Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
$15 Bucks/Month for a single-player game?
Cik_Asalin
Member Posts: 3,033
Can't help but notice that this heavily, heavily instanced game is actually a cleverly designed single-player game with lobbies. Well...thats at least my take. Is STO really going to make a go at it as a $15/month single-player experience?
Comments
Bioware is doing the same thing with SWTOR so it must work somehow. Actually the whole thing goes back quite a ways. Leveling up in most MMOs has been a single player experience. Even WOW fans will say "you've not actually played the group content till you've maxed out." So companies are starting to focus on trying to make the singleplayer leveling experience as unique and enjoyable and immersive as possible because few, if any, players actually group level.
Yes, thats pretty much spot on.
First itme that has been said about STO today. Thought we might get by a full day without it.
I predict LFG will be inactive, and fleets (guilds) or RL friends will be the only way to go. For the first week of the game, people will awkwardly team up and find that it only provides the opposite of benefits.
Cryptic is trying a Customer Development approach to MMO creation.
Was thinking the same thing when I saw the thread subject. Popped in to post that but I see you already have that covered.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Interesting.
There is some truth to this, but I think that it is more a choice than it is about design.
I've seen a lot of dev talk over the years addressing the issue of solo content and the like. It's not endemic to STO.
Perhaps we have lost our way as players, but I'll have none of it.
You can group in STO just fine.
I like the solo play especially for leveling in mmo's, I work 9-6/7/8. I don't have the convenience of having to wait 30 mins to an hour to start a group all the time. But from what i've seen you can group a lot if you like, they just don't force you which is nice.
I really don't know where all these elitist on these forums came from. Where everything in an mmo has to be group play, its just unrealistic for casuals. When I look at an mmo I see choices, not everyone has to do the exact same thing.
Really? Wow.
What position do you hold at Bioware? Because you don't know what SWTOR will be like actually unless you're working on the game. Sure you might think it's going to be heavily instanced, but that doesn't make it true.
Back on topic, the instancing in STO is sadly probably worst I've seen in an MMO and it's unfortunate they couldn't make it more open. Oh well.
And yes, it will more than likely be $15 a month.
Sure why not? First off not everyone needs hundreds of players (kill stealers, gold farmers, spammers, mailbox dancers etc) in the same spot to have fun. Really if i can play with a group of my friends I'm happy.
Second most single players games cost 45-60 dollars. So if i get 3-4 months fun out of STO for my 45-60 dollar investment then i'm way ahead compared to most signle player games (Dragon Age a recent $60 investment was good for about 2 months with more then one play through)
if you need a space game with thousands online with no instances EvE is already out. Sometimes different is good. no it won't make everyone happy but i'll reserve judgement till i actually play the game. Personally i don't need 100 starships all parked at the same starbase, or multiple roving bands of away teams running back and forth through my mission to have fun. Wonder what Kirk would have done if he beamed down to a planet only to find 5 other away teams from 5 other federation ships circling the planet also camping his quest mob? :P
Time will tell, i wish Cryptic well on this one. A failure helps no one, and while many will say STO is no good (No MMO has ever survived without some haters) The simple truth is you can't please everyeone
Thought I'd add this from the recent Beta Info article:
"When I first warped into a new system for this mission chain, I was given a choice. I could enter the system solo or with a group. I almost chose solo, but stuck with the group instead. Some people left and others were added in but I finished my mission in no time. This kind of reminded me of Warhammer Online's public quests. Overall, I was impressed with how easily the grouping flowed."
That, plus open missions and stuff like group pvp make me think it will be quite easy to get group content going.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Depends.
Were there green chicks present?
Didnt know it was a sore subject, sorry. Just hoping that a mmorpg was a community involved and participatory massively multiplayer experience. But, I'll continue to follow it to see what shakes out.
100% agree and well said!
It's all about choices, and there is not one thing wrong with how each person chooses to play their mmo.
100% agree and well said!
It's all about choices, and there is not one thing wrong with how each person chooses to play their mmo.
lol sorry about the duplicate, couldn't get it to cancel that earlier one
Welcome to the future of MMORPGs. Now with less M, less of the other M, and little to no R and P. The name stays the same though. OG just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
you got it!!
and I will not be going boldly....
Without risking the NDA, my girlfriend and I enjoy this... ahem "style" of game right now. We play together as a group, with other folks jumping in randomly here and there. This ah.. "kind" of game works very well in a social setting, content scales nicely and rewards do to.
This... "kind" of game can be played solo for certain, but you're missing half the fun without grouping. The curse of the modern MMO is t hat it *must* be soloable, therefor one could even say WoW is a $15 a month single player game and miss the point entirely. As the original poster did here and most posters that complain $15 a month for a new MMO. You either enjoy the social experience or you don't. And if you don't think its worth your money, don't buy it. No one is forcing you to.
As with most MMO's, you probably can get quite a bit of enjoyment out of the first free month. Hell, I only played Champions Online for about 4 weeks, felt I got my moneys worth.
I just find that a rather odd statement. 60 bucks for the game, and then another 45 for the monthly fees. That could get you two or more good games that you could revisit later and don't have all the typical problems MMOs have. Seems odd to find that worth the money, honestly. I don't think I'd feel happy about an MMO purchase if I only played it for a few months. I'd want a year of play at least since that provides a lot of time to build friendships and so forth. Just my opinion on the matter.
if cryptic is sticking to the IP of star trek at all then a group of ships will always live alot longer then a single leeroy jenkins trying to fight off a fleet of npcs, even if they are weaker then player pvp ships numbers count for alot in trek. 3 tiney war birds kicked the enterprises ass more then once.
Really? Wow.
What position do you hold at Bioware? Because you don't know what SWTOR will be like actually unless you're working on the game. Sure you might think it's going to be heavily instanced, but that doesn't make it true.
Back on topic, the instancing in STO is sadly probably worst I've seen in an MMO and it's unfortunate they couldn't make it more open. Oh well.
And yes, it will more than likely be $15 a month.
We actually do sort of know what the game will be like. Bioware's been pushing their voiced over, instanced, dialogue thing for months now. if you watch the ingame videos of SWTOR, you notice that shield at the door of the Bounty Hunter quest giver is an instance portal. The whole ship from the other video is an instance too since it would be impossible to do that in a WOW type open world.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing just that many companies are trying it because it's been a fact for a while now that most people level up single player and then the real multiplayer stuff happens at endgame.
Dear Cryptic,
I am sorry I have a busy life and I really do not have much time on my hands these days . So if you possibly can, plases make STO soloable just for me.
Thank You,
SaintV
I just find that a rather odd statement. 60 bucks for the game, and then another 45 for the monthly fees. That could get you two or more good games that you could revisit later and don't have all the typical problems MMOs have. Seems odd to find that worth the money, honestly. I don't think I'd feel happy about an MMO purchase if I only played it for a few months. I'd want a year of play at least since that provides a lot of time to build friendships and so forth. Just my opinion on the matter.
For Champions? Meh. I didn't need monthly fees, if you buy an MMO at face value for $50 (or whatever, many are cheaper) and play for 4 weeks, you never subscribe. You get a solid 4 weeks of gameplay out of the title, depending on your playstyle that might be over 200 hours or only 20, but either way, many other quality single player titles deliver that much gameplay at that price point.
If the community never hooks you, and you find no reason to stay, you still had a good 4 weeks of gaming without any subscription fees. I agree, I *want* an MMO to engage me for 6 years like EQ did, but I'll be the first to admit EQ's gameplay and design aren't what hooked me so much as the amazing group of people I gamed with there for over 6 years. They kept me coming back for more and SOE got my money for it.
I played Pirates of the Burning Sea for 3 months... and got my moneys worth there too, no point in staying when all the people I loved left. I played (and go back to quite frequently) EQ2 for 4+ years now, but it's only about 4 months a year.
Most MMO's that launch I buy, and try and so long as I get 3-4 weeks of fun, I'm happy as the price plus free month evens out to any other computer game title I'd buy. If I buy an MMO and only play it for a week, I feel like an idiot for not doing more research first. On the same hand, I bought Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and beat in on a lazy Saturday. I enjoyed it, but $50 was a steep price to pay for 12 hours of gameplay in comparison to even an average MMO that I'd play for only a month. Still $50 for 12 hours of gameplay is cheaper per hour than going to the movies. So it works out.
This post is all over the board, but int he end I agree with your point. What keeps me in an MMO isn't so much the game (as long as the game is mostly well built, and despite the rhetoric here most MMO's that launch are) but the community. The publisher can't control that, it's purely who i choose to play with when it starts and who/how I meet folks while playing.
STO, skirting the NDA here, has numerous mechanics in game that make grouping an absolute breeze and a joy to play. Much like finding warbands in Warhammer Online.
I just find that a rather odd statement. 60 bucks for the game, and then another 45 for the monthly fees. That could get you two or more good games that you could revisit later and don't have all the typical problems MMOs have. Seems odd to find that worth the money, honestly. I don't think I'd feel happy about an MMO purchase if I only played it for a few months. I'd want a year of play at least since that provides a lot of time to build friendships and so forth. Just my opinion on the matter.
For Champions? Meh. I didn't need monthly fees, if you buy an MMO at face value for $50 (or whatever, many are cheaper) and play for 4 weeks, you never subscribe. You get a solid 4 weeks of gameplay out of the title, depending on your playstyle that might be over 200 hours or only 20, but either way, many other quality single player titles deliver that much gameplay at that price point.
If the community never hooks you, and you find no reason to stay, you still had a good 4 weeks of gaming without any subscription fees. I agree, I *want* an MMO to engage me for 6 years like EQ did, but I'll be the first to admit EQ's gameplay and design aren't what hooked me so much as the amazing group of people I gamed with there for over 6 years. They kept me coming back for more and SOE got my money for it.
There is some truth to that, but the comparison isn't 100%. In a standalone game (on a PC), there may be patches, updates, player-mods, multiplayer. Things that can make a game playable for much much longer than merely the time it takes you to initially get bored of it. I've installed/uninstalled/installed GTA4 3 times already. But with an MMO, once your month runs out. Thats it. There is no offline play. Thats what they should offer. People should be able to play solo in an offline mode just for the price of the box, and the sub fee only covers online play.
Sure why not? First off not everyone needs hundreds of players (kill stealers, gold farmers, spammers, mailbox dancers etc) in the same spot to have fun. Really if i can play with a group of my friends I'm happy.
Second most single players games cost 45-60 dollars. So if i get 3-4 months fun out of STO for my 45-60 dollar investment then i'm way ahead compared to most signle player games (Dragon Age a recent $60 investment was good for about 2 months with more then one play through)
if you need a space game with thousands online with no instances EvE is already out. Sometimes different is good. no it won't make everyone happy but i'll reserve judgement till i actually play the game. Personally i don't need 100 starships all parked at the same starbase, or multiple roving bands of away teams running back and forth through my mission to have fun. Wonder what Kirk would have done if he beamed down to a planet only to find 5 other away teams from 5 other federation ships circling the planet also camping his quest mob? :P
Time will tell, i wish Cryptic well on this one. A failure helps no one, and while many will say STO is no good (No MMO has ever survived without some haters) The simple truth is you can't please everyeone
This is pretty much my attitude. I can't see how anyone can say with a straight face that a game is immersive when you have to wait in line for a boss to respawn. Add in the shenanigans(kill stealing, camping,farming etc.) that comes with those high level bosses and people wonder why more and more people prefer solo play.
As to the OP, it has already been stated that you can level in this game through PVP. You also have RvR type scenarios where you can opt in and join other players in missions. So the statement that this is a single player game is complete B.S, as usual.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
This topic is a failure for the same reason that so many others on here are, and that is if I have to subscribe to your definition of something as opposed to what the actual name implies you automatically lose anyone who doesn't see it the same way you do (namely me).
So if I get the option to play in game along side others who are not playing from the same station as me it is an online game. I can certainly understand that some would like certain features and elements to be satisfied but please let's not just thrust our definitions onto the entire genre.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....