![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Does anyone know when the beta will be aviable? It is already summer 2007 and I have not heard any word on it yet. Is it a closed beta first? Has it been delayed? Thanks a lot, mates!
Any update on the beta?
Anything new on the beta as of August 17, 2007? I have yet to see anything on any sites I visit.
Anything as of Sunday, September 16, 2007?
They keep delaying it. It will likely be canceled if it is not already.
Look, the game is about to be canceled! We were right!
I think the timeline is wrong, according to a recent interview its only in preproduction and 1.5 years away. I don't really even believe that after looking at the attached drawings, what have these people been doing for the last couple years!?!? Interview: http://trekmovie.com/2007/03/12/interview-with-daron-stinnett-exec-producer-of-star-trek-online-mmorpg/ (linked from the games website)
..Announcing a game release date 2 years away and then 2 years later stateing its 2 years away is delaying the game..
Will Star Trek Online be based on DirectX 10 or DirectX 9? It seems that the product release date is so far in the future that it will be DirectX 10 based.
The setting on the Star Trek Online official website, it is roughly set 20 years after Star Trek: Nemesis, whereas here in Wikipedia states that it is set roughly 10 years after Nemesis. 10 or 20 years after that?
Star Trek Online is set 20 years after Nemesis, this was revealed at the Las Vegas Trek Convention where Perpetual held a Q&A session. A recount of the session can be found here.
That puts the year at 2399. As time passes IRL, will it pass in parody with realtime, in game (so, second-for-second, minute-for-minute, and so on)? -- Shultz 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there a minimum age for a player to start out at? Also, how fast does this player age? Does the player die at TODAY'S life expectancies (~age 70-105), or how many "years" longer do they live before passing on? Obviously future medical advances should be able to extend their life spans.
And what happens after the character dies of old age? The player would hate for all of his skills, ranks, and credentials to be lost. -- Shultz 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Considering that it's been established that humans can live to well over a 100(McCoy appears in the first episode of TNG, making him at least 120 years old and other references to life expectancy being over 100 by then) I don't think you have to worry about them dieing of old age. TJ Spyke 05:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Added two of the three 'look development' shots Perpetual released on Tuesday, 02/21/06. Also edited the description to reflect the changes to professions, but this page needs an insanely major overhaul. I'm not being specific because literally everything could benefit from expansion, revision, or repair. [email protected] 06:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
{{ sofixit}}. You obviously know how the article could be improved, what's stopping you? jaco plane 13:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Time, right at this particular moment, but I'll be working on it tonight. :)
To be more specific, because that is fair, the article doesn't appear to reflect any information from the last two or three devblogs, doesn't include any information about the Star Trek production staff that has been brought aboard, and lacks proper categorization based upon what has been learned over the last few months. I appreciate the helpful comments, however, as I'm new to editing on the 'big show' that is Wikipedia. [email protected] 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Added a few new sections and updated a bit. Hope that helps. Horizon 05:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The link for "Star Trek Online Dedicated Wiki" goes to the same place as "Star Trek Online Universe from STGU". Which one should we remove? ComputerSherpa 18:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to reorganize the Links section; that edit was rolled back because it "did not comply with Wikipedia style guidelines". I followed the guidelines at WP:EL as closely as I could, and something needs to be done about the Links section--it's a disorganized mess. We have three links from STGU with no indication of how they relate to one another, two from STO.net, and one from Memory Alpha. If my categorization doesn't follow the style guidelines, then can someone come up with a system that does? 'Cause it's pretty ugly right now. -- ComputerSherpa 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Caiman said in an edit summary, "Various parts of this article are still out of date." Perhaps if Caiman mentioned some of the parts that are out of date, we can work to correct that and remove the template? Powers 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering if they will choose the traditional path of a montly fee, which keeps me away from these types of games, or go where Guild Wars went without a montly fee. Lord_Hawk 16:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone clear on how these work? do you choose them? or does the game give them to you? A friend and I are wondering, about that, and how the lliving conditions work. Also, can one be ON a station? -- Trekkie84 06:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. I wasn't to sure if the info provided had answered that, a friend and I were wondering as we were reading if we would have been able to do Co-op and such (INstead of being put with people we don't know, hence the question about choosing) -- Trekkie84 17:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
So what language is this in? Is it really what all Federation citizens call this time? Seems a bit inchoerent to me. We need some more explanation or detail around this. Ben W Bell talk 11:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone be willing to bet/comment on whether once the game is up and running, it will take on a huge new look based on player-created and managed virtual communities, along the lines of Second Life and The Sims? I was thinking about this, amidst all the discussion of how much people will be able to pursue their own course, instead of being tied down by game mechanics. it seems to me that once the game starts, it will be extremely easy to find new planets and explorations which no one has ever done. you can do so simply by exploring the many player-created societies, planets, etc, which will probably begin to take form. What do you think of that possibility? see you. -- Sm8900 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the new edits to the starship operation section, re the new "player mount" system. Appreciate the update and new information. However, could the person contributing that please explain? What is meant by this? Is this only for the initial stage of a player's starship? or is this how all starships will be handled in the game, from now on? If so, what happened to the idea of starship missions? What do the non-captain crewmen now do aboard a starship? thanks. -- Sm8900 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What's a player mount system? This seems like a really cool idea but how do you "mount" starships? I think that you can horses and pets but Star Trek Online should not have any of those as far as I know. Thanks?
Uh, the estimated launch plan source speaks of Q1 2009 according to the article, but I can't find anything about that in the actual source. I searched for "2009", "first", and "1st" and came up with nothing. — Northgrove 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Kotaku is reporting that NCSoft Developer Cryptic Studios could be the new home of STO:
w00t Studios says it has anonymous sources pointing to the new home of STO, who recently sold off rights to City of Heroes to owner NCsoft, who in turn created a new subsidiary with Cryptic staffers at its core.
[1] Kotaku Article -- 68.209.227.3 ( talk) 03:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to rename this article "Star Trek Online (Perpetual Entertainment)" and start a new, compact (for now) article for "Star Trek Online" which contains all the new information going forward.
Surely a "Star Trek Online" of some kind will eventually see the light of day, even if it may not be for years. Once that happens, I think it would be a bad idea to simply continue to edit this article as if it is the same thing, eventually replacing all the info, screenshots, and timeline of the Perpetual project (especially since it is historically relevant with regards to the Paramount/Viacom split and the first-of-it's-kind CBS-Paramount licensing arrangement) with whatever new project assumes the title "Star Trek Online."
The new article could say "for the canceled game planned by Perpetual Entertainment by the same name, see "Star Trek Online (Perpetual Entertainment)"
I'm not up on the protocol for these kinds of changes, so I'll refrain from trying to make them myself.
Ideas? Opinions? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.241.150 ( talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd leave it how it is for now until we have more information on how the game will proceed (if at all). Travis T. Cleveland ( talk) 04:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
"In January TrekMovie.com was the first to mention Cryptic Studios as the possible new home for the “Star Trek Online” MMORPG. Since then evidenced has mounted that Cryptic has the license, with the latest clue coming from sleuthing by board members of StarTrek-Games.com. Although Cryptic will still not officially acknowledge they are the new license holder, TrekMovie.com has independently confirmed with sources that they definitely are."
http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/13/cryptic-confirmed-as-new-developer-for-star-trek-online/
-- 68.209.227.3 ( talk) 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been reverting edits of this blocked editor from identifiable IP, proof is in his recent edit summaries. Any other editor, reviewing those contributions, who wants to keep them, may revert them back in, the removals are only due to his block, edit content is not relevant to them. An editor putting that content back in is taking responsibility for the content, as if the editor had contributed it himself or herself. I've asked that someone take this to WP:AN/I or an administrator, I will later if it hasn't already been done.-- Abd ( talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It seem to me this is just a pure theory with no facts. Looking at the site it seems much more like that clock is for there game "Champions Online." If you look here http://www.champions-online.com/ You see a similar clock. With the same count down but with the words Meanwhile...
Seems to me that the there more evidence of the clocking belong to Champions Online then Star Trek Online, which is only rumor to have been picked up by Cryptic.
If nothing else it should be mention that there equal possibility that the clock is for champions online 66.37.48.99 ( talk) theparanoid —Preceding comment was added at 15:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
STO will be officially unveiled on Aug 10 in Las vegas, with Leonard Nimoy there. get ready, folks. see you. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1Up preview/interview with Emmert JAF1970 ( talk) 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Cryptic reveals first Star Trek Online in-game trailer JAF1970 ( talk) 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't appear to be standard on other major MMO articles, such as World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, and Eve Online (plus many more) so I've removed them. rootology ( T) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Although it may not be standard policy to include external links to community sites for MMO articles that appear here, it is surely not against any existing policy, is it? And if so, I have some difficulty understanding why. MMO's are built around the player community. It's an integral aspect of the game design, and in fact defines the genre. I believe that denying us the ability to provide external links to community created sites, on this article or any other MMO article, is ignoring that simple fact.
While I believe that some policing must be in place to avoid spam links to spurious sites of questionable quality and content, those that had been listed here (including my own) would be considered valid additions.
Is Wikipedia itself not communtiy driven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.170.170 ( talk) 23:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit: Actually, after some looking, there are links to communtiy sites in [World Of Warcraft] and the other articles you mention. I can't understand why it is you felt the need to be so sticky about them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.170.170 ( talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
World of Warcraft has a total of 2 such links (one of which I believe is probably notable in and of itself for an article, WoWWiki). The Sims Online has none. Eve Online has none. City of Heroes has none. Guild Wars (series) has none. The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar has none. The Lord of the Rings Online: Mines of Moria has none. What makes an unreleased video game so special it requires nine fan links? Before any gives me static... I'm pre-ordering the game as soon as I can. I plan on playing as close to Wesley as I can. rootology ( T) 00:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have justifed their inclusion and I do not see any response to that, though I agree some other articles do not have any. Still, some do. Have you removed the ones from
World Of Warcraft yet? You are basing your somewhat arbitrary and rather odd decision to remove these links on what seems to be nothing more than a whim. Show me the policy that states they cannot be included here, while others can, and I will defer. Until then, I will continue to undo your removal of them. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
61.68.170.170 (
talk) 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Just as an aside to 71.204.176.201 who had removed the link stating "per WP:EL#AVOID #6" - The site the link went to did not require registration or payment to view any content, only to add or edit new content, so that doesn't apply either. If anything, #12 might be the only one there that does, and even then this is not a list of rules, but rather guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.170.170 ( talk) 03:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment per ANI thread: Firstly, it's very helpful that you've chosen to discuss the links here rather than edit-warring on the article, which never ends well ;) Secondly, it's true that the points cited above are guidelines, not policies. However, they are guidelines that have arisen over time from community discussion of these issues, so can be taken to reflect widespread community consensus (see WP:PG). Actually enshrining something in policy is relatively difficult, whereas guidelines can be produced in a much less formal fashion and in response to changing community practice. What it does not mean is that they are somehow less relevant or enjoy less support as a result.
Regarding the links themselves, it would be unusual to include a directory of fan sites in any article, and such links will very likely be removed on sight. This does not mean that all fansites are unsuitable, although the vast majority probably are. The major problem is that, once one or two are listed, it tends to open the floodgates with everyone wanting to add their site as well. The guidelines specifically state that links should be limited to "a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article" (my emphasis); the longer the list of external links becomes, the more strictly the exclusion criteria are applied. The pragmatic view is that, even if a suitable fansite can be found for inclusion, it leads to more aggravation than any value derived from its presence makes worthwhile.
There are other reasons why fansites are normally unsuitable, many of which are explained in the posts above. In addition, such links are often added as a means of advertising a community, which is absolutely not Wikipedia's function. They also rarely meet our standards for reliability, and sometimes exist to advocate a particular viewpoint. Finally, the chances are that a genuinely meritable community site that meets Wikipedia's standards will have already been used in writing the article, so any verifiable information on the site will be available in the article text... meaning there's no reason to link to the site itself.
I hope this helps; just because a community site is unsuitable for linking from Wikipedia, that's not a judgement on the site itself. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a resource for the fan community ;) EyeSerene talk 13:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm what's in this [2] post?-- Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 13:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
From game informer article in their september-october edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.32.27 ( talk) 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
(Continued from "Rename this entry and create a new one?" above)
I agree that the time has come to drop the now-defunct old info - I was bold and removed it. You can still look it up by accessing today's edit (look for the comment called "Removed Perpetual development process, see talk") for any tidbits that return to the surface in the new game. CapnZapp ( talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Recent events involving a contest for Star Trek Online have caused an uproar in the community, and many consider the way the Devs handled the contest in violation of its rules to be unethical. These events have been documented, with references, as accurately and hopefully as unbiased as possible. Feedback and suggestions for changes are welcome, however the public has a right to know of the events that transpired and the way they were handled, as it may influence their decision to give Cryptic their business. JackSparrowJive ( talk) 9:00PM, 25 March 2009 (EST)
Agree. I've been following this, and the edit war is unseemly. Suggest a cooling-off period if it persists. The information posted is all NPOV and cited correctly, so it should stay. Those attempting to censor this information need to explain here why they are so anxious to delete. Please remember to sign your posts. Jusdafax ( talk) 01:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Update: OK, I have a request for one-week page protection in now, seeing as this problem is ongoing. While I believe keeping the 'Contest Controversies' section is in order, either way a cool-down period is clearly called for. Jusdafax ( talk) 16:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I still feel it should have been deleted as it seems more like gossip than anything. However, in the spirit of compromise, I have edited it to make it a bit more acceptable to me. I've added a little about the community as I don't think it fair if the only mention is one mistake in what is normally a great community. Redwulfen ( talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the whole section - let's be clear about this - something becomes a controversy in wikipedian terms when a) reliable sources report on it and b) when *they* call it a controversy. With out those things, the incident is just not of interest to us and is original research. We don't give a chuff about the "public right to know", we are an encyclopaedia not a campaigning forum. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Your personal opinions are irrelevant. What happened regarding the alien identification contest is a matter of public information regarding the practices and ethics of Cryptic and its employees. You have no right to decide what information the public has access to. Play God Mode someplace else; preferable where someone cares. And FYI, here is the definition of "controversy" from WIKIPEDIA:
"A controversy is a dispute, argument, discussion or debate featuring strong disagreements and opposing, contrary, or sharply contrasting opinions about an idea, subject, group or person. A controversy can range in scope from private disputes between two individuals, such as claims to property, to large-scale disagreements between societies."
Guess you'll have to edit that article to support your argument -- HeMan9000 ( talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Call it "dispute on the official game forum" then! Make it a subsection. And restore it, because it happened. It is a fact for everyone to see by going on the forum. There's your reliable source. it won't be reported by any magazine, but it doesn't make it any less real. And btw, there's an awful lot on wikipedia that does not have a reliable source whatsoever, but yet it doesn't get deleted or at least not so swiftly. Why do you act like an overzealous wiki-policeman and delete it altogether here? GoGolan ( talk) 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Shame on you. GoGolan ( talk) 20:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It is my understanding that under the right circumstances, public posts by main moderators on a game website... even an unreleased game... are notable sources. Still looking into this. Since the issue of time is also important, suggest an expedited final decision. May have to discuss further and take the matter to the call for a "vote" (the wiki-term escapes me.) Jusdafax ( talk) 03:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
With respect, Awen aka Nicole Hamlett is not a simple Moderator, she is infact Cryptics Offical Community Manager. A paid employee of Cryptic Studios, whos role is to be the primary point of contact for Cryptic with relation to the community they've established on their Offical Forums. Her comments directly reflect those of the company itself and shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. RedshirtReject ( talk) 11:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
right.. but it's still self-published and not covered by reliable sources so it's invisible to us - as I said before, we might use forum communications in conjunction with a report built upon reliable sources but we wouldn't write prose based upon those forum posts. *are* there any reliable sources for this at all? Mentions in gaming magazines? that sort of thing. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
References 1,5,6,7,12,15,16 and 17 are also "Self Publications", yet they haven't been challenged? Its only this particular issue that seems to have everybody's panties in a bunch, curious eh. RedshirtReject ( talk) 12:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
"Star trek online is an exceptional game" is out
"star trek online is scheduled to be released on the 01/02/09 is fine. The crux of the problem is that the sources you are providing don't give the context to what you want them to say - that this is a "problem". And I've got to ask, where are you all coming from? Generally when so many new accounts register, they are being organised off-site. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
First off, I'll point out, I haven't provided any sources, I didn't write this article. To answer your query, I was directed here by a another member of the STO forums, he posted a link here followed by the words "I encourage you all to delete this". I read the section in question and found it to be factual as per my experience on said forum. And was rather pissed off at the repeated attempts to suppress those events, by erasing them from the wiki. Hence I decided to get involved and attempt to help rectify the situation as best I can. RedshirtReject ( talk) 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is a "Pattern of unethical behaviour" emerging here. I direct your attention to this recent report http://www.massively.com/2009/03/19/cryptic-used-ncsoft-forums-for-beta-recruiting-not-really-sorry/ I'll certainly agree that this incident is somewhat minor in comparison, so perhaps I'll suggest it be added to the Champions Online page, if or when this info is placed there. RedshirtReject ( talk) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I wish to point out that I among many, had little interest in the Beta keys themselves, Cryptic has already handed out a few of these and will continue to do so. I entered the contest, not to win a key, but to be involved in the community, as did many. I had no expectations of winning, so my participation here shouldn't be misconstrued as something selfish. The reason this little ripple became a "storm in a teacup" as you put, was the remarks and statements made by the Community Rep. It was this that angered the Community. However, if the wikipedia community would prefer this incident to go unremarked, I'll defer. Thanks for reading my little rants and giving this matter some consideration :) RedshirtReject ( talk) 14:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The interesting (or sad) thing is, the competitions are supposed to be a bit of fun while people wait for the game. Like you said, the top prize was a beta key, something all of us want but not inherently valuable. That's why it's hardly relevant outside the forums of Star Trek Online. The other thing with Champions is possibly more interesting, but perhaps because of the ethical questions it raises. Redwulfen ( talk) 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
the website has been re designed and has a splash page on which there is a link to pre order the game is that worth a mention? -- Inputdata ( talk) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe info on Perpetual merits only a short paragraph in passing, because that effort is increasingly irrelevant to the article by now. I have trimmed the article accordingly. CapnZapp ( talk) 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
While it may conform to the letter of WP:EL, I'm not sure it is in the spirit of the policy to remove the matrix of pre-order specials. The chart *is* a nice overview of the pre-order specials available, and definitely could be helpful to most readers of the article. Would a reasonable compromise of removing the direct links to the retailers be acceptable? 20:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I just popped on here to check on the release date, and found it initially confusing.
The second paragraph lists a few early release dates, then further down the page the most recent, and probably correct, release date is given. Are the dates given at an earlier time still necessary? If so, they should be moved down, with the "best" date given the top position. Earlier announced dates should either be moved down, or completely removed as being no longer relevant. Kid Bugs ( talk) 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
how much it cost? montly payments or what? Tinybelt ( talk) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Edited the section on instancing to reflect that most of the game's missions will in fact not be instanced, as per the executive producer of STO on August 15th, 2007. Source has been included. - R
I play the game. EVERYTHING is instanced —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddahcjcc222 ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This article's section: Community has been marked for neutrality because of an edit war and use of opinions. Also marked some citations because of lack of relevant info in said citations. I couldn't find mention of Cryptic's announcement. Chase Quinnell ( talk) 06:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There's been a lot of postings tonight about the changes in the product, and outrage about it on the forums. Are there any
reliable sources that discuss the controversy? People being banned on a forum doesn't seem notable to me.
Dayewalker (
talk) 06:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Facts:
The game recently changed it's product/pricing strategy by lowering the box price $10 and adding 60 days of playtime to the product. Many, many people on the forums who had paid the initial price and gotten the original 30 days playtime cried foul. Many posted on the STO forums. Many got banned. Many of those banned did not violate the TOS strictly defined (although the TOS allows Cryptic to pretty much define whatever they want as a violation of the TOS). That's it thusfar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.191.205 ( talk) 06:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The ones that where banned, only where banned because they where encouraging others to spam the inbox of the head developer of Cryptic, and gave out his PM link, that is why they where banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusnagisa ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Zodi-emish & LunaticWoda (Two examples) Banned w/o warning or public notices, just silently banned. They weren't suggesting people "spam" or "flood" the inbox, however, they did provide the account links for both the head developer , Zinc, and the main support / billing support ticket areas, encouraging players to voice their opinions on the issue. Secondary source was given due to 'issues' with the personal message mail system at the time. Aforementioned TTH article also links to This STO forum thread which is currently sitting on 1,730 posts and 36,312 views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.63.70 ( talk) 06:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Is NOT noting it fair to people looing here? People that come here looking for information should get this information as well so they dont think its essentially made up later on. Also, I know for a fact that one of the three guys (that I know of) that got banned got banned because my prick friend reported every time he made a duplicate post. Assuming he got a point every time, he'd have upwards of 80 points at the end. You need 20 for a perma ban —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddahcjcc222 ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be best to lock the page for now, it seems angry forum dwellers from STO are coming here and adding in all this crazy info. leave the info as this for now and lock it, would be my advice
"On Feb 25th, less than a month after the game's initial release, Cryptic announced that they would be reducing the cost of Star Trek Online by $10 and including a extra sixty days of free game time. This outraged many people who adopted the game early on and viewed this as a "fire sale" giving a hit that hte game might fail soon. Debate spread throughout the community and at least one of the more outspoken members of the forum was banned." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusnagisa ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
IMO I say instead of "that the game would fail" it be "that there was trouble with the game" as there IS no knowledge that the game IS going to fail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddahcjcc222 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the information about the sale and the 60 days game time, as there is a relevant citation for it, but the part about the forum users being banned is not only not notable, but can not be verified per WP:V. A forum is not a reliable source and can't be used. Raluboon ( talk) 06:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
again I say the page needs to be locked, this is starting to get out of hand..... to me this seems apropriate for now
"Before Star Trek Online was even released, there was an active community forming on the developer's official website forum.[30] The development team, including the Lead Online Community Representative and the Executive Producer, also post regularly on Twitter.[31][32]
On Feb 25th, less than a month after the game's initial release, Cryptic announced that they would be reducing the cost of Star Trek Online by $10 and including a extra sixty days of free game time [33]. This outraged many people who adopted the game early on and viewed this as a "fire sale."
Due to outrage over the recent price drop / extra free game time. Some individuals felt cheated and were very vocal about it."
If forums arent verifyable the above line isnt either
Well I "LunaticWoda" Can confirm the ban and the reason behind it as I have the direct email from the GM regarding the ban, Now I have been informed such content isnt allowed on the wiki as far as a publication source. What sort of alternative can we come up with to explain some of the back lash from cryptic and keep the wiki rule nazis happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.192.43 ( talk) 10:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a warning... this situation hit the fan today on the forums, and there have already been a couple more articles about this popping up. I wouldn't doubt it if tomorrow there were a lot more, along with people wanting to mention this in the wiki. It's looking bad for Cryptic and this game. They have pulled the offer in question and have been denying the bonuses to the people who bought it when the offer was up. Anyway.. I may be wrong, but you guys should probably be prepared for an editing shitstorm soon. Raluboon ( talk) 02:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a couple of users who keep gutting the Reception section. I think it is fine as it is, and is in line with other game articles. It is all cited and NPOV. Raluboon ( talk) 07:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove the negative review quotes, or balance with positive ones: Some people take exception to others listing only the negative reviews. It introduces unnecessary bias into the article and skews it toward editorial. If you *must* quote negative reviews, also quote positive ones to balance it. Or leave the reviews on the review sites where they belong. Poondar ( talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC) You DO realize as soon as you cut the negative reviews you lose your so precious "neutrality" Theres has been one review Ive seen of this game so far that was positive an that was TTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.139.16 ( talk) 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was the one initially adding the reception section. I chose two big review sites as I felt their quotes to be representative for the overall reception of the game; and added the Metacritic aggregator for good measure - the additional quotes were not added by me.
Concerning adding positive quotes: Sorry, but all games should not come across as average. Wikipedia should reflect the actual reception of each game, positive or negative.
Concerning "this game hasn't been out a month": I disagree. The major game mags have given their verdict - thus we can summarize their grades. Wikipedia isn't a printed encyclopedia where you only get one shot - we can update as the situation changes. There is no reason to hold off. In fact, I'll argue that as soon as an aggregate site like Metacritic (just an example, feel free to choose another) can compute a score, we can have a Reception section.
Now, I understand the Qoutefarm criticism. I won't make any edits right now as there seem to be edit warring going on, but I support the notion the extra quotes could be cleaned up. We only need a single quote from any one review, for starters.
I don't see any harm in adding a quote from the more positive reviews, by the way. But I do ask of you to keep the general gist of it: the reviews are mediocre, mixed or average (however you want to phrase it) - it should be clear that this game's reviews is decidedly less enthusiastic than for the genre leaders. Anything else ("balanced" quotes, for instance) would be dishonest and a disservice to Wikipedia.
Cheers, CapnZapp ( talk) 11:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
How about a "Controversy" section independant of or subheaded to reception? As this whole slew of fiascos seems more a controversy than just part and parcel to the regular flow of a MMO launch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.139.16 ( talk) 04:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Reading the forums between launch and now shows little difference in anger/entitlement/genuine frustration/campaigning (No Skill Cap, Zero Death Penalty, etc.) in comparison. The game had lukewarm reception. The vocal players praise and punish it in equal amounts. Honestly, less is more. I added a review, but after reading this discussion, I'm reverting it. I think KISS applies here. 209.180.155.12 ( talk) 08:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no criticism section on the page? Maybe as a sub to reception. Particuarly visible in the STO forums themselves are large numbers of fans cancelling or threatening to cancel their accounts based on the responses or lack of responses from the Cryptic team. Ranging from the "60 extra free days and $10 off" to the constant crashing from bugs, server failures and lack of customer support with tickets dating back to before the launch. I look at this page and with the amount of negative responses this game is getting from players, i think that Cryptic/Atari has whitewashed it. - 15.195.201.88 ( talk) 22:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This article pretty much sums up what is going on:
[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.143.244 ( talk) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's another one: Atari and Cryptic anger the people who bought Star Trek Online at launch Raluboon ( talk) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I removed the bits without sources. Feel free to add back info on the event if you can find a NPOV source. Cheers, CapnZapp ( talk) 09:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Articles seeing Ataris behaviour as at least problematic are now popping up all over the web. I would think it would be wise to wait some days until including info into the article, but as it is gaining interest worldwide, the info about the critizisms maybe should be included as documentation, as it IS a part of the games history. 93.202.164.2 ( talk) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Isnt avoiding the issue showing a bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.139.16 ( talk) 01:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Find what you want reliable, but heres the list of sites I have that are covering the issues: Inc Gamers: http://www.incgamers.com/News/21216/star-trek-online-offer-10-off-60-days-free-added Inc Gamers: http://www.incgamers.com/News/21236/star-trek-online-offer-removed PvPee.com: http://mmorpgs.pvpee.com/star-trek-online-%E2%80%93-pre-order-penalty Ten Ton Hammer: http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/81508 Ten Ton Hammer: http://www.tentonhammer.com/sto/news/atari_removes_60_day_offer MMORPG.com: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/352/view/news/read/16347/Star-Trek-Online-Limited-Time-Offer-Triggers-Immense-Backlash.html Crunchgear: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/03/01/atari-says-screw-you-to-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch/ We The Few: http://www.wethefew.com/?p=256 Headline News: http://www.headlinesnews.net/949/atari-and-cryptic-anger-the-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch Karangoel: http://www.karangoel.in/atari-and-cryptic-anger-the-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch/ Popular Tech News: http://poptechnews.com/atari-and-cryptic-anger-the-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch.html Tekgek: http://tekgek.com/?p=12129 Dintz: http://www.dintz.com/atari-and-cryptic-anger-the-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch/ Sparwaaerhq: http://www.sparwasserhq.org/atari-and-cryptic-anger-the-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch/2010/03/01/ Massively: http://www.massively.com/2010/03/02/community-upset-causes-cryptic-to-make-a-statement-on-sto-promot/ MMOCrunch: http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/03/01/star-trek-online-pre-order-penalty/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddahcjcc222 ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Are none of the above links acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddahcjcc222 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC) so... is verifiable the rule unless its covering controversy about the game, then you just ignore that it happened? What happened to your "it must be verified" hard rule? huh must be nice to make up the rules when you feel like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.139.16 ( talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I continually have to remove the "massive" reference in Star Trek Online because the game does not meet the definition of an MMORPG. Star Trek Online is in the same realm as Guild Wars due to the instancing, and you will notice that Guild Wars is also not called a "massively" multiplayed online game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.101.175 ( talk) 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have a source to support this assertion? I note that Guild Wars is in Category:Massively multiplayer online games. IGN called it an MMO [5], as does the publisher [6], and the developer [7]. We go by what the sources say, not what we personally believe. However, if you have a reliable source that discusses this, I think it would be a good addition to the article. Gamespot touched on it [8] but didn't go so far as to revoke it's "massively" status due to the instancing. – xeno talk 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The only reliable division is between single-player and multi-player. There does not exist an universally accepted definition of "massively" (such as half a dozen players or a hundred players or tens of thousands of players). So the only good definition of what is an MMO is what the developer calls it (as long as it's not blatantly obvious the dev is lying, in which case it should be easy to find a reliable source to quote on this.) You (and this isn't directed to anyone in particular) might not think there are enough players for it to earn the "massively" title, but such personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia. CapnZapp ( talk) 11:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm presently doing research on it, but I beleive that 30 years after nemesis in the tag was the original goal of the game before the release on J.J. Abram's Star Trek as there is definately in the game a design pattern based off of that enterprise and Vulcan is completely destroyed in this game.
This MMORPG is based in the alternate timeline put forward by that movie.
Lucky Foot ( talk) 07:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It was my understanding (pre-order buyer here) that the Universe was placed 30 years in to the future of the Alternate timeline. I'm pretty sure that's what the little booklet that came with it said; I'll check when I get home. Would I need to upload pics or something validate my claim? 64.244.102.2 ( talk) 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I made mention of the original timeline in the Gameplay section to leave no doubt among readers. I also added a lot of content ("Be bold") in gameplay to describe it more accurately post-Season 2. I play a lot, but I don't have all the 100% correct information in front of me. (Editing Wikipedia at work.) So, feel free to prune/correct as you all see fit. 209.180.155.12 ( talk) 08:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I updated the page, specifically the table on Seasons. Because of this I removed the infobox stating that the page was out of date.
I also added a section on The Foundry, a new gameplay feature that's on the test server, and I cleaned up some minor mistakes and typos. Seanr451 ( talk) 13:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I am editing the Foundry Portion due to me being an active player and KNOWING that the foundry has went live on Holodeck Lordchaotic ( talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone provide some info re the season 4 release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.216.49.250 ( talk) 07:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone should add information on the sale of Cryptic and thus STO to the chinese company that owns the Perfect World chinese mmo. -2s1m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Suns One Moon ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed.
Accusitinion of Cryptic Studios by PWI was completed on 8/18/11. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.166.155.113 (
talk) 01:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned, or atleast parts updated, about the termination of Executive Producer Dan Stahl on Sep 20th 2011? http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/09/20/dan-stahl-leaving-cryptic-star-trek-online/ Dewy DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE ( talk) 06:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Where it says the Klingon faction is reached at level 25, it actually unlocks at level 20. In the upcoming Season 7 (releasing sometime next month) it is suggested that the level requirement is being removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.171.244 ( talk) 03:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Outages listed all have official messages from PWE/Cryptic staff. Do you want the exact post from the PWE/Cryptic administrator? Otherwise they will be restored. Ktinga ( talk01:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not exactly sure to what Ktinga refers to, but would like to point out that I doubt that the listing of server crashes and shorter to longer outages is of value to the article. There were more than that over the last three years and Wikipedia is for sure not there to conserve the anger of a disgruntled player due to server outages during May 2013. It would also be of dubious value as historical note. I would appreciate if someone would mediate here, I just checked and saw the beginnings of an undo-edit-war. -- 91.9.9.25 ( talk) 14:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be removed too, infact I came here to suggest it, as it just happens, and appers to be written out of spite of neverwinter. #### — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.207.139.201 (
talk) 12:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The link for Reman goes to remanufacturing. What does that have to do with Star Trek???
This article says that "the game is no longer available as a retail game" and that the DVD-ROM has been "discontinued". That simply isn't true. The retail editions are still available on Amazon.com, and according to what I've read on the forums, the game can still be installed from the disc. I'll be removing the quoted words from the article. 110.174.166.224 ( talk) 06:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I do believe the 9.5 release date and content list is incorrect. At the time of writing this all of the items on the 9.5 release list have been implemented in game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.46.69 ( talk) 22:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)