test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Star Trek Online General Discussion

Free version vs Paid version

bartlett24bartlett24 Member Posts: 53 Arc User
edited December 2014 in Star Trek Online General Discussion
I've been playing the free version of STO and I was wondering if there is a difference in the visual quality of the game between the free and paid-for versions.

Let me explain: I sometimes watch youtube videos of people playing STO to get pointers, etc and whenever I do, the visual quality of what their playing is so much better than what I experience when I play i.e. much sharper images, clearer, brighter colors, the works. Think VHS vs DVD

I also thought maybe it was just my computer and system (Toshiba Satellite L505D-S5983, 32 bit) but I've started to wonder if maybe the free version just doesn't have a visual quality as good as the one you get with a subscription.

Does anyone have any insight into this? Do you get a better visual presentation with the paid version? Or is it just my computer/system isn't that good?
Post edited by bartlett24 on

Comments

  • lordkhoraklordkhorak Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    There is no difference in what graphics options there are between free and paid. It'll always look only as good as your computer can handle. I'm not aware of any FTP game in existence that restricts graphics in such a fashion.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • rahmkota19rahmkota19 Member Posts: 1,929 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    There is absolutely no transaction for improved visuals.

    I'm not sure to what "paid version" you even are referring to. If its a subscription, then no. If its a Zen ship, then no. If its anything, then no.



    Graphics are determined by your settings and the quality of your machine.
    YcqoBVU.gif
    Join the Deltas today!
  • grouchyotakugrouchyotaku Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    bartlett24 wrote: »
    ...
    Does anyone have any insight into this? Do you get a better visual presentation with the paid version? Or is it just my computer/system isn't that good?

    Its just your computer system... The STO Client is the same, regardless if its for a paid 'Gold' account, or a F2P Silver account. And you can log-in to multiple accounts with the same STO Client, regardless of their status...
  • stoutesstoutes Member Posts: 4,219 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    And don't forget to update your gfx drivers. When I finally updated mine, the game looked epicly better.
    maxvitor wrote: »
    Nerf is OP, plz nerf
    That's quite the paradox, how could you nerf nerf when the nerf is nerfed. But how would the nerf be nerfed when the nerf is nerfed? This allows the nerf not to be nerfed since the nerf is nerfed? But if the nerf isn't nerfed, it could still nerf nerfs. But as soon as the nerf is nerfed, the nerf power is lost. So paradoxally it the nerf nerf lost its nerf, while it's still nerfed, which cannot be because the nerf was unable to nerf.

    I call it, the Stoutes paradox.
  • jornadojornado Member Posts: 918 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    bartlett24 wrote: »
    I've been playing the free version of STO and I was wondering if there is a difference in the visual quality of the game between the free and paid-for versions.

    Let me explain: I sometimes watch youtube videos of people playing STO to get pointers, etc and whenever I do, the visual quality of what their playing is so much better than what I experience when I play i.e. much sharper images, clearer, brighter colors, the works. Think VHS vs DVD

    I also thought maybe it was just my computer and system (Toshiba Satellite L505D-S5983, 32 bit) but I've started to wonder if maybe the free version just doesn't have a visual quality as good as the one you get with a subscription.

    Does anyone have any insight into this? Do you get a better visual presentation with the paid version? Or is it just my computer/system isn't that good?

    No, the game content and assets are exactly the same, free or paid.

    And even if your computer isn't "good" if you turn up all the settings it should still look as good as anything you see, it will just run like garbage.

    And yes, that PC, although within the games minimum specs range, is not now, nor ever was designed for gaming. If you crank the settings to max, you are going to get a slideshow on there.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    lored2death wrote: »
    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.
  • bartlett24bartlett24 Member Posts: 53 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    I appreciate the quick replies folks. At least I now know what I need to focus on as far as getting a better visual. Frankly, I just need a better computer. Nice to get a quick and straight to the point answer in here. Thanks
  • jornadojornado Member Posts: 918 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    bartlett24 wrote: »
    I appreciate the quick replies folks. At least I now know what I need to focus on as far as getting a better visual. Frankly, I just need a better computer. Nice to get a quick and straight to the point answer in here. Thanks

    Word of advice - if you don't need it to be a laptop (for instance, if the things you mainly use that laptop for are non-gaming, for which purposes it will suffice for some years yet), look into building your own system.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jDXbYuNf_s

    For a good low price guide that's still relevant.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    lored2death wrote: »
    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.
  • jaguarskxjaguarskx Member Posts: 5,945 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Are you looking to for a desktop PC or another laptop?

    The Toshiba Satellite L505D-S5983 is a pretty old laptop so it is not a surprise STO does not look good. Both CPU and integrated graphics performance has improved a lot since your laptop was new. So even if you get a non gaming laptop with an Intel HD 4400 graphics you are going to see better performance.
  • jornadojornado Member Posts: 918 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    jaguarskx wrote: »
    Are you looking to for a desktop PC or another laptop?

    The Toshiba Satellite L505D-S5983 is a pretty old laptop so it is not a surprise STO does not look good. Both CPU and integrated graphics performance has improved a lot since your laptop was new. So even if you get a non gaming laptop with an Intel HD 4400 graphics you are going to see better performance.

    Aye, even my Asus Transformer T100 with an Atom CPU and HD4000 graphics plays STO reasonably well on lowered settings.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    lored2death wrote: »
    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.
  • jaguarskxjaguarskx Member Posts: 5,945 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Of course I do recommend a dedicated graphics chip for playing games on with a laptop if you can squeeze it into your budget.

    The youtube videos you see (like from Brent Justice; a.k.a. "The Doctor") STO being played are likely using a high end desktop PC that no laptop can touch.
  • jornadojornado Member Posts: 918 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    jaguarskx wrote: »
    Of course I do recommend a dedicated graphics chip for playing games on with a laptop if you can squeeze it into your budget.

    The youtube videos you see (like from Brent Justice; a.k.a. "The Doctor") STO being played are likely using a high end desktop PC that no laptop can touch.

    Yes indeed, but no need to go crazy - STO is a 4+ year old game on a 6+ year old engine.

    A high end card from 2012 will play everything maxed at 1080/60 unless you are in one of the poorly optimized zones or have a lot of UI elements turned on - in that case, even dual GTX 970s/980s won't get you a decent consistent framerate.

    Edit: To the OP I also just thought of something - STO may not be running at the native resolution of your display - the fuzziness you describe sounds like something you will experience in that scenario - check to make sure STO is running at 1366x768 resolution.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    lored2death wrote: »
    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.
  • jaguarskxjaguarskx Member Posts: 5,945 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    Laptops with dedicated graphics chips are still relatively inexpensive. For example, in the US a laptop with a nVidia GT 840m can be purchased for less than $700. Of course, if the mentality is "cheaper is better", then with the sales going on in the US a laptop with a Core i3-4030u and the Intel HD 4400 can be purchased for around $400. It all depends on the budget. Obviously, a laptop with the GT 840m will allow you to increase graphics quality while still providing good enough performance.
  • vetteguy904vetteguy904 Member Posts: 3,941 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    there are few if any laptops that are going to be able to run STO as well as an i7 W64bit OS with a gtx770 video card. even if you get a laptop that has an i7 and a comparable graphics platform, it's still going to be slower because of the bus architecture. the laptop won't scream full bore because it would suck the battery dry in 30 minutes or less
    sig.jpg
  • jornadojornado Member Posts: 918 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    vetteguy904 wrote: »
    there are few if any laptops that are going to be able to run STO as well as an i7 W64bit OS with a gtx770 video card. even if you get a laptop that has an i7 and a comparable graphics platform, it's still going to be slower because of the bus architecture. the laptop won't scream full bore because it would suck the battery dry in 30 minutes or less

    Yeah, but that is so way beyond overkill for STO it's not even funny.

    It runs on a Phenom II dual core with SLI 9600 GTs at 1080/60 as long as PhysX is off and you stay away from the DQ and some of the fluidic zones.

    I currently use dual GTX 480s and it runs like a charm - except when lots of GUI is present - and even people with cards like dual GTX 970s drop to 19 FPS just opening the rep window.

    STO needs, at most, a 560 Ti to run maxed out with 2x AA at 1080/60.

    The problem is that the GUI guts framerates like a rabid targ. Whether you run a 7 year old card, or a brand new top-of-the-line Insane-o-GPU.

    Edit: Pre-LoR I was able to run it on my old "vanity" rig - an AMD FX60 dual core with 2gb of DDR and SLI'd NVidia 6600 GTs. I was able to pull playable 30+ FPS at 720 most of the time. On 10 year old GPUs. STO does not require a powerhouse PC. The GUI does, but the 3d engine does not. As to why I kept that machine - it cost nearly $3000 when I built it, and I'll be damned if it's ever getting tossed.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    lored2death wrote: »
    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.
  • garaks31garaks31 Member Posts: 2,845 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    options -- display -- resolution scale to max ;)
    tmprl.jpg?width=998&height=499

    https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1249570/axanar-locks-in-start-date-for-filming
  • giveroffacialsgiveroffacials Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2014
    I can vouch for it looking great on a gtx-780m dedicated laptop graphics.
    Space the final frontier. These are the voyages of [your name here] on a five year mission to gain one level after the delta rising xp nerf.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sign In or Register to comment.