painfully vague and constantly adjusted, and they then in turn charge for respecs to help you navigate their purposefully murky waters. These practices, and more I left unmentioned, are easily paralleled to gouging practices within other media and/or markets. It's painfully obvious what they're doing.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2010 5:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
SupposeD! Supposed! With a D! I'm no forum grammar Nazi, but for goodness sake, get a better editor! Multiple, flagrant errors in a journalistic piece will destroy your credibility regardless of your opinions.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 1:52AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Take a look at the latest State of the Game that came out yesterday. A first step in the right direction.

http://forums.champions-online.com/showthread.php?t=99974

Featured Stories

The Daily Grind: Which MMO has the best fishing?

Posted on Oct 20th 2014 8:00AM

One Shots: Hello, autumn

Posted on Oct 19th 2014 10:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW