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

Reader Comments (32)

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 9:06AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
First Blood!

And that is Yes!

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 9:51AM Bri said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Interesting. I, like many others I suspect, feel that STO is a quality game that I'm just not willing to hand over $15/month to play. Just like LOTRO.

But for either game I'd be willing to throw a few bucks to their cash shop every once in awhile if it were free to play.

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 11:46AM Renko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agree completely. This is exactly what STO needs as I just can't justify spending a monthly fee on it. If it adopted the Turbine model I'd go back immediately.
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 9:44PM El Furioso said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed. I played through the STO beta, but even being a hugetastic Star Trek fanboy, there just wasn't enough to keep me interested, and definitely not enough to make me pay $15/month.

But free to play? Yeah, I could do that. Drop a few bucks now and then on stuff that really engaged me.
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 9:52AM TheLazyGeek said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I can see it too, if the game were as decent as LotRO or DDO.

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 10:06AM Verus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Journalistic integrity ? They are bloggers writting about mmo┬┤s for crying out loud. Give them a break.

As for STO going mico I can see that working out. Not willing to pay 15 dollars per month but this way I might try it again.

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 10:14AM GaaaaaH said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Does STO or CO have better subscription numbers?

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 2:32PM CCon99 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's actually a really good question. At launch STO definitely had the bigger launch of the two and even their head honcho admitted the sales exceeded their projections. But over 8 weeks, STO also had the quickest drop off in players I've ever seen including Vanguard. CO was similar with a big drop off after launch, but the Vibora Bay and Serpent Lantern updates seemed to have breathed some life into CO and their game seems more populated than STO, but it's still hard to tell because CO is more open world then STO so it may feel like more players are playing since STO is all instances.

The weird thing with both game's is with there universal single server, CoH Virtue seems more populated as an individual server, then CO and STO do with all their players on one. I know that's next to impossible to be true, but it doesn't stop it from feeling that way.
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 8:21PM GaaaaaH said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think that the emptiness is due to fundamental design choices. In CO, the zones are huge and instanced so it feels like you are the only one around, barely meeting anyone else. But in STO at least you cold see ships in the warp screen and the co-op fight missions.

CO has also been out longer, so of course it has more content additions, which is why I was surprised: STO is the newer shinier one and hasn't had time to get the same level of improvements so why would they change the business model so early?
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 8:57PM CCon99 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They won't consider a F2P model anytime soonish. They'll milk what they have now dry and finish the rest of the development the game was lacking when it was rushed to launch 1-2 years to early. They probably have a "magic number" though, as long as subs are above this magic number they're fine the way they are, but once subs fall under the magic number, then that's when they'll actually consider changing models. As of right now, Cryptic thinks they can have their cake and eat it off the backs of loyal fanboy's who continue to both pay subs and buy skimpy outfits for their catgirls and bridge officer pets.
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 10:22AM kasapina said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
STO is a quality game, but one of the things keeping it afloat is the powerful franchise it is part of. Surely by now the team behind the game has noticed that they can't get by just with the initial hype purchases, they need more loyal players. And I don't know if STO is good enough to survive using a subscription model.

The DDO payment model is one of the biggest recent MMO inventions, but how many games can it maintain? What's going to happen if games keep transferring to it?

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 10:38AM WonderPenguin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm an STO lifer, and I really do enjoy the game, but there just isn't enough content to keep me logging back in every day. I've purchased the Nomad from the C-Store, but only because it was with money Cryptic themselves gave me....and I honestly couldn't care less about the rest of the things in it. It's great for scratching that Star Trek itch I get, and I really look forward to what, if anything, they add to the game...but as it stands now, people will play the free portion and have no motivation to stick with it.

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 11:11AM karnisov said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
i doubt i would play this even if it went f2p.

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 11:25AM lizardbones said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would pay for game time, but I wouldn't subscribe. i.e. I would pay for 20 hours of game time that doesn't expire. I ~might~ play a F2P model...but I'd be worried about missing content or having to grind.

I would be far more like to buy game time for a lot of games that I would subscribe or even F2P...I've just played too many F2P games that were garbage.

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 11:37AM TheJackman said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
STO is run by The Ferengi and going free to pay is great for them to even more rip off there players....

Rules of Acquisition 141 : Only fools pay retail. ;)

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 11:39AM TheJackman said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Also Rules of Acquisition 218 :
Sometimes what you get free costs entirely too much.
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 1:12PM Its Utakata stupid said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Either way...

Rules of Acquisition 10: Greed is eternal.
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 3:07PM Daemodand said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
203- New customers are like razor-toothed gree-worms. They can be succulent, but sometimes they bite back.
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 11:45AM Minofan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm not a fan of LotR nor DDO, but when I played both I found them very rich in content - I just didn't like the art syle, pacing , etc.

The single biggest flaw in WAR is the extremely shallow depth of content, and - going purely on coverage - I'm assuming that is the same problem for ST:O.

I just don't see how either game can follow the Turbine model, when they were both built with the barest of itemization, character advancement paths both linear while almost arcane to the point of being unintelligable, and have a pronounced tendency to play identically from starter-zone to end-game.

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 11:54AM Daverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The problem with Freeish model is that it has a limited audience. There is a huge market that wants a decent game that doesn't require a subscription (even if you end up paying the same using microtransactions). The reasons are multiple, and logical.

So you you have this audience, who wants a game that isn't an asian grinder requiring you to buy health potions by the gross to actually play. But the number is still finite, I think LOTRO will enjoy less success than DDO, because they are similar genres (fantasy setting MMO) even if they vary greatly in mechanics. I think STO and even CO might do great also (sci-fi and comic book genres) but once you reach a certain point, you are just going to be cannibalizing each others games. (which all mmos do currently)

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW