It's a risk I'm aware of, just as I was aware of that risk with LoTRO, but chose not to take with Champions. If the game folds or is some how sent to FUBAR land by forces yet unkown, then I'll have wasted some money. But I can play Starfleet Command, in any incarnation, for days at a time even if I decided I didn't like this or that so it's not like the game will suddenly offer nothing to me.
I will absolutley not fork out any bills after playing the open beta. I found the game still needs lots of work and I find it boring. If I wanted to play a space shooter, I'd play Eve.
There are a couple of other factors to consider. One is the relationship people are drawing between this game and the success of City of Heroes. People need to remember that when Cryptic sold CoH to NCSoft, all of the original CoH developers stayed with NCSoft and formed Paragon. The only person that went with Cryptic, to my recollection, was Jack Emmert, the man who inflicted so much damage on a game that might have been so much better had he not had a part in it. These are not the people who developed City of Heroes! Completely different team.
The other factor to consider is the condition of the parent company Jack sold Cryptic to. Infogrames bought Cryptic in an attempt to make their Atari subsidiary viable. Atari is skating on thin ice financially and is dependant on STO being a hit. There are multi-million dollar executive bonuses on the line here. I'm pretty sure that no one involved with Champions Online saw any of that money. Cryptic has until May 2010 to turn STO into a money maker. When that doesn't happen, what is Infogrames going to do? STO has to be costing them bundles in franchise use from CBS. Will they continue to support a game that will only draw an initial influx of 30-day box purchasers and a languishing population of lifetimers who are paying nothing? I doubt it. The only option will be for them to boost the item shop and, judging from what Champions Online's shop offers, I don't think that will help. The big question is, how long will Infogrames be able to channel money into a game, based on a second-string Sci-Fi IP, that is destined to become a drain on an already floundering company?
The effect the next Star Wars MMO will have on Star Trek Online is predictable, so the question is, do you want to fling $300 (box and lifetime fee combined) at a game that likely has a viable lifespan of about a year, if they're lucky?
"Soloists and those who prefer small groups should never have to feel like they''re the ones getting the proverbial table scraps, as it were." - Scott Hartsman, Senior Producer, Everquest II "People love groups. Its a fallacy that people want to play solo all the time." - Scott Hartsman, Executive Producer, Rift
I was unlucky enough not to get a beta key so I have never played the game so how can I make an informed decision.
I sincerely would love to try and then have the option for life long membership to buy it in the first say 3 months....that is a fair deal. But not before people even have the right to play.
Just my own personal take on this...without getting mired in drama or arguements about the overall social values of game developers or national economies.
I went for the lifetime sub in STO, and I went for the lifetime sub in LOTRO. I did these because I like the IP and both games I have enjoyed or am enjoying. I usually know right away if Im going to like a game or not...if I don't like it in the first week or so, chances are nothing they do to it will change my mind. Games I do like, I tend to stick with for years despite the ups and downs, 5 years to EQ, 6 years to DAoC, LOTRO since launch, 6 years (on and off) for SWG (yes I admit it - I went back for the space game mainly) so long term subs make big sense to me.
I also like the lifetime sub option because I tend to try most new games that come out, but then I feel guilty about not playing games that I might be currently paying for. The lifetime sub allows me to go and check out new stuff without feeling that I'm paying for something that I'm not using. Is that self-delusional? Maybe? But the one time expenditure means freedom in that regard. I like not having to worry that I missed my renewal and my account will be locked or my in-game junk will get locked away on some banker or escrow account or something. It's there if I want to play it, and if I don't then I've spent the money and I've no one else to blame but myself for the squander.
To draw a brief comparison, people drop thousands of dollars on a car to find out they ultimately don't like something about it or the newest model has such-and-such and they feel jilted and are are now stuck with what they got, or they buy a house and the economy goes in the crapper, sending their property value up in flames. They make the investment knowing that they are taking the risk...yet they take the risk anyway because maybe it's worth it. If it's not your cash, why care what other people do with theirs? Just my tuppence.
I absolutely agree. I was unlucky enough not to get a beta key so I have never played the game so how can I make an informed decision. I sincerely would love to try and then have the option for life long membership to buy it in the first say 3 months....that is a fair deal. But not before people even have the right to play.
wel maybe u are the lucky one
i had access to the closed Beta and as a Star Trek Fan i am really disapointed
i was expecting Space the Final Frontier and what do we get Champions Online with a Star Trek Skin
i now know why they ask for a lifetime subsciption this way they get some money back for there work of converting CO to STO
Comments
It's a risk I'm aware of, just as I was aware of that risk with LoTRO, but chose not to take with Champions. If the game folds or is some how sent to FUBAR land by forces yet unkown, then I'll have wasted some money. But I can play Starfleet Command, in any incarnation, for days at a time even if I decided I didn't like this or that so it's not like the game will suddenly offer nothing to me.
I will absolutley not fork out any bills after playing the open beta. I found the game still needs lots of work and I find it boring. If I wanted to play a space shooter, I'd play Eve.
There are a couple of other factors to consider. One is the relationship people are drawing between this game and the success of City of Heroes. People need to remember that when Cryptic sold CoH to NCSoft, all of the original CoH developers stayed with NCSoft and formed Paragon. The only person that went with Cryptic, to my recollection, was Jack Emmert, the man who inflicted so much damage on a game that might have been so much better had he not had a part in it. These are not the people who developed City of Heroes! Completely different team.
The other factor to consider is the condition of the parent company Jack sold Cryptic to. Infogrames bought Cryptic in an attempt to make their Atari subsidiary viable. Atari is skating on thin ice financially and is dependant on STO being a hit. There are multi-million dollar executive bonuses on the line here. I'm pretty sure that no one involved with Champions Online saw any of that money. Cryptic has until May 2010 to turn STO into a money maker. When that doesn't happen, what is Infogrames going to do? STO has to be costing them bundles in franchise use from CBS. Will they continue to support a game that will only draw an initial influx of 30-day box purchasers and a languishing population of lifetimers who are paying nothing? I doubt it. The only option will be for them to boost the item shop and, judging from what Champions Online's shop offers, I don't think that will help. The big question is, how long will Infogrames be able to channel money into a game, based on a second-string Sci-Fi IP, that is destined to become a drain on an already floundering company?
The effect the next Star Wars MMO will have on Star Trek Online is predictable, so the question is, do you want to fling $300 (box and lifetime fee combined) at a game that likely has a viable lifespan of about a year, if they're lucky?
"Soloists and those who prefer small groups should never have to feel like they''re the ones getting the proverbial table scraps, as it were." - Scott Hartsman, Senior Producer, Everquest II
"People love groups. Its a fallacy that people want to play solo all the time." - Scott Hartsman, Executive Producer, Rift
I absolutely agree.
I was unlucky enough not to get a beta key so I have never played the game so how can I make an informed decision.
I sincerely would love to try and then have the option for life long membership to buy it in the first say 3 months....that is a fair deal. But not before people even have the right to play.
Pretty sure a lifetime sub on any MMO is the kiss of death.
Just my own personal take on this...without getting mired in drama or arguements about the overall social values of game developers or national economies.
I went for the lifetime sub in STO, and I went for the lifetime sub in LOTRO. I did these because I like the IP and both games I have enjoyed or am enjoying. I usually know right away if Im going to like a game or not...if I don't like it in the first week or so, chances are nothing they do to it will change my mind. Games I do like, I tend to stick with for years despite the ups and downs, 5 years to EQ, 6 years to DAoC, LOTRO since launch, 6 years (on and off) for SWG (yes I admit it - I went back for the space game mainly) so long term subs make big sense to me.
I also like the lifetime sub option because I tend to try most new games that come out, but then I feel guilty about not playing games that I might be currently paying for. The lifetime sub allows me to go and check out new stuff without feeling that I'm paying for something that I'm not using. Is that self-delusional? Maybe? But the one time expenditure means freedom in that regard. I like not having to worry that I missed my renewal and my account will be locked or my in-game junk will get locked away on some banker or escrow account or something. It's there if I want to play it, and if I don't then I've spent the money and I've no one else to blame but myself for the squander.
To draw a brief comparison, people drop thousands of dollars on a car to find out they ultimately don't like something about it or the newest model has such-and-such and they feel jilted and are are now stuck with what they got, or they buy a house and the economy goes in the crapper, sending their property value up in flames. They make the investment knowing that they are taking the risk...yet they take the risk anyway because maybe it's worth it. If it's not your cash, why care what other people do with theirs? Just my tuppence.
wel maybe u are the lucky one
i had access to the closed Beta and as a Star Trek Fan i am really disapointed
i was expecting Space the Final Frontier and what do we get Champions Online with a Star Trek Skin
i now know why they ask for a lifetime subsciption this way they get some money back for there work of converting CO to STO
thats it
I don't have a problem with lifetime subs. My issue is with Cryptic once again only offering this option before the game is out.
The LOTRO lifetime sub is still available I believe, so after a few months you may decide that its worth the cost. That is a fair deal.
I'm not going to flame people that have bought the STO offer, for me its just not a marketing strategy I support or feel comfortable with.
Common sense is not a Sixth sense