Rumor: Star Trek Online Might Boldly Become Free

Digikid

New member
Dec 29, 2007
1,030
0
0
I would play it if it were free.....but only then.

You know my opinion on pay to play games.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Wow. They keep finding new and more innovative ways to make me glad I never bought the thing. I'm waiting for the "The newly revised Terms of Service means that lifetime subscribers will receive a mandatory punch in the face" announcement.
 

Timbydude

Crime-Solving Rank 11 Paladin
Jul 15, 2009
958
0
0
vansau said:
Mr. Mike said:
vansau said:
Free-to-play MMOGs have proven to be financially viable, based on examples like browser-based titles like Farmville and the more hardcore games like Dungeons & Dragons Online.
Why is Guild Wars never referenced as a "free-to-play" MMO? Doesn't Dungeons & Dragons Online require a single purchase to own the game, then you don't have to do the subscription thing until later on? Guild Wars has always been "pay once, now you actually own the game", yet I never see it referenced.

/endguildwarsfanboyrant
You make a good point... for those of us who aren't too familiar with the game, is it similar to WoW or STO? I seem to recall it played more like a single-player RPG with some multiplayer elements thrown in, but that's an impression that's about 5 years or so old.
I've never played it, but know a couple people who do. It's basically Guild Wars-esque in that you go around instances (dungeons) with a party that you find in specified "hub" areas.

However, I'm pretty sure that DDO is now completely free if you choose it to be (it used to have a subscription fee / purchase price, but Turbine recently made it free-to-play). There's no initial purchase, even. There are microtransactions and optional subscriptions if you want better items, but it's possible to play the entire game for free. Obviously, this separates it from Guild Wars in that the latter still requires a fee to buy the game, even though there's no subscription fee afterwards.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Mr. Mike said:
vansau said:
Free-to-play MMOGs have proven to be financially viable, based on examples like browser-based titles like Farmville and the more hardcore games like Dungeons & Dragons Online.
Why is Guild Wars never referenced as a "free-to-play" MMO? Doesn't Dungeons & Dragons Online require a single purchase to own the game, then you don't have to do the subscription thing until later on? Guild Wars has always been "pay once, now you actually own the game", yet I never see it referenced.

/endguildwarsfanboyrant
Then you turn around and get suckered into spending $70 on the real money store to unlock all the new skills because you don't have time to keep doing the ascension missions over and over to unlock all the elite skills... :p
 

Icehearted

New member
Jul 14, 2009
2,081
0
0
I wouldn't even bother if it was free. MMOs are the devil's plaything. THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING!


WoW withdrawals are a ***** :/
 

Mr. Mike

New member
Mar 24, 2010
532
0
0
Starke said:
Mr. Mike said:
vansau said:
Snip
Then you turn around and get suckered into spending $70 on the real money store to unlock all the new skills because you don't have time to keep doing the ascension missions over and over to unlock all the elite skills... :p
At least the option is there to get everything without having money. Paying is just an alternative. It's not like it's restricting content. Also, who the hell actually needs all the elite skills? Know what build you're going for, look the skill up on the Guild Wars Wiki, find the boss and grab it.

vansau said:
Mr. Mike said:
vansau said:
Snip
You make a good point... for those of us who aren't too familiar with the game, is it similar to WoW or STO? I seem to recall it played more like a single-player RPG with some multiplayer elements thrown in, but that's an impression that's about 5 years or so old.
It's the only MMO I've played so I can't really compare it. Basically, aside from towns, everything is instanced. You can only take with you a maximum of 8 skills and usually have a party of 8 or so. Equipment, both weapons and armor, have maximum stats and a max-stat item is easy to find. Max level is 20, which is very easy to reach. You have a primary and secondary class, each with attributes and skills that get more powerful based on the level of the attribute. So the focus of it all is the combination of skills you bring to the table. Also, respec-ing is very simple, you can take points out of 1 attribute and put them into another.

That was a little convoluted. And yeah there are your standard PvE, PvP, dungeons of sorts and a few other things. And campaign missions. I don't know if other MMOs have that, but since everything is instanced there is like a main mission line you can follow, doing so allowing you to access new areas.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Mr. Mike said:
Starke said:
Mr. Mike said:
vansau said:
Snip
Then you turn around and get suckered into spending $70 on the real money store to unlock all the new skills because you don't have time to keep doing the ascension missions over and over to unlock all the elite skills... :p
At least the option is there to get everything without having money. Paying is just an alternative. It's not like it's restricting content. Also, who the hell actually needs all the elite skills? Know what build you're going for, look the skill up on the Guild Wars Wiki, find the boss and grab it.
This was more snark than anything else. The game's the game's online store does seem to undermine a huge chunk of the game, though.
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
I think more MMOs need to do something like that. The biggest barrier for getting into an MMO is that they ALWAYS require a monthly fee. That was fine when there were only a couple MMOs to choose from, but now-a-days it seems that every-other game is an MMO. Allowing for free accounts, but restricting access to the game in some way (be it not allowing certain things, or limiting game-time per week or day, or whatever) is a good way to draw-in more players who are interested in playing the game casually, but don't want to have to be tied to a monthly fee to do so.
 

Kazinski

New member
Jul 13, 2010
19
0
0
As someone else said on this thread, Ragnarok Online's Valkyrie servers are probably one of the best free to play implementations ever, that and Runescape of course which lets you transfer your Free character to Member servers and back at any time.

Though now that I think about it, I'd rather not touch Star Trek Online, Cryptic mean well but they cannot design a proper MMORPG if their life depended on it.

I mean I love some of their game's concepts (City of Heroes/Villains which is not owned by them anymore) but their horridly repeated instances,grind fest galore and in CoH's case the complete degradation of all their so called super hero archetypes due to crippling monthly nerfing makes other mmorpgs look like heaven on toast when it comes to content.
 

Bigsmith

New member
Mar 16, 2009
1,026
0
0
Mr. Mike said:
vansau said:
Free-to-play MMOGs have proven to be financially viable, based on examples like browser-based titles like Farmville and the more hardcore games like Dungeons & Dragons Online.
Why is Guild Wars never referenced as a "free-to-play" MMO? Doesn't Dungeons & Dragons Online require a single purchase to own the game, then you don't have to do the subscription thing until later on? Guild Wars has always been "pay once, now you actually own the game", yet I never see it referenced.

/endguildwarsfanboyrant
I kinda agree with you on this one, GuildWars has always been free Oh and Guildwars two is going to be free from the word go as well. :D

Ot: Never really cared about this game... never really will.
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
Even if it takes a few years to become f2p, that should give Cryptic a lot of time to actually finish making the game. I tried out the trial period and it seemed awful, in its current state that game should be free to play anyway, with the disk replacing the toy you get in a Happy Meal
 

Ralen-Sharr

New member
Feb 12, 2010
618
0
0
IMO a lifetime sub is for suckers. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but just take a step back and look at it this way....

If the game can grab, and maintain your interest enough to keep you playing for years, they are better off NOT allowing a lifetime sub. However, if the game isn't panning out that well, they can offer a lifetime sub for those who think it's going well as a kind of bailout, or trying to salvage something by having something of a "permanent" community.

How much would WoW have lost if they offered lifetime subs? I don't play it but it's been around long enough that the loss could have been substantial.