Want proof that STO is not an MMO?

AgtSmith · February 2010

Aside from the obvious - no persistent world, no massiveness in terms of the play spaces size or player counts in areas (including social areas) - consider this tidbit from a recent post on the STO site...

Game Adjustments:

Now that the game is out and in your loving hands, we're taking long, hard looks at everything each and every one of you is interested in seeing changed. Cruiser turn rates? Death penalties? More open auto-fire? All those topics and more are being scrutinized by the all-seeing eye of... um, us!

Some of the few things on the way:

* Difficulty Slider

Hrm, how can people play at different difficulty levels if it truly is a persistent world and a real MMORPG? Simple answer, the cannot. Only a largely SP/coop type game can afford such a mechanic in terms of balance and even in terms of implementation. Enough with the arguing, this is the icing on the 'not an MMORPG' cake.

DracheSC · February 2010

STO was a huge disappointment for me. It most certainly is not a true MMO. At best, it's a multi player, pay-to-play Trek sim.

Drakynn · February 2010

To be perfectly honest I really don't care if STO is a MMO or not.My only concern if considering purchasing and subscribing to it is that it is a good game and worth my money to buy and then to subscribe to.Having palye dit in beta and currently on a 10 day beta key m take is it's good enough to buy if you can get it cheap as you will get at least a few weeks of fun out of it before the newness and "Trekiness" wears off and you move on.In it's current state I would not subscribe to it.

Manestream · February 2010

Originally posted by DracheSC

STO was a huge disappointment for me. It most certainly is not a true MMO. At best, it's a multi player, pay-to-play Trek sim.

I have to agree with this, when i play tested it in beta i hardly even saw another player, had my m8 come round and he played for an hour before turnign round to me and askign am i sure this was a multiplayer mmo of which i replied yes and he then replied what a crock of shit then.

I played in total 5 hrs over 2 days before giving up, am sorry to anyone that likes it but i had never ever been so bored of an mmo as i had with this one. It even made pirates of the burning sea look better and i thought that one was pretty dull and would be hard pressed to be beaten. Dissapointed that mmo's seem to be going downhill on nearly every new release. I can see why WoW is still #1 and if games like this keep comming then it aint going to lose that #1 spot for yrs. Hell if games like this come out i may even give Vanguard another try, even with the huge problems, the bugs and everything it still had an mmo feel to it.

Sovrath · February 2010

Originally posted by Drakynn

To be perfectly honest I really don't care if STO is a MMO or not.My only concern if considering purchasing and subscribing to it is that it is a good game and worth my money to buy and then to subscribe to.Having palye dit in beta and currently on a 10 day beta key m take is it's good enough to buy if you can get it cheap as you will get at least a few weeks of fun out of it before the newness and "Trekiness" wears off and you move on.In it's current state I would not subscribe to it.

I have to agree with you as that was my sentiment when I saw the title.

I don't care about names for the most part. Something is what it is. "Rose by any other name" so to speak.

I'm not interested in being a purist or even an mmo zealot. If the game is good I'll buy it. If it requires a subscription and I like it I'll subscribe. When I am done with the game I'll move on.

That's pretty much how I do it.

Xondar123 · February 2010

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Aside from the obvious - no persistent world, no massiveness in terms of the play spaces size or player counts in areas (including social areas) - consider this tidbit from a recent post on the STO site...
Game Adjustments:
Now that the game is out and in your loving hands, we're taking long, hard looks at everything each and every one of you is interested in seeing changed. Cruiser turn rates? Death penalties? More open auto-fire? All those topics and more are being scrutinized by the all-seeing eye of... um, us!
Some of the few things on the way:
* Difficulty Slider
Hrm, how can people play at different difficulty levels if it truly is a persistent world and a real MMORPG? Simple answer, the cannot. Only a largely SP/coop type game can afford such a mechanic in terms of balance and even in terms of implementation. Enough with the arguing, this is the icing on the 'not an MMORPG' cake.

I agree that STO is extremely light in the MMO features department, but I think this type of reasoning isn't proof of anything. You're also saying Age of Conan isn't an MMO because I can choose to enter "normal" or "epic" instances, or that City of Heroes isn't an MMO because you can adjust the level of mission difficulty.

Granted, in CoH you can only adjust the difficulty of missions and not the whole game universe, but I love the idea of difficulty sliders in an MMO and I don't think they detract from the "MMO-ness" of any game.

ascroobla · February 2010

As much as I've been disappointed in STO, it is an MMO, it's big, it's got lots of players who play online.

That's an MMO.

Difficulty sliders? Easy for the heavily instanced world of STO. Just find x number of players who want to play in "I have no thumbs mode" and away you go, and for those complaining about the ridiculous ease of progression they can set to "I have no friends, life or mortgage" mode and spend days doing exactly the same stuff as before but with more dying.

AgtSmith · February 2010

Fair opinions from Drakynn and Sovrath, in terms of the box price I would mostly agree I suppose save for the value argument (i.e. there is something to be said about them charging for what most games more like them give away, i.e. Guild Wars). The thread was started more for those who have been arguing all month that STO is indeed an MMORPG and seem incapable of even acknowledging its shortcomings in terms of key elements that make up MMORPGs. My point being that the topic is NOT do you like STO or not - the topic is it simply is not an MMORPG, and perhaps maybe the implication that since it is not an MMORPG there should not be a monthly fee.

AgtSmith · February 2010

Originally posted by ascroobla

As much as I've been disappointed in STO, it is an MMO, it's big, it's got lots of players who play online.
That's an MMO.
Difficulty sliders? Easy for the heavily instanced world of STO. Just find x number of players who want to play in "I have no thumbs mode" and away you go, and for those complaining about the ridiculous ease of progression they can set to "I have no friends, life or mortgage" mode and spend days doing exactly the same stuff as before but with more dying.

You contradict yoruself. It is not big - never in STO will you play with more than 50 people (in social spaces) and in most gameplay situations you will be playing with as few as 5 as a max - this is not massive no matter how you slice it. Furthermore, there is no persistent world, as you acknowledge by the completely instanced 'world )you said heavily, STO is in fact 100% instanced). And as I suggest in the topic, the straw that breaks the camel's back here is the difficulty slider - ability for implementation aside the idea that an MMO has no integrity of the gameplay experience from player to player is untenable - SP and MP COOP games have difficulty sliders, not MMORPGs.

AgtSmith · February 2010

Originally posted by Xondar123

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Aside from the obvious - no persistent world, no massiveness in terms of the play spaces size or player counts in areas (including social areas) - consider this tidbit from a recent post on the STO site...
Game Adjustments:
Now that the game is out and in your loving hands, we're taking long, hard looks at everything each and every one of you is interested in seeing changed. Cruiser turn rates? Death penalties? More open auto-fire? All those topics and more are being scrutinized by the all-seeing eye of... um, us!
Some of the few things on the way:
* Difficulty Slider
Hrm, how can people play at different difficulty levels if it truly is a persistent world and a real MMORPG? Simple answer, the cannot. Only a largely SP/coop type game can afford such a mechanic in terms of balance and even in terms of implementation. Enough with the arguing, this is the icing on the 'not an MMORPG' cake.

I agree that STO is extremely light in the MMO features department, but I think this type of reasoning isn't proof of anything. You're also saying Age of Conan isn't an MMO because I can choose to enter "normal" or "epic" instances, or that City of Heroes isn't an MMO because you can adjust the level of mission difficulty.

Granted, in CoH you can only adjust the difficulty of missions and not the whole game universe, but I love the idea of difficulty sliders in an MMO and I don't think they detract from the "MMO-ness" of any game.

Again, it isn't any one thing - it is the constant that in each and every defining element of an MMORPG STO fails to live up to the standard if if even incorporates said element at all. This difficulty slider is just a small example of how non MMORPG this game is - the real proof is the various elements that are lacking, no massive, not persistent, or otherwise not up to par for the genre.

Drakynn · February 2010

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Fair opinions from Drakynn and Sovrath, in terms of the box price I would mostly agree I suppose save for the value argument (i.e. there is something to be said about them charging for what most games more like them give away, i.e. Guild Wars). The thread was started more for those who have been arguing all month that STO is indeed an MMORPG and seem incapable of even acknowledging its shortcomings in terms of key elements that make up MMORPGs. My point being that the topic is NOT do you like STO or not - the topic is it simply is not an MMORPG, and perhaps maybe the implication that since it is not an MMORPG there should not be a monthly fee.

I would disagree that something has to be ann MMORPG or even an MMO to be worth a subscription fee but it had best provide something to justify what ever sub fee they are asking e.g regular appropriate content.

Sovrath · February 2010

Originally posted by AgtSmith

My point being that the topic is NOT do you like STO or not - the topic is it simply is not an MMORPG, and perhaps maybe the implication that since it is not an MMORPG there should not be a monthly fee.

That's a tough one as there are mmo's that don't have a monthly fee therefore by the definition an mmo doesn't need a monthly fee (if I'm understanding you correctly). Of course we know that they make money in other ways such as the cash shop.

If STO can't get by without a monthly fee then they should charge one. Not saying that they can or can't but just "if" they can't.

If they could get by like guild wars without one then they might rethink their business model.

If they couldn't get by without one but were to, on principle, to just say "well other games similiar to ours don't charge one therefore we shouldn't" they would fail and those who enjoy the game would get a short stint in a game they like.

I do remember the devs of guild wars saying that if they were to continue developing guild wars in the way they were they wouldn't be able to sustain it. Part of this was that they had to put in a lot of work to integrate all of the games that comprise the guild wars franchise.

So obviously there are pitfalls to their business model.

I would rather a game that I like charge a monthly fee and stay in business over "not" charging one and going under.

In the end, the value is what you make of it. I think I would have happily paid a sub to guild wars (despite the fact they didn't charge one) over paying a sub to a game that I didn't like.

Now of course if it was a solo game such as (for argument's sake) dragon age where the devs just decided that besides the box they were going to charge a sub for players to access the game each month then I would be there with pitch fork in hand chasing them up to the windmill.

Cik_Asalin · February 2010

If this STO game had any redeming value as a mmorpg, it would be apparent. But since it doesn't, and due to the community outcry of "what the &^%$", Cryptic is trying to save face. It isn't going to work with the majority of mmorpg enthusiasts since most are more intelligent and honest than that.

But, keep this game in the category of rudimentary third-person shooter, and that about sums it up; other than the game being anything but fun.

DracheSC · February 2010

All valid arguments. The fact that I do not consider it an MMO is merely an opinion, and not to be taken as a statement of fact about the game itself.

It is massively multi player, and it is online, which are the base criteria. That being said, I believe I should rephrase my comment:

I feel that STO could be more than it is. And by more, I mean bigger and better. I'd like to see a more static game world. We know it works in Sci-fi MMOs, look at EVE Online. Not only do they have a large static game world, they have 1 massive static game world that all players play on at the same time. No separate servers.

I suppose I'm just looking for a game that is less like Guild Wars, with it's mostly-instanced game world, and something that is more like EVE Online.

I did not enjoy STO. Those of you that do, I'm happy for you. I really, really wanted to enjoy it. I gave it more than an honest try, I even sucked it up for a little while after deciding I didn't like it, and tried it some more. But alas, it just doesn't deliver like I think it could. It has the potential to be greater than it is.

Sovrath · February 2010

Originally posted by Cik_Asalin

If this STO game had any redeming value as a mmorpg, it would be apparent. But since it doesn't, and due to the community outcry of "what the &^%$", Cryptic is trying to save face. It isn't going to work with the majority of mmorpg enthusiasts since most are more intelligent and honest than that.
But, keep this game in the category of rudimentary third-person shooter, and that about sums it up; other than the game being anything but fun.

But some of that is opinion which is trumped by those who do find it fun and are willing to pay for it.

I don't know who the main type of players are who play sto but it's more than possible that they are not mmo enthusiasts. Maybe just regular people and they are willing to pay for it.

And I don't think it has anything to do with being intelligent or honest. Cryptic has made a game where players can team up, they have servers and they have development. They have asked for a fee to continue this. So if the value is there players will sub. If not then players won't.

If I came up with a game such as "watch me jump up and down on a box while I eat cupcakes" and charged a fee I imagine that only the insane would sub as there wouldn't be value there.

As I said, I would have paid for guild wars. gladly. I loved the game and loved my experience. I had more fun in GW over several other "true" mmo's.

GhostSever · February 2010

People can argue all they want. This will not change the fact that STO has no desire in being massive. 60 people in one instance has not been "massive" for along time. I dont even know why there is controversy. This game is not an MMORPG.

Sovrath · February 2010

Originally posted by GhostSever

People can argue all they want. This will not change the fact that STO has no desire in being massive. 60 people in one instance has not been "massive" for along time. I dont even know why there is controversy. This game is not an MMORPG.

Maybe the point that you've just made is that mmo's will move away from larger numbers to 60. It's possible that mmo will mean that a player can interact with thousands of people but won't always have immediate access to thousands of people.

Xondar123 · February 2010

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Originally posted by Xondar123

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Aside from the obvious - no persistent world, no massiveness in terms of the play spaces size or player counts in areas (including social areas) - consider this tidbit from a recent post on the STO site...
Game Adjustments:
Now that the game is out and in your loving hands, we're taking long, hard looks at everything each and every one of you is interested in seeing changed. Cruiser turn rates? Death penalties? More open auto-fire? All those topics and more are being scrutinized by the all-seeing eye of... um, us!
Some of the few things on the way:
* Difficulty Slider
Hrm, how can people play at different difficulty levels if it truly is a persistent world and a real MMORPG? Simple answer, the cannot. Only a largely SP/coop type game can afford such a mechanic in terms of balance and even in terms of implementation. Enough with the arguing, this is the icing on the 'not an MMORPG' cake.

I agree that STO is extremely light in the MMO features department, but I think this type of reasoning isn't proof of anything. You're also saying Age of Conan isn't an MMO because I can choose to enter "normal" or "epic" instances, or that City of Heroes isn't an MMO because you can adjust the level of mission difficulty.

Granted, in CoH you can only adjust the difficulty of missions and not the whole game universe, but I love the idea of difficulty sliders in an MMO and I don't think they detract from the "MMO-ness" of any game.

Again, it isn't any one thing - it is the constant that in each and every defining element of an MMORPG STO fails to live up to the standard if if even incorporates said element at all. This difficulty slider is just a small example of how non MMORPG this game is - the real proof is the various elements that are lacking, no massive, not persistent, or otherwise not up to par for the genre.

But I fully disagree. There are many, many things you can use to argue that STO is not an MMO, but I don't think that difficulty sliders, a regular feature in many MMOs, belongs anywhere near the "not an MMO" category. I think it would be better to stick with actual arguments as to whether STO is an MMO or not.

Edit: And while I disagree with you that STO is not an MMO, I think it is one, I do think that STO is very much overpriced for what it offers. No one should have to pay more than $5-$10 a month for this game, especially with an item mall in place.

Xondar123 · February 2010

Originally posted by DracheSC

All valid arguments. The fact that I do not consider it an MMO is merely an opinion, and not to be taken as a statement of fact about the game itself.
It is massively multi player, and it is online, which are the base criteria. That being said, I believe I should rephrase my comment:
I feel that STO could be more than it is. And by more, I mean bigger and better. I'd like to see a more static game world. We know it works in Sci-fi MMOs, look at EVE Online. Not only do they have a large static game world, they have 1 massive static game world that all players play on at the same time. No separate servers.
I suppose I'm just looking for a game that is less like Guild Wars, with it's mostly-instanced game world, and something that is more like EVE Online.
I did not enjoy STO. Those of you that do, I'm happy for you. I really, really wanted to enjoy it. I gave it more than an honest try, I even sucked it up for a little while after deciding I didn't like it, and tried it some more. But alas, it just doesn't deliver like I think it could. It has the potential to be greater than it is.

CCP built a very expensive supercomputer with the help of IBM for EVE (it's the only supercomputer used by the video game industry.) I seriously doubt Cryptic would ever put the time and money in to STO that a dedicated supercomputer would require. Quite frankly, Cryptic just doesn't care enough about STO to spend money on it, or more than two years developing it.

AgtSmith · February 2010

Originally posted by Drakynn

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Fair opinions from Drakynn and Sovrath, in terms of the box price I would mostly agree I suppose save for the value argument (i.e. there is something to be said about them charging for what most games more like them give away, i.e. Guild Wars). The thread was started more for those who have been arguing all month that STO is indeed an MMORPG and seem incapable of even acknowledging its shortcomings in terms of key elements that make up MMORPGs. My point being that the topic is NOT do you like STO or not - the topic is it simply is not an MMORPG, and perhaps maybe the implication that since it is not an MMORPG there should not be a monthly fee.

I would disagree that something has to be ann MMORPG or even an MMO to be worth a subscription fee but it had best provide something to justify what ever sub fee they are asking e.g regular appropriate content.

Perhaps, though, name a video game that is not an MMORPG that can garner a subscription fee.

As for content - I might agree (a.k.a. like Guild Wars did it is how STO should be) but they even failed on that - despite going live in two years when most MMORPGs take 4+ years and being obviously and in-arguably incomplete they had no major patches for the game this month at all, and it seems they won't for until maybe the middle of the second month so they are not even keeping up on that front.

AgtSmith · February 2010

Originally posted by DracheSC

All valid arguments. The fact that I do not consider it an MMO is merely an opinion, and not to be taken as a statement of fact about the game itself.
It is massively multi player, and it is online, which are the base criteria. That being said, I believe I should rephrase my comment:
I feel that STO could be more than it is. And by more, I mean bigger and better. I'd like to see a more static game world. We know it works in Sci-fi MMOs, look at EVE Online. Not only do they have a large static game world, they have 1 massive static game world that all players play on at the same time. No separate servers.
I suppose I'm just looking for a game that is less like Guild Wars, with it's mostly-instanced game world, and something that is more like EVE Online.
I did not enjoy STO. Those of you that do, I'm happy for you. I really, really wanted to enjoy it. I gave it more than an honest try, I even sucked it up for a little while after deciding I didn't like it, and tried it some more. But alas, it just doesn't deliver like I think it could. It has the potential to be greater than it is.

But it isn't massive at all - 5 man is the max on combat save 2 fleet battles that I think go to twenty people. Even their raids are going to be 5 man. That is not massive, not at all. And the most massive places, the social map instances - they hold no more than 50 people - heck, Counter Strike holds that many people in a game. STO is simply not massive, not by any definition at all.

dhayes68 · February 2010

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Drakynn

To be perfectly honest I really don't care if STO is a MMO or not.My only concern if considering purchasing and subscribing to it is that it is a good game and worth my money to buy and then to subscribe to.Having palye dit in beta and currently on a 10 day beta key m take is it's good enough to buy if you can get it cheap as you will get at least a few weeks of fun out of it before the newness and "Trekiness" wears off and you move on.In it's current state I would not subscribe to it.

I have to agree with you as that was my sentiment when I saw the title.

I don't care about names for the most part. Something is what it is. "Rose by any other name" so to speak.

I'm not interested in being a purist or even an mmo zealot. If the game is good I'll buy it. If it requires a subscription and I like it I'll subscribe. When I am done with the game I'll move on.

That's pretty much how I do it.

Generally I agree with the sentiment, who cares what they call it, if its fun, I'll play it, if not, not.

However I think in this case it can be said the label 'mmo' is being used specifically to market the title to people who might not have been willing to pay a sub fee if the game had been marketed as it really is: a rpg with multiplayer.

Also, the label, just like the IP, creates expectations that regardless of the games quality on its own, can't ultimately be fulfilled if the publisher had no actual intention of creating an MMORPG based on the Star Trek IP. And that's just going to create a lot of negativity.

Drakynn · February 2010

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Originally posted by Drakynn

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Fair opinions from Drakynn and Sovrath, in terms of the box price I would mostly agree I suppose save for the value argument (i.e. there is something to be said about them charging for what most games more like them give away, i.e. Guild Wars). The thread was started more for those who have been arguing all month that STO is indeed an MMORPG and seem incapable of even acknowledging its shortcomings in terms of key elements that make up MMORPGs. My point being that the topic is NOT do you like STO or not - the topic is it simply is not an MMORPG, and perhaps maybe the implication that since it is not an MMORPG there should not be a monthly fee.

I would disagree that something has to be ann MMORPG or even an MMO to be worth a subscription fee but it had best provide something to justify what ever sub fee they are asking e.g regular appropriate content.

Perhaps, though, name a video game that is not an MMORPG that can garner a subscription fee.

As for content - I might agree (a.k.a. like Guild Wars did it is how STO should be) but they even failed on that - despite going live in two years when most MMORPGs take 4+ years and being obviously and in-arguably incomplete they had no major patches for the game this month at all, and it seems they won't for until maybe the middle of the second month so they are not even keeping up on that front.

Just because it hasn't been done yet dosen't mean it isn't a good idea and shouldn't be done...There was a time when monthly subscription MMOs were unheard of.

Sovrath · February 2010

Originally posted by dhayes68

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Drakynn

To be perfectly honest I really don't care if STO is a MMO or not.My only concern if considering purchasing and subscribing to it is that it is a good game and worth my money to buy and then to subscribe to.Having palye dit in beta and currently on a 10 day beta key m take is it's good enough to buy if you can get it cheap as you will get at least a few weeks of fun out of it before the newness and "Trekiness" wears off and you move on.In it's current state I would not subscribe to it.

I have to agree with you as that was my sentiment when I saw the title.

I don't care about names for the most part. Something is what it is. "Rose by any other name" so to speak.

I'm not interested in being a purist or even an mmo zealot. If the game is good I'll buy it. If it requires a subscription and I like it I'll subscribe. When I am done with the game I'll move on.

That's pretty much how I do it.

Generally I agree with the sentiment, who cares what they call it, if its fun, I'll play it, if not, not.

However I think in this case it can be said the label 'mmo' is being used specifically to market the title to people who might not have been willing to pay a sub fee if the game had been marketed as it really is: a rpg with multiplayer.

Also, the label, just like the IP, creates expectations that regardless of the games quality on its own, can't ultimately be fulfilled if the publisher had no actual intention of creating an MMORPG based on the Star Trek IP. And that's just going to create a lot of negativity.

That's possible. Then again, maybe the future will hold larger battles and larger raid types.

But then again we aren't talking about the future so I suppose that point is moot.

Of course, look at DDO. It did charge a sub and lasted several years before it had to add the free to play option.

so if STO can't keep it's subs then perhaps that is an option.

Remember Dungeon Runners? That was free to play but one could have a sub in order to have access to better gear among other things. But the sub was small. Nevertheless it was closed because it couldn't keep subs.

So in the end, if STO loses too many subs they might have to rethink their business model.

DracheSC · February 2010

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Originally posted by DracheSC

All valid arguments. The fact that I do not consider it an MMO is merely an opinion, and not to be taken as a statement of fact about the game itself.
It is massively multi player, and it is online, which are the base criteria. That being said, I believe I should rephrase my comment:
I feel that STO could be more than it is. And by more, I mean bigger and better. I'd like to see a more static game world. We know it works in Sci-fi MMOs, look at EVE Online. Not only do they have a large static game world, they have 1 massive static game world that all players play on at the same time. No separate servers.
I suppose I'm just looking for a game that is less like Guild Wars, with it's mostly-instanced game world, and something that is more like EVE Online.
I did not enjoy STO. Those of you that do, I'm happy for you. I really, really wanted to enjoy it. I gave it more than an honest try, I even sucked it up for a little while after deciding I didn't like it, and tried it some more. But alas, it just doesn't deliver like I think it could. It has the potential to be greater than it is.

But it isn't massive at all - 5 man is the max on combat save 2 fleet battles that I think go to twenty people. Even their raids are going to be 5 man. That is not massive, not at all. And the most massive places, the social map instances - they hold no more than 50 people - heck, Counter Strike holds that many people in a game. STO is simply not massive, not by any definition at all.

After doing a bit of research on the definition of Massively Multiplayer, I found this:

(from wikipedia.org) Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.

As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a fictional character (often in a fantasy world),[1] and take control over many of that character's actions.[2] MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game.

I looked this up in an attempt to obtain an objective point of view. It is my opinion that STO does not fit into wikipedia's definition of MMO. But, in the end, this truly is a matter of opinion. There is no standard for what is or is not truly MMO, accept for the standard that we ourselves create and accept.

My standard for what is MMO may vary greatly from yours. After all is said and done, it is ultimately pointless to argue about opinions. STO doesn't fit into wikipedia's definition of what an MMORPG is. I'll leave it at that.

AgtSmith · February 2010

Originally posted by Drakynn

Just because it hasn't been done yet dosen't mean it isn't a good idea and shouldn't be done...There was a time when monthly subscription MMOs were unheard of.

And there was a time when computer games where not heard of, but that is not relevant to this discussion so I do not see your point.

Howdy, Stranger!

Want proof that STO is not an MMO?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Want proof that STO is not an MMO?

Comments