why write quality missions and develop a new arc when they can generate cash with a single FE, a que or two, a rep system and a let people gamble for a ship in a lockbox?
I find the implications of this hilarious when STO has been recently seeing more missions, of a higher quality, and faster, then it ever has before.
Anyone remember the year long great content droughts before LoR and DR? Anyone remember back when Cryptic used to do the "Featured Series" mission style where we would get 4-5 mission in one month, but then not get anything else for basically a whole year? Ever since Delta Rising ended they have been churning out new mission content at a regular clip, one that is far faster then what they had before.
What I can't understand, and the point of my OP, is why are so many players OK with that and get so vocal when people ask for more content? It's like the Sky is falling... OMG THEY CAN'T DO MISSIONS, ARE YOU CRAZY? DO YOU WANT TO BANKRUPT THIS COMPANY!!!
Literally no one has actually said this, and the fact that you are trying to straw man everyone who has pointed out basic time tables is rather sad.
Have you been reading the whole thread? Coldnapalm wrote on page 1 "Umm why do many of us on the board support cryptic against requests that will bankrupt them? Because we like this game and we ain't stupid and we realize they need to make MONEY for us to continue to play this game."
why write quality missions and develop a new arc when they can generate cash with a single FE, a que or two, a rep system and a let people gamble for a ship in a lockbox?
I find the implications of this hilarious when STO has been recently seeing more missions, of a higher quality, and faster, then it ever has before.
Anyone remember the year long great content droughts before LoR and DR? Anyone remember back when Cryptic used to do the "Featured Series" mission style where we would get 4-5 mission in one month, but then not get anything else for basically a whole year? Ever since Delta Rising ended they have been churning out new mission content at a regular clip, one that is far faster then what they had before.
What I can't understand, and the point of my OP, is why are so many players OK with that and get so vocal when people ask for more content? It's like the Sky is falling... OMG THEY CAN'T DO MISSIONS, ARE YOU CRAZY? DO YOU WANT TO BANKRUPT THIS COMPANY!!!
Literally no one has actually said this, and the fact that you are trying to straw man everyone who has pointed out basic time tables is rather sad.
They also have been going back and improving old missions.
I've been leveling my new Andorian captain Greye and I noticed several minor tweaks for the better: there are now bits of voice acting by LeVar Burton in the first couple of missions after Azura rescue, they replaced the annoying flashlight drone in What Lies Beneath, they added Doohan's son as Scotty to Night of the Comet. There might have been more updates that I missed.
Unless your game's initials spell "WOW," a "stable monthly subscriber base" won't even keep the lights on at the office. And yes, it's just nostalgia to pretend otherwise.
So you point to one example where it works and use that for the proof it can't work?
Plus I said: "You have to admit that IF they had a stable monthly subscriber base they would PROBABLY put more emphasis on the game-play." So you can keep your attacks to yourself.
Let's say 'Game X' CAN make money with either funding method. Which do you think would give players a better experience? One with a relatively stable monthly income or one that has to push a new shiny object to make money?
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
Unless your game's initials spell "WOW," a "stable monthly subscriber base" won't even keep the lights on at the office. And yes, it's just nostalgia to pretend otherwise.
So you point to one example where it works and use that for the proof it can't work?
Plus I said: "You have to admit that IF they had a stable monthly subscriber base they would PROBABLY put more emphasis on the game-play." So you can keep your attacks to yourself.
Let's say 'Game X' CAN make money with either funding method. Which do you think would give players a better experience? One with a relatively stable monthly income or one that has to push a new shiny object to make money?
The monthly sub model has failed for almost every MMO except WoW, and even WoW also charges for story expansions on top of the sub. So that's not a very plausible. You might as well ask: what if some billionaire donated $100 million to PWE to create STO content, would the game be better? Sure, OK, why not.
Sometimes what Cryptic chooses to publish baffles me. AOY, for example. They do all this work to make it look so beautiful and all they publish is 6 TOS missions, that you can't go back to again. Also, just when your hitting your stride you are forced to leave and come to the current timeline.
Sometimes what Cryptic chooses to publish baffles me. AOY, for example. They do all this work to make it look so beautiful and all they publish is 6 TOS missions, that you can't go back to again. Also, just when your hitting your stride you are forced to leave and come to the current timeline.
I agree it would have been nice to spend more time in that era. They probably decided they needed to split that season between the content only playable by TOS captains and new episodes that existing captains can play. If it was all TOS content then Fed, Romulan and KDF captains would have nothing new to play that year.
> @asuran14 said:
> I could see no real issue with adding to the c-store a set of side-mission packs, though what kind of rewards would be available thru such missions would be something to take into account. More ways of supporting the game is always nice, though things like main-story missions should be free.
>
> Honestly I could go for a sub fee just not the typical static 15 dollar per month sub fee you see in wow, but something more like a sliding scale sub that you get different rewards based on what amount you sub at. Maybe with a starting sub of 5 dollars a month to start with, and then in five dollar increments you get a different set of rewards.
The main reason I play STO (aside from the Trek) is because all missions are available to play without spending money. They start charging for mission packs & I'm gone. I refuse to pay for story missions in this or any other MMO.
An that attitude is exactly why we get less story content/missions in the game, since they get less from creating that content compared to spending those extra resources on creating content they can actually monetize. Main story arc missions I could never see needing to be paid for, but what would be basically side missions I would be fine with (most of all since anyone could get them even via converting dil to zen) without much issue.
Unless your game's initials spell "WOW," a "stable monthly subscriber base" won't even keep the lights on at the office. And yes, it's just nostalgia to pretend otherwise.
So you point to one example where it works and use that for the proof it can't work?
Plus I said: "You have to admit that IF they had a stable monthly subscriber base they would PROBABLY put more emphasis on the game-play." So you can keep your attacks to yourself.
Let's say 'Game X' CAN make money with either funding method. Which do you think would give players a better experience? One with a relatively stable monthly income or one that has to push a new shiny object to make money?
The issue is that even sto still has a sub option, which is not taken/used by many players actually, as such most likely there is just not enough players that feel the game is worth subbing too. A static 15 dollar a month sub like wow is just not something most players want to spent, hell even a 5 dollar sub price tag like I think would be fine is most likely too much as well for most players to invest in the game. Also once the game goes back to a sub model, many players would feel that having to purchase with irl money starships, as well as other things we see in the c-store might need to be redone into a different format as players would feel having to buy them on top of a sub-fee is not acceptable.
I have never understood the apologist attitude of STO can't do missions. Many other games do missions, and I'm not just talking about the hugest sub game ever. There was a time when STO ran a series of FE's those missions delivered in that package were well received.
Yes, but those FE series were few and far between. They did two during the game launch year, one in 2011, and one on 2012. Those were the only new story content for as much as a year at a time.
And these responses bring me to the larger issue of my thread, I would understand a Crytpic response to more content being a cost benefit analysis, but why do players take the same perspective?
Because it leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth when people knowingly ask for unrealistic things.
> @asuran14 said:
> azrael605 wrote: »
>
> > @asuran14 said:
> > I could see no real issue with adding to the c-store a set of side-mission packs, though what kind of rewards would be available thru such missions would be something to take into account. More ways of supporting the game is always nice, though things like main-story missions should be free.
> >
> > Honestly I could go for a sub fee just not the typical static 15 dollar per month sub fee you see in wow, but something more like a sliding scale sub that you get different rewards based on what amount you sub at. Maybe with a starting sub of 5 dollars a month to start with, and then in five dollar increments you get a different set of rewards.
>
> The main reason I play STO (aside from the Trek) is because all missions are available to play without spending money. They start charging for mission packs & I'm gone. I refuse to pay for story missions in this or any other MMO.
>
>
>
>
> An that attitude is exactly why we get less story content/missions in the game, since they get less from creating that content compared to spending those extra resources on creating content they can actually monetize. Main story arc missions I could never see needing to be paid for, but what would be basically side missions I would be fine with (most of all since anyone could get them even via converting dil to zen) without much issue.
We are getting much more story content/missions now than we did when I started playing, or anytime after that until LoR, which was followed by another drought, then eventually DR, which many people created overwrought dramatics about nothing for. Since DR we have had a much more consistent release of new missions/story than ever before. You should fact check.
Actually we have gotten about 25 less missions so far from delta on wards compared to what we got leading up to delta, so no it is not that we have gotten more content just a more steady flow of content. Alot of the time that could have resulted in actually getting more content was spent on reworking/updating older story arcs, if some content like side-mission packs were monetized than potentially we would have had even more content produced than was leading up to delta.
So, you're comparing content release between a 4.5 year period (Launch to DR) and a 3.5 year period (DR to now), and saying the latter period comes up short? Sounds about right. Maybe once the post DR period reaches 4.5 years you can do a new comparison and tell us which one falls short.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
So, you're comparing content release between a 4.5 year period (Launch to DR) and a 3.5 year period (DR to now), and saying the latter period comes up short? Sounds about right. Maybe once the post DR period reaches 4.5 years you can do a new comparison and tell us which one falls short.
Though even that is unfair to post-DR unless you add bonus points to all of the old episodes that were improved, like the 4 I mentioned above.
So, you're comparing content release between a 4.5 year period (Launch to DR) and a 3.5 year period (DR to now), and saying the latter period comes up short? Sounds about right. Maybe once the post DR period reaches 4.5 years you can do a new comparison and tell us which one falls short.
Though even that is unfair to post-DR unless you add bonus points to all of the old episodes that were improved, like the 4 I mentioned above.
Of course! Work is work. And a revamped episode is essentially a new episode, so they should definitely count.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
So, you're comparing content release between a 4.5 year period (Launch to DR) and a 3.5 year period (DR to now), and saying the latter period comes up short? Sounds about right. Maybe once the post DR period reaches 4.5 years you can do a new comparison and tell us which one falls short.
Well they would need to add 25 missions in a single year to come up to being par with pre-delta totals, even if we remove the reworked content from the equation, than we still have a 10 to 15 mission gap that even in a year would be hard to close. Though I even said that the fact they spent resources an time on updating the old missions, the split would be much closer, yet still of course less than pre-delta times by a fair margin. The fact is that if they could actually make money directly off developing missions the number of mission we get would go up most likely, and revamps/reworks might be quite abit more common place to be done.
We've seen content that was rushed, or buggy, or unbalanced. We've seen content that just didn't make sense in the context it was released. We've seen content you couldn't complete 'because issues'. We've seen content that had obvious exploits that then turned out to bite a lot of people on the tuckus because they didn't realize they were 'exploiting' the content by playing it.
(Not saying all these cases came from STO btw, but it's had many similar situations.)
So many issues in STO that are relatively minor by F2P MMO standards STO players just raise the biggest stink about. Japorigate was so minor. Other F2P MMOs deal with server-wide rollbacks all the time, sometimes a whole week's worth of effort, yet when just a small slice of the community gets a few days of exp rolled back, an explosion of entitled whining ensues. It's ridiculous.
The very fact that STO actually managed to survive for EIGHT YEARS says that it's better than most other F2Ps out there. Others are too buggy to even survive at all. All I see from STO players is ungratefulness and entitlement.
So, you're comparing content release between a 4.5 year period (Launch to DR) and a 3.5 year period (DR to now), and saying the latter period comes up short? Sounds about right. Maybe once the post DR period reaches 4.5 years you can do a new comparison and tell us which one falls short.
Well they would need to add 25 missions in a single year to come up to being par with pre-delta totals, even if we remove the reworked content from the equation, than we still have a 10 to 15 mission gap that even in a year would be hard to close. Though I even said that the fact they spent resources an time on updating the old missions, the split would be much closer, yet still of course less than pre-delta times by a fair margin. The fact is that if they could actually make money directly off developing missions the number of mission we get would go up most likely, and revamps/reworks might be quite abit more common place to be done.
Now here's another question I must ask, in your pre-DR content are you including missions that we had then, but are now no longer available because they were removed, as content?
I think there's also a false impression that the only thing keeping them from making more missions is money, because it's being said here to monetize mission content to fund future mission content. There's still the time factor. Making more money available does not make more time available. Story/dialogue writers, mission designers, environmental artists are not the same people as ship artists and system designers, and they wouldn't be scaling back on ships in order to put those people on mission development, because it's not their area. And before you say "use the money to hire more people," yes, they might hire *A* writer or *AN* artist, but not really enough to produce the increased level of content that you're asking for. Because that new hire's salary (and benefits) is going to cut into the profits, and charging for mission content, which becomes a divergence from the business model, they are going to want to show a profit to justify such a divergence.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
> @baddmoonrizin said: > asuran14 wrote: » > > baddmoonrizin wrote: » > > So, you're comparing content release between a 4.5 year period (Launch to DR) and a 3.5 year period (DR to now), and saying the latter period comes up short? Sounds about right. Maybe once the post DR period reaches 4.5 years you can do a new comparison and tell us which one falls short. > > > > > Well they would need to add 25 missions in a single year to come up to being par with pre-delta totals, even if we remove the reworked content from the equation, than we still have a 10 to 15 mission gap that even in a year would be hard to close. Though I even said that the fact they spent resources an time on updating the old missions, the split would be much closer, yet still of course less than pre-delta times by a fair margin. The fact is that if they could actually make money directly off developing missions the number of mission we get would go up most likely, and revamps/reworks might be quite abit more common place to be done. > > > > > Now here's another question I must ask, in your pre-DR content are you including missions that we had then, but are now no longer available because they were removed, as content? > > I think there's also a false impression that the only thing keeping them from making more missions is money, because it's being said here to monetize mission content to fund future mission content. There's still the time factor. Making more money available does not make more time available. Story/dialogue writers, mission designers, environmental artists are not the same people as ship artists and system designers, and they wouldn't be scaling back on ships in order to put those people on mission development, because it's not their area. And before you say "use the money to hire more people," yes, they might hire *A* writer or *AN* artist, but not really enough to produce the increased level of content that you're asking for. Because that new hire's salary (and benefits) is going to cut into the profits, and charging for mission content, which becomes a divergence from the business model, they are going to want to show a profit to justify such a divergence.
Also, they need to get voice teams in to do recordings, which, since they're using union actors now, is potentially a lot harder to do
The very fact that STO actually managed to survive for EIGHT YEARS says that it's better than most other F2Ps out there. Others are too buggy to even survive at all. All I see from STO players is ungratefulness and entitlement.
Not really a valid argument. STO being Trek makes the players a bit more loyal.
If this was some no name space game, it might have died off years ago.
Or if someone had made a competing Trek MMO, STO might have died.
Same reason they can crank out super-hero console games that (for the most part) suck, there is a % of fans that will buy it no matter what.
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
So, you're comparing content release between a 4.5 year period (Launch to DR) and a 3.5 year period (DR to now), and saying the latter period comes up short? Sounds about right. Maybe once the post DR period reaches 4.5 years you can do a new comparison and tell us which one falls short.
Well they would need to add 25 missions in a single year to come up to being par with pre-delta totals, even if we remove the reworked content from the equation, than we still have a 10 to 15 mission gap that even in a year would be hard to close. Though I even said that the fact they spent resources an time on updating the old missions, the split would be much closer, yet still of course less than pre-delta times by a fair margin. The fact is that if they could actually make money directly off developing missions the number of mission we get would go up most likely, and revamps/reworks might be quite abit more common place to be done.
Now here's another question I must ask, in your pre-DR content are you including missions that we had then, but are now no longer available because they were removed, as content?
I think there's also a false impression that the only thing keeping them from making more missions is money, because it's being said here to monetize mission content to fund future mission content. There's still the time factor. Making more money available does not make more time available. Story/dialogue writers, mission designers, environmental artists are not the same people as ship artists and system designers, and they wouldn't be scaling back on ships in order to put those people on mission development, because it's not their area. And before you say "use the money to hire more people," yes, they might hire *A* writer or *AN* artist, but not really enough to produce the increased level of content that you're asking for. Because that new hire's salary (and benefits) is going to cut into the profits, and charging for mission content, which becomes a divergence from the business model, they are going to want to show a profit to justify such a divergence.
No of course not, as I took into account that alot of the added factor of the reworks streamlined the content for progression. Largely you could also say that for every one reworked mission there was about two missions condensed on average I would say. Also you never know how much actual game-play content was lost via the rework/streamlining comparatively without actually being able to play thru an compare them both. If you took into account the pre-rework amount of pre-delta it would be higher of course even more so.
Well that is the thing of course showing that it is worth the investment, but without attempting it there is no real way of determining that. No atleast a year would need to pass so that they might actually show enough profit (if they do) to warrant bringing in anything beyond two people at max. Even if they did bring in one writer as well as a artist, that might be enough to show if such a investment could be viable. It also depends on the length of the missions, if they are using old or building new assets, and how many missions would be in the packs. A group of three relatively short missions might be doable either by a pair of devs, or done on off-time (we have had some devs do this) that would be reimbursed via the selling of the pack.
Sometimes what Cryptic chooses to publish baffles me. AOY, for example. They do all this work to make it look so beautiful and all they publish is 6 TOS missions, that you can't go back to again. Also, just when your hitting your stride you are forced to leave and come to the current timeline.
I get the feeling that they wanted to do more, but didn't have time for more due to deadlines.
Basically it's because we lack a direct line to the devs. If we had one we could more easily make demands as customers.
The sheer lack of consumer protection in this fields sucks!
Recently I composed a post that expressed my hopes for more mission content and meaningful rewards for running missions. it disappeared in less than 10 minutes. Why is it wrong to express a dislike for the current content meta of an FE that has to be repeated to earn rewards, a rep system that produces a que that once rep is filled is never played? I will restate it again Devs, you have done a great job improving this game, I and others would love more mission content. Please do not say go play foundry, their is a difference between dev created content and fan content as well as issues with reward for game time. I would love seasons that stop focusing on a particular system and instead push out lots of content and gives out meaningful rewards for that content. wanting to play the game more is a good thing.
why write quality missions and develop a new arc when they can generate cash with a single FE, a que or two, a rep system and a let people gamble for a ship in a lockbox?
I find the implications of this hilarious when STO has been recently seeing more missions, of a higher quality, and faster, then it ever has before.
Anyone remember the year long great content droughts before LoR and DR? Anyone remember back when Cryptic used to do the "Featured Series" mission style where we would get 4-5 mission in one month, but then not get anything else for basically a whole year? Ever since Delta Rising ended they have been churning out new mission content at a regular clip, one that is far faster then what they had before.
What I can't understand, and the point of my OP, is why are so many players OK with that and get so vocal when people ask for more content? It's like the Sky is falling... OMG THEY CAN'T DO MISSIONS, ARE YOU CRAZY? DO YOU WANT TO BANKRUPT THIS COMPANY!!!
Literally no one has actually said this, and the fact that you are trying to straw man everyone who has pointed out basic time tables is rather sad.
Have you been reading the whole thread? Coldnapalm wrote on page 1 "Umm why do many of us on the board support cryptic against requests that will bankrupt them? Because we like this game and we ain't stupid and we realize they need to make MONEY for us to continue to play this game."
Saying that your suggestion of make more content and reduce things that actually make money is an idiotic idea that will cause them to have to close down is NOT THE SAME AS NEVER MAKE ANY CONTENT EVER as you so well strawmanned. So no, I never said what you claimed I said. Wanna try again?
That is literally a quote from your post. I'm not strawmanning anything. I don't know missions will bankrupt this company, and neither does any other player. And I've acknowledge they make content, albeit they have set the bar very low and learned to maximize profit from that content. I've never said they don't make any content. I've stated several times they have it down to a science. New Content= 1 Featured episode, a rep system, 1 que (maybe two if they do ground) and a lockbox ship. Here is the thing... all the profit they make is from the lockbox ship, that doesn't have to be tied to a que. They could, if they chose, do a story arc with a lockbox ship and still make their money, but they chose not to,because it will lower profits. My whole argument has been consistent. As a company that is their right, but players shouldn't defend it and attack people who point out the low bar.
I'm just going to say it, a big reason this game is still around is because it's Star Trek, if it were any other IP I think it would have sunset-ed a while ago. Not because of graphics, ui or game play,because those have all improved, it would sunset because of content.
> @somtaawkhar said:
> the1tigglet wrote: »
>
> Basically it's because we lack a direct line to the devs. If we had one we could more easily make demands as customers.
>
>
>
> And the devs would ignore them like most companies ignore what customers actually say because most costumers have no idea how business actually works, and thus, their demands aren't worth listening too.
As is right & proper.
Dan Stahl got in a lot of trouble for "over communicating" with playerbase. Since he left as Executive Producer they have been much less communicative.
Comments
Have you been reading the whole thread? Coldnapalm wrote on page 1 "Umm why do many of us on the board support cryptic against requests that will bankrupt them? Because we like this game and we ain't stupid and we realize they need to make MONEY for us to continue to play this game."
They also have been going back and improving old missions.
I've been leveling my new Andorian captain Greye and I noticed several minor tweaks for the better: there are now bits of voice acting by LeVar Burton in the first couple of missions after Azura rescue, they replaced the annoying flashlight drone in What Lies Beneath, they added Doohan's son as Scotty to Night of the Comet. There might have been more updates that I missed.
So you point to one example where it works and use that for the proof it can't work?
Plus I said: "You have to admit that IF they had a stable monthly subscriber base they would PROBABLY put more emphasis on the game-play." So you can keep your attacks to yourself.
Let's say 'Game X' CAN make money with either funding method. Which do you think would give players a better experience? One with a relatively stable monthly income or one that has to push a new shiny object to make money?
The monthly sub model has failed for almost every MMO except WoW, and even WoW also charges for story expansions on top of the sub. So that's not a very plausible. You might as well ask: what if some billionaire donated $100 million to PWE to create STO content, would the game be better? Sure, OK, why not.
I agree it would have been nice to spend more time in that era. They probably decided they needed to split that season between the content only playable by TOS captains and new episodes that existing captains can play. If it was all TOS content then Fed, Romulan and KDF captains would have nothing new to play that year.
An that attitude is exactly why we get less story content/missions in the game, since they get less from creating that content compared to spending those extra resources on creating content they can actually monetize. Main story arc missions I could never see needing to be paid for, but what would be basically side missions I would be fine with (most of all since anyone could get them even via converting dil to zen) without much issue.
The issue is that even sto still has a sub option, which is not taken/used by many players actually, as such most likely there is just not enough players that feel the game is worth subbing too. A static 15 dollar a month sub like wow is just not something most players want to spent, hell even a 5 dollar sub price tag like I think would be fine is most likely too much as well for most players to invest in the game. Also once the game goes back to a sub model, many players would feel that having to purchase with irl money starships, as well as other things we see in the c-store might need to be redone into a different format as players would feel having to buy them on top of a sub-fee is not acceptable.
Yes, but those FE series were few and far between. They did two during the game launch year, one in 2011, and one on 2012. Those were the only new story content for as much as a year at a time.
Because it leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth when people knowingly ask for unrealistic things.
Actually we have gotten about 25 less missions so far from delta on wards compared to what we got leading up to delta, so no it is not that we have gotten more content just a more steady flow of content. Alot of the time that could have resulted in actually getting more content was spent on reworking/updating older story arcs, if some content like side-mission packs were monetized than potentially we would have had even more content produced than was leading up to delta.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Though even that is unfair to post-DR unless you add bonus points to all of the old episodes that were improved, like the 4 I mentioned above.
Of course! Work is work. And a revamped episode is essentially a new episode, so they should definitely count.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Well they would need to add 25 missions in a single year to come up to being par with pre-delta totals, even if we remove the reworked content from the equation, than we still have a 10 to 15 mission gap that even in a year would be hard to close. Though I even said that the fact they spent resources an time on updating the old missions, the split would be much closer, yet still of course less than pre-delta times by a fair margin. The fact is that if they could actually make money directly off developing missions the number of mission we get would go up most likely, and revamps/reworks might be quite abit more common place to be done.
The very fact that STO actually managed to survive for EIGHT YEARS says that it's better than most other F2Ps out there. Others are too buggy to even survive at all. All I see from STO players is ungratefulness and entitlement.
Now here's another question I must ask, in your pre-DR content are you including missions that we had then, but are now no longer available because they were removed, as content?
I think there's also a false impression that the only thing keeping them from making more missions is money, because it's being said here to monetize mission content to fund future mission content. There's still the time factor. Making more money available does not make more time available. Story/dialogue writers, mission designers, environmental artists are not the same people as ship artists and system designers, and they wouldn't be scaling back on ships in order to put those people on mission development, because it's not their area. And before you say "use the money to hire more people," yes, they might hire *A* writer or *AN* artist, but not really enough to produce the increased level of content that you're asking for. Because that new hire's salary (and benefits) is going to cut into the profits, and charging for mission content, which becomes a divergence from the business model, they are going to want to show a profit to justify such a divergence.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
> asuran14 wrote: »
>
> baddmoonrizin wrote: »
>
> So, you're comparing content release between a 4.5 year period (Launch to DR) and a 3.5 year period (DR to now), and saying the latter period comes up short? Sounds about right. Maybe once the post DR period reaches 4.5 years you can do a new comparison and tell us which one falls short.
>
>
>
>
> Well they would need to add 25 missions in a single year to come up to being par with pre-delta totals, even if we remove the reworked content from the equation, than we still have a 10 to 15 mission gap that even in a year would be hard to close. Though I even said that the fact they spent resources an time on updating the old missions, the split would be much closer, yet still of course less than pre-delta times by a fair margin. The fact is that if they could actually make money directly off developing missions the number of mission we get would go up most likely, and revamps/reworks might be quite abit more common place to be done.
>
>
>
>
> Now here's another question I must ask, in your pre-DR content are you including missions that we had then, but are now no longer available because they were removed, as content?
>
> I think there's also a false impression that the only thing keeping them from making more missions is money, because it's being said here to monetize mission content to fund future mission content. There's still the time factor. Making more money available does not make more time available. Story/dialogue writers, mission designers, environmental artists are not the same people as ship artists and system designers, and they wouldn't be scaling back on ships in order to put those people on mission development, because it's not their area. And before you say "use the money to hire more people," yes, they might hire *A* writer or *AN* artist, but not really enough to produce the increased level of content that you're asking for. Because that new hire's salary (and benefits) is going to cut into the profits, and charging for mission content, which becomes a divergence from the business model, they are going to want to show a profit to justify such a divergence.
Also, they need to get voice teams in to do recordings, which, since they're using union actors now, is potentially a lot harder to do
Not really a valid argument. STO being Trek makes the players a bit more loyal.
If this was some no name space game, it might have died off years ago.
Or if someone had made a competing Trek MMO, STO might have died.
Same reason they can crank out super-hero console games that (for the most part) suck, there is a % of fans that will buy it no matter what.
No of course not, as I took into account that alot of the added factor of the reworks streamlined the content for progression. Largely you could also say that for every one reworked mission there was about two missions condensed on average I would say. Also you never know how much actual game-play content was lost via the rework/streamlining comparatively without actually being able to play thru an compare them both. If you took into account the pre-rework amount of pre-delta it would be higher of course even more so.
Well that is the thing of course showing that it is worth the investment, but without attempting it there is no real way of determining that. No atleast a year would need to pass so that they might actually show enough profit (if they do) to warrant bringing in anything beyond two people at max. Even if they did bring in one writer as well as a artist, that might be enough to show if such a investment could be viable. It also depends on the length of the missions, if they are using old or building new assets, and how many missions would be in the packs. A group of three relatively short missions might be doable either by a pair of devs, or done on off-time (we have had some devs do this) that would be reimbursed via the selling of the pack.
My character Tsin'xing
The sheer lack of consumer protection in this fields sucks!
I'm just going to say it, a big reason this game is still around is because it's Star Trek, if it were any other IP I think it would have sunset-ed a while ago. Not because of graphics, ui or game play,because those have all improved, it would sunset because of content.
Dan Stahl got in a lot of trouble for "over communicating" with playerbase. Since he left as Executive Producer they have been much less communicative.