test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

So what's happening to the Tier 5 ships tomorrow?

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
In the Expanding Universe video, it says "Tier 5 ships" but... shows the normal ships, what exactly is happening to them when the patch comes?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    SYLiam wrote: »
    In the Expanding Universe video, it says "Tier 5 ships" but... shows the normal ships, what exactly is happening to them when the patch comes?

    There are going to be some new Tier 5 variants added to the C-store for both Klingons and Federation as far as I know. There are also some new bridges, which will also be in the c-store I think.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    http://www.startrekonline.com/season_one

    I hate to say this but if it takes Cstore sales to get really cool stuff then its better than nothing. I don't really like micro transactions. If they want more profit they should get more subscribers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I'm all for it. If making more money from microtransactions adds more to the game then I'm happy. This is why I have 5000 cryptic points.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    didn't jim(one of the devs) say he hated microtransactions? so he adds more? -confused-
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    didn't jim(one of the devs) say he hated microtransactions? so he adds more? -confused-

    Yes, you are confused. It was Jack (Emmert, one of the head honchos of the company). Not this mythical Jim. And he said it years ago, in a totally different context and conversation.

    It was dug up recently and blitzed around these forums in an effort to spin doctor and use the internet in ways that some folks love to use the internet.

    And judging by your post, it seems to have worked rather effectively.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    There is a limit to what else they can offer in the C-Store that I would bite on.

    A Tier 5 Constitution or Constitution Refit, yes, I'd buy that. What the heck, I've already got hundreds of C-Store points I didn't pay for to spend anyway. New variants of the other ships? No. However, I will be TRIBBLE off if they did new T5 ships that were less hideous than the initial ones and made them pay only.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    Yes, you are confused. It was Jack (Emmert, one of the head honchos of the company). Not this mythical Jim. And he said it years ago, in a totally different context and conversation.

    It was dug up recently and blitzed around these forums in an effort to spin doctor and use the internet in ways that some folks love to use the internet.

    And judging by your post, it seems to have worked rather effectively.

    And that was the point.

    You're welcome! :P

    Notice tho, lots of things are said then changed... LOTS.

    Back to topic, it's pretty sad that I have to buy "neat looking ship stuff" that should have been included in the game!! As if my $14.99 isn't enough!

    I wonder if they just held the stuff in development so they could charge it later? cough cough Klingon and Ferengi!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I would rather have MTs then pay 30 bucks a month to play a game. If sub prices had kept up with inflation that would be about what we were paying.

    MTs let player who want extras pay for extras and the player who don't, don't have to buy them or be burdened with them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    you would think they would have put the bridges in for testing on the tribble, but I saw no new fed bridges.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    STYXTRIBE wrote:
    http://www.startrekonline.com/season_one

    I hate to say this but if it takes Cstore sales to get really cool stuff then its better than nothing. I don't really like micro transactions. If they want more profit they should get more subscribers.

    There's a choice:
    either we have as much variety as possible - the developers being able to make virtually anything we want after the content hump

    or

    we have fewer options because everyone gets them free.

    It's a business, afterall. They have a ton on their plate before adding Species 24728936498329 content.

    Having it as a paid option allows developers to create more with the promise that essentials are free and some cool stuff might cost a little.

    Besides, anyone else notice their plethora of unused points. Save it for what you want.

    The invisible hand can shape what developers think about adding free and paid in the future.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Morgomir wrote: »
    you would think they would have put the bridges in for testing on the tribble, but I saw no new fed bridges.

    Which is why I fear this stuff breaking as badly as the preorder stuff did. There was no testing of that in closed or open betas either.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    mrlee95 wrote: »
    And that was the point.

    You're welcome! :P

    Notice tho, lots of things are said then changed... LOTS.

    Back to topic, it's pretty sad that I have to buy "neat looking ship stuff" that should have been included in the game!! As if my $14.99 isn't enough!

    I wonder if they just held the stuff in development so they could charge it later? cough cough Klingon and Ferengi!

    I spent more than $14.99 on lunch today. I don't see why you think your $14.99 a month should give you everything.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Pasquatic wrote:
    I spent more than $14.99 on lunch today. I don't see why you think your $14.99 a month should give you everything.

    Holy TRIBBLE wth did you eat for $15?!!?

    Sorry I am used to WoW/LotRO, where my $14.99 could give me everything if I wanted it.

    Also C-Store is not canon!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    AtomicFB wrote:
    I would rather have MTs then pay 30 bucks a month to play a game. If sub prices had kept up with inflation that would be about what we were paying.

    MTs let player who want extras pay for extras and the player who don't, don't have to buy them or be burdened with them.

    ROFL NO. surely you are not THAT delusional my friend.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    mrlee95 wrote: »
    Holy TRIBBLE wth did you eat for $15?!!?

    $15 for lunch is a bit pricey for something like an everyday work lunch, but considering the standards of living for come cities either in the U.S. or whatever, it really shouldn't be surprising.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I would rather have MTs then pay 30 bucks a month to play a game. If sub prices had kept up with inflation that would be about what we were paying.

    MTs let player who want extras pay for extras and the player who don't, don't have to buy them or be burdened with them

    I see this nonsense drummed up every now and again, but that's all it really is. Nonsense.

    There are several fairly successful MMO's that don't operate under an RMT system. This TRIBBLE about "well it allows dev's to reinvest that much more in the game!" is a straw man. If the industry as a whole would resonate even a basic understanding that quality trumps quantity any day of the week (and twice on Sunday's) they'd spend more time with individual title's that were capable of standing on their own merit as opposed to offering monetary frills to support their multitude of poorly executed games.

    Star Trek, of all titles, should have been more than capable of holding its own without having to resort to micro-transactions. Whether the fault should lie with Cryptic, Atari or CBS, this game was not given its due, and now the customer's will be footing the bill to fund development of a title that was given far less than it deserved in time and manpower.

    The scariest thing of all is the idea that people are rushing to defend the practice. I find that sad.

    By the way, there's no such thing as being "burdened" by an excess of additional content such as what we're likely to find in the C-store. You can argue whether or not the time required to develop those items were worthwhile, but few will turn down anything commonly perceived as "free" regardless of individual taste toward said items.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    wildcat84 wrote: »
    Which is why I fear this stuff breaking as badly as the preorder stuff did. There was no testing of that in closed or open betas either.

    If I remember, it's because the C-Store doesn't work on Tribble correctly.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I don't mind if they offer things that are "cosmetic" in nature for ships. If they start selling whole ships.....I am done with this game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Gruug wrote: »
    I don't mind if they offer things that are "cosmetic" in nature for ships. If they start selling whole ships.....I am done with this game.

    guess you are done as of today then, good luck in your future endeavers
Sign In or Register to comment.