In fact, the one time we really saw a ship blaze away with multiple weapons for an extended period, they drained all their phaser reserves and were left with no choice but to ram the enemy ship (Nemesis).
That had nothing to do with draining the phasers specifically and everyting to do with the Scimitar pounding the TRIBBLE out of the Enterprise.
How the Devs see Star Trek, apparently:
Star Trek: The Original Grind
Star Trek: The Next Grind
Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
Indeed it is; and Aston Martin won't license things to Acura that would lesson their perceived competitive advantages, because they're both selling luxury cars, and thus have huge demographic overlap.
The fact that an Aston Martin is much more expensive to produce and sells for a higher price doesn't change the fact that Aston Martin wants people who are looking for a luxury car to buy their product, and Acura wants them to buy THEIR product.
It's a lot like Aston Martin during the years Ford owned them; they viewed Aston Martin owners as more likely to buy Fords for their non-luxury cars, and Honda viewed Acura owners and more likely to buy Hondas for their non-luxury cars. Bethesda won't want to license something that could make people more likely to go to PWE for their non-fantasy MMO needs, because it presumably creates emotional investment (especially due to Cryptic's chat system) in Neverwinter.
Further, MMO gamers are not made of infinite money, so anything that encourages them to spend money in Star Trek Online discourages them from spending that same money in TESO. They would only do this if they thought they'd make more money from the licensing than they'd lose from the market, and that wouldn't happen because PWE isn't going to pay more for the license per user than they'd make from the increased users...
While I don't want to get too much into the car metaphor here, I believe you have made some incorrect, or at least inaccurate, assertions. An Aston Martin and an Acura may share some, some, demographic overlap, in that a person who can afford an Aston Martin can also afford an Acura, and may own one or more of each. However they do not compete for the same spot in the mind of the consumer. A person looking to buy one car, who first considers an Acura, will not then move on to consider an Aston Martin. Similarly a person looking to buy one car, who first considers an Aston Martin, will not then move on to consider an Acura. They do not occupy the same market niche. I got in pretty deep without meaning to.
Anyway moving back to videogames, the BWM versus Ford metaphor is probably the better. TESO and STO/Neverwinter do not occupy the same market niche. And while you are correct that gamers do have limited amounts of money (this may be disproven, however, by STO's prodigious use of lock boxes) this can be applied across gaming in general. So now we have Skyrim competing with WoW, and even across hobbies in general, so now the latest Harry Potter book, or the latest iteration if Risk or the latest DnD manual is competing with any video game you name.
My point there is it isn't really a relevant market comparison, One is F2P, one is most likely sub based, one is a sandbox, the other is theme park, one has AAA money and graphics in it with a stellar development studio with a TON of loyalty behind it, and will be released, well, this yearish, and the other was released in 2010. An age ago in video game years. (By the way, did you know if you google 'STO release date' you still get perceptive software vaporware images? Hilarious!) I will leave the studio quality and customer loyalty comparisons lopsided. This isn't a bash session.
I don't believe Bethesda will take the very limited potential competition into account when making that kind of decision. To be quite blunt: I don't believe the fellahs at Bethesda care much about Neverwinter or STO. If the execs can make a few more bucks off of a licensing deal, I don't believe they will see it as hurting them or in any way affecting the market that TESO is about to enter. And while I love STO, it is decidedly NOT a AAA release. Nor is Neverwinter. They are the plucky little games that could. TESO is the up and coming juggernaught that WoW will counterschedule against. I won't speculate if it is the 'WoW killer' because I don't believe anything needs a killin, but I believe to place any F2P themepark with a rough past next to the up and coming new shiny AAA sandbox release and say the one competes with the other to the point where the developers of the new shiny AAA release will turn down free money because they are afraid of adding a small amount of most likely paid content to the F2P theme park is faulty analysis.
____________________________________________________
Pay no attention to the dates and titles under my name at the left! I am a Career Officer, Lifetime Sub since launch, was in the Beta. Having problems with my forum account.
Remember, it took them over a year to get the Vesta, and that was just one ship.
Also not everything they want to get, they can.
They couldn't get the Kzinti for example.
SFC would be a completely different beast as well.
While the game was made by Interplay, little in it was actually invented by Interplay.
Most of it was actually Star Fleet Battles with different models.
And the license for SFB is still held by Amarillo Design Bureau.
ADB only made this move because those folks are not allowed to make computer games based on their material themselves.
And their material is not even considered to exist in the Star Trek universe by ADB itself.
So the question here would be:
Even if CBS has anything to say about their material, does CBS want material in a Star Trek game, that is not even considered to be part of Star Trek by its own creators?
We might have better luck with Starfleet and Klingon Academy.
Even though the latter shares a lot of models with the SFC line, it's actually not tied to another company.
SFB is not canon and as such, CBS would never touch it with a 10 foot pole. They considered the licensing a mistake and wish it would go away. They threaten legal action in ADB ever strays from the terms of the agreement... even posting a TOS or TNG canon design on an ADB message board by a non-employee will get ADB to remove the post as quickly as possible for fear of CBS Legal.
SFB is about as ok as using the terms "Starfleet Marines"... hence MACO.
BTW, Star Trek Legacy was awful in either Xbox or PC form.
The Kzinti are an even more convoluted situation than ships...Larry Niven holds all rights and has used them in a multitude of non-Trek related novels and novellas, as well as licensing them to other authors. I have a hunch that he used them in TAS just to promote his other work. Frankly, having read Kzinti stories long before I ever got a chance to see the TAS episode, I tend to ignore that episode since I have am hard time reconciling them (and the Slavers for that matter) into the Trek universe. In my mind they always belong to Known Space and I'm glad they got left out of STO...
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
Id rather see the Bridge Commander model, some of the 3rd party ships really can fire 20 phaser banks, not all at once, or lets get a Scimitar with 52 disrupter banks and 27 Torpedo launchers would be fun.
actually In ST:Legacy, CBS Has a controlling interest in the ship designs, Behtesda and MadDoc worked on it no doubt, but both of those companies would not withhold the designs of the ships. a few of the ships no doubt are extremely out of date, but if anything, they'd be a much more welcome addition to the game and serve as great fillers.
Bethesda gave up support for Legacey and you can't get the patch for on thier website.They gave up on the game after so many complaints.
I wouldn't see this going through as to the coding of Legacey and STO.TMP and prior use emitters not arrays.
To those wo ask for the mods you would need thier permission.
@ misterde3
Interplay was the publisher it was Taldren who made all SFC games and ADB ony does board games not PC although they do have SFB online which is different than a PC.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Age StarTrek-Gamers Administrator
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer Star Trek Gamers
Interplay was the publisher it was Taldren who made all SFC games and ADB ony does board games not PC although they do have SFB online which is different than a PC.
Not quite right.
Taldren made SFC2, Orion Pirates and SFC3.
Interplay was both developer and publisher of the first SFC.
Given that SFC2 and OP were mostly full-price addons I'm not sure they did that much.
Also, ADB makes several tabletops, an RPG and a cardgame.
And as I already stated, they'd LIKE to make a PC game but they're not allowed to.
The cooperation with Interplay was the only way to get around that.
"Because of the game's extensive revisions and high-degree of playability, much of the material from the Star Fleet Battles universe was incorporated into video games by Interplay, such as Star Trek: Starfleet Command and Star Trek: Klingon Academy. These games were licensed by Paramount and therefore were allowed to feature situations during the Star Trek movie era. Amarillo Design Bureau's partial license has prohibited them from producing computer games based on their own material and previously published board games, however this has been disputed in the past and is still being contested by legal means. "
No it wasn't. The above battle I sighted the Galaxy fired all of its beams at one Galor. No different than what we have now.
And logically speaking, if an enemy is in range and positioning of my saucer, dorsal, and strut arrays and I have the power, I'm not limiting myself to one shot from one array.
It's two different Galaxy class ships blasting a single Galor. The shots come in very quickly, but it's quite easy to see them firing in sequence (first one, then the other)
That had nothing to do with draining the phasers specifically and everyting to do with the Scimitar pounding the TRIBBLE out of the Enterprise.
Incorrect. Picard flat out asks Geordi if they could focus all available phaser power in a single burst, to which the answer was "it would make no difference".
It's two different Galaxy class ships blasting a single Galor. The shots come in very quickly, but it's quite easy to see them firing in sequence (first one, then the other).
Incorrect. Picard flat out asks Geordi if they could focus all available phaser power in a single burst, to which the answer was "it would make no difference".
And that has what to do with the Enterprise getting the TRIBBLE pounded out of it?
How the Devs see Star Trek, apparently:
Star Trek: The Original Grind
Star Trek: The Next Grind
Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
Clearly the first Galaxy is firing multiple beams from multiple locations on its array
I stand corrected, but it's only two (the argument could easily be made it's creative use of a modified dual beam bank, but I don't personally adhere to that). That's a far cry from the six, seven or even eight you can set off in-game.
And that has what to do with the Enterprise getting the TRIBBLE pounded out of it?
Considering you're making the argument that damage to the Enterprise's weapons was the deciding factor in Picard's decision to ram the Scimitar, everything. Weapons were very much still online, just depleted by overuse (phaser banks down to a pitiful level, torpedoes expended etc). If battle damage was the pertinent factor they would have been non-functional, not useless.
I stand corrected, but it's only two (the argument could easily be made it's creative use of a modified dual beam bank, but I don't personally adhere to that). That's a far cry from the six, seven or even eight you can set off in-game..
I see nothing wrong with the six, seven, or eight that can be fired in game.
Considering you're making the argument that damage to the Enterprise's weapons was the deciding factor in Picard's decision to ram the Scimitar, everything. Weapons were very much still online, just depleted by overuse (phaser banks down to a pitiful level, torpedoes expended etc). If battle damage was the pertinent factor they would have been non-functional, not useless.
In all fairness all Geordi said was "it wouldn't make a difference." He never mentioned why it wouldn't make a difference. Damage to the weapons could still be a factor. We don't know just how many emitters were functioning on the arrays.
My whole argument has really been power and fire arc. As I said in a previous post, if my saucer, dorsal, and strut arrays have a line of sight to the enemy and I have the power, I'm letting loose. I see no need to limit the potential firepower of a ship simply because most of the time on a TV show ships only fired one beam.
How the Devs see Star Trek, apparently:
Star Trek: The Original Grind
Star Trek: The Next Grind
Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
In all fairness all Geordi said was "it wouldn't make a difference." He never mentioned why it wouldn't make a difference. Damage to the weapons could still be a factor. We don't know just how many emitters were functioning on the arrays.
As a matter of fact, he did say why. The Scimitar's shields were still at well over 60 percent (68% I believe, but I'd have to go back and check the clip) despite taking fire from both Romulan Warbirds and the Enterprise. The latter's phaser arrays were more than capable of firing, but it wouldn't have done any good. Thus the call for ramming speed.
TESO and STO/Neverwinter do not occupy the same market niche.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. However, it's moot anyway; PWE isn't going to pay somebody else to license designs from a game that tanked, when they can instead license functionally equivalent designs from fans and/or create their own. If the game had been a massive success, that might make sense; but it wasn't.
Many fans want canon ships. Many fans want certain specific non-canon ships from artists who designed canon ships. Only a tiny subsegment of fans want non-canon ships from games that were roundly panned by critics and had abysmal sales. The game only sold 150k copies; even if you assume 100% of those people play STO, the vast majority of STO players have never seen the game, and it's highly unlikely that all of those people play STO. Why pay another company a licensing fee for a ship nobody's seen, when you can build your own ship nobody's seen for less? Or even better, make a ship that was on screen for a few seconds, under a license you already paid?
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
Not quite right.
Taldren made SFC2, Orion Pirates and SFC3.
Interplay was both developer and publisher of the first SFC.
Given that SFC2 and OP were mostly full-price addons I'm not sure they did that much.
Also, ADB makes several tabletops, an RPG and a cardgame.
And as I already stated, they'd LIKE to make a PC game but they're not allowed to.
The cooperation with Interplay was the only way to get around that.
"Because of the game's extensive revisions and high-degree of playability, much of the material from the Star Fleet Battles universe was incorporated into video games by Interplay, such as Star Trek: Starfleet Command and Star Trek: Klingon Academy. These games were licensed by Paramount and therefore were allowed to feature situations during the Star Trek movie era. Amarillo Design Bureau's partial license has prohibited them from producing computer games based on their own material and previously published board games, however this has been disputed in the past and is still being contested by legal means. "
Taldren made all SFC games as they aka 13degrees east.Interplay was not really the developer.
ADB has not interset in making a pc game to the best of my knowlege as I know a lot of SFB fans and played SFC with them.I was on Taldren forums back in 04 ..
Starfleet and Klingon Academy have nothing to do with ADB.You are just grasping at straws here.
don't agrue with me as I have been a member of the community for long time now not to mention I am an Admin read my sig. @kekvin
None of the SFC games appeared in Legacey or TA.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Age StarTrek-Gamers Administrator
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer Star Trek Gamers
So anyone else wish the combat schemes for space were like Star Trek: Legacy?
the single beam, photon/quantum reloading, controlling bursts of weapons etc. PLEASE, YES, YES, YES!!!
and wishing that some of the ships from ST:Legacy were in STO? Well, not really...
Also, when DStahl said he would like to incorporate our garaged ships like our boffs, anyone else think of the ST:Legacy team control and such? Please not, space combat is alright as it is. Unlike ground combat, which is way to hectic and chaotic for my taste.
tenchars10101010
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Comments
How does it make it situational?
That had nothing to do with draining the phasers specifically and everyting to do with the Scimitar pounding the TRIBBLE out of the Enterprise.
Star Trek: The Original Grind
Star Trek: The Next Grind
Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
While I don't want to get too much into the car metaphor here, I believe you have made some incorrect, or at least inaccurate, assertions. An Aston Martin and an Acura may share some, some, demographic overlap, in that a person who can afford an Aston Martin can also afford an Acura, and may own one or more of each. However they do not compete for the same spot in the mind of the consumer. A person looking to buy one car, who first considers an Acura, will not then move on to consider an Aston Martin. Similarly a person looking to buy one car, who first considers an Aston Martin, will not then move on to consider an Acura. They do not occupy the same market niche. I got in pretty deep without meaning to.
Anyway moving back to videogames, the BWM versus Ford metaphor is probably the better. TESO and STO/Neverwinter do not occupy the same market niche. And while you are correct that gamers do have limited amounts of money (this may be disproven, however, by STO's prodigious use of lock boxes) this can be applied across gaming in general. So now we have Skyrim competing with WoW, and even across hobbies in general, so now the latest Harry Potter book, or the latest iteration if Risk or the latest DnD manual is competing with any video game you name.
My point there is it isn't really a relevant market comparison, One is F2P, one is most likely sub based, one is a sandbox, the other is theme park, one has AAA money and graphics in it with a stellar development studio with a TON of loyalty behind it, and will be released, well, this yearish, and the other was released in 2010. An age ago in video game years. (By the way, did you know if you google 'STO release date' you still get perceptive software vaporware images? Hilarious!) I will leave the studio quality and customer loyalty comparisons lopsided. This isn't a bash session.
I don't believe Bethesda will take the very limited potential competition into account when making that kind of decision. To be quite blunt: I don't believe the fellahs at Bethesda care much about Neverwinter or STO. If the execs can make a few more bucks off of a licensing deal, I don't believe they will see it as hurting them or in any way affecting the market that TESO is about to enter. And while I love STO, it is decidedly NOT a AAA release. Nor is Neverwinter. They are the plucky little games that could. TESO is the up and coming juggernaught that WoW will counterschedule against. I won't speculate if it is the 'WoW killer' because I don't believe anything needs a killin, but I believe to place any F2P themepark with a rough past next to the up and coming new shiny AAA sandbox release and say the one competes with the other to the point where the developers of the new shiny AAA release will turn down free money because they are afraid of adding a small amount of most likely paid content to the F2P theme park is faulty analysis.
Pay no attention to the dates and titles under my name at the left! I am a Career Officer, Lifetime Sub since launch, was in the Beta. Having problems with my forum account.
Nah.. I route against the FEDERATION... good luck trying to find a KDF =
SFB is not canon and as such, CBS would never touch it with a 10 foot pole. They considered the licensing a mistake and wish it would go away. They threaten legal action in ADB ever strays from the terms of the agreement... even posting a TOS or TNG canon design on an ADB message board by a non-employee will get ADB to remove the post as quickly as possible for fear of CBS Legal.
SFB is about as ok as using the terms "Starfleet Marines"... hence MACO.
BTW, Star Trek Legacy was awful in either Xbox or PC form.
The Kzinti are an even more convoluted situation than ships...Larry Niven holds all rights and has used them in a multitude of non-Trek related novels and novellas, as well as licensing them to other authors. I have a hunch that he used them in TAS just to promote his other work. Frankly, having read Kzinti stories long before I ever got a chance to see the TAS episode, I tend to ignore that episode since I have am hard time reconciling them (and the Slavers for that matter) into the Trek universe. In my mind they always belong to Known Space and I'm glad they got left out of STO...
Bethesda gave up support for Legacey and you can't get the patch for on thier website.They gave up on the game after so many complaints.
I wouldn't see this going through as to the coding of Legacey and STO.TMP and prior use emitters not arrays.
To those wo ask for the mods you would need thier permission.
@ misterde3
Interplay was the publisher it was Taldren who made all SFC games and ADB ony does board games not PC although they do have SFB online which is different than a PC.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
Not quite right.
Taldren made SFC2, Orion Pirates and SFC3.
Interplay was both developer and publisher of the first SFC.
Given that SFC2 and OP were mostly full-price addons I'm not sure they did that much.
Also, ADB makes several tabletops, an RPG and a cardgame.
And as I already stated, they'd LIKE to make a PC game but they're not allowed to.
The cooperation with Interplay was the only way to get around that.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Fleet_Battles
"Because of the game's extensive revisions and high-degree of playability, much of the material from the Star Fleet Battles universe was incorporated into video games by Interplay, such as Star Trek: Starfleet Command and Star Trek: Klingon Academy. These games were licensed by Paramount and therefore were allowed to feature situations during the Star Trek movie era. Amarillo Design Bureau's partial license has prohibited them from producing computer games based on their own material and previously published board games, however this has been disputed in the past and is still being contested by legal means. "
'edit'
The Apollo Class appeared in SFC 1, SFC 2, Star trek Shattered universe and Star trek legacy.
It's two different Galaxy class ships blasting a single Galor. The shots come in very quickly, but it's quite easy to see them firing in sequence (first one, then the other)
Incorrect. Picard flat out asks Geordi if they could focus all available phaser power in a single burst, to which the answer was "it would make no difference".
Nope. Watch at 6:05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJWZ5B3F94Q
Clearly the first Galaxy is firing multiple beams from multiple locations on its array
And that has what to do with the Enterprise getting the TRIBBLE pounded out of it?
Star Trek: The Original Grind
Star Trek: The Next Grind
Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
I stand corrected, but it's only two (the argument could easily be made it's creative use of a modified dual beam bank, but I don't personally adhere to that). That's a far cry from the six, seven or even eight you can set off in-game.
Considering you're making the argument that damage to the Enterprise's weapons was the deciding factor in Picard's decision to ram the Scimitar, everything. Weapons were very much still online, just depleted by overuse (phaser banks down to a pitiful level, torpedoes expended etc). If battle damage was the pertinent factor they would have been non-functional, not useless.
I see nothing wrong with the six, seven, or eight that can be fired in game.
In all fairness all Geordi said was "it wouldn't make a difference." He never mentioned why it wouldn't make a difference. Damage to the weapons could still be a factor. We don't know just how many emitters were functioning on the arrays.
My whole argument has really been power and fire arc. As I said in a previous post, if my saucer, dorsal, and strut arrays have a line of sight to the enemy and I have the power, I'm letting loose. I see no need to limit the potential firepower of a ship simply because most of the time on a TV show ships only fired one beam.
Star Trek: The Original Grind
Star Trek: The Next Grind
Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
This is the ship that appeared in Starfleet Command (Labeled USS Akula on the model):
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060816004848/startrek/images/3/3d/USS_Akula.jpg
This is the ship that appeared in "Legacy":
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080112232737/stexpanded/images/1/17/Apollo_Class.jpg
They are similar "kitbashes" but they are not identical.
As a matter of fact, he did say why. The Scimitar's shields were still at well over 60 percent (68% I believe, but I'd have to go back and check the clip) despite taking fire from both Romulan Warbirds and the Enterprise. The latter's phaser arrays were more than capable of firing, but it wouldn't have done any good. Thus the call for ramming speed.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. However, it's moot anyway; PWE isn't going to pay somebody else to license designs from a game that tanked, when they can instead license functionally equivalent designs from fans and/or create their own. If the game had been a massive success, that might make sense; but it wasn't.
Many fans want canon ships. Many fans want certain specific non-canon ships from artists who designed canon ships. Only a tiny subsegment of fans want non-canon ships from games that were roundly panned by critics and had abysmal sales. The game only sold 150k copies; even if you assume 100% of those people play STO, the vast majority of STO players have never seen the game, and it's highly unlikely that all of those people play STO. Why pay another company a licensing fee for a ship nobody's seen, when you can build your own ship nobody's seen for less? Or even better, make a ship that was on screen for a few seconds, under a license you already paid?
ADB has not interset in making a pc game to the best of my knowlege as I know a lot of SFB fans and played SFC with them.I was on Taldren forums back in 04 ..
Starfleet and Klingon Academy have nothing to do with ADB.You are just grasping at straws here.
don't agrue with me as I have been a member of the community for long time now not to mention I am an Admin read my sig.
@kekvin
None of the SFC games appeared in Legacey or TA.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers