Talk:Star Trek Online/Archive 1

Archive 1

Beta

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!

• There will definitely be a closed beta, but that hasnt been announced yet either. Generally beta can occur anytime between a year to six months before release, Perpetual have indicated their aim to release by Christmas 2008 so beta could start this winter or next summer. --Caiman 11:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Any update on the beta?

• Nope

Anything new on the beta as of August 17, 2007? I have yet to see anything on any sites I visit.

• Nope --Caiman 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything as of Sunday, September 16, 2007?

They keep delaying it. It will likely be canceled if it is not already.

It's not really been delayed yet. Was never due to be released until 2008 at earliest. Ben W Bell talk 00:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, the game is about to be canceled! We were right!

Delayed

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)

• Not delayed, 4-5 years is a normal production cycle for an MMO. They're not in pre-production, we've already seen in-engine shots, they're definitely in full development now, really. 1.5 years from release includes a beta period, keep in mind. --Caiman 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

..Announcing a game release date 2 years away and then 2 years later stateing its 2 years away is delaying the game..

There's nothing off the timeline that thay've always said. They always said even a couple of years ago that they hoped to have some early closed beta testing towards the end of 2007. As far as I can tell from following this for a couple of years they are exactly where they claimed they would be. Ben W Bell talk 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

DirectX 10

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.

Let's just hope it isn't Vista-only. If so, that'll suck.216.249.145.232 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that, mate. I am thinknig that most games that come out during the 2007 and 2008 will be a combination of DirectX 10 (for the fancy new hardware) and DirectX 9 (for the older computers) kind of like Microsoft's Cyruis game or whatever it is.

Setting confusion

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.

2399

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)

Surely you mean "parity", but as for the answer, I don't know. 216.234.58.18 18:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Player Aging

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)

I read the FAQ a while back, and it seems like aging is going to be implemented in much the same way as it was in Fable; that is, as a primarily cosmetic or "ego-boosting" feature. As your character gains rank and skills, he physically appears to age to reflect his accumulated experience, but his attributes (strength, constitution, whatever) and such remain unaffected. It's probably being done to prevent things like a teenage-looking character becoming an admiral, and to give those "hardcore" MMO gamers yet one more reason to bank-sit.

My perusal of the (admittedly limited) information on the game, as well as my own experience as a gamer, tell me that death by old age is unlikely. Permanent death, especially from something as mundane as aging, is a fairly sensitive topic among MMO gamers, and has never featured in any major MMORPG. It could happen, of course, but it is very doubtful. 68.14.76.151 08:59, 17 April 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)

It's a New Year, Ladies and Gentlemen

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)

Well, unfortunately you will need to 'be' more specific, as it's hard to tell what is out of date with the content based on a generalized claim. AFAIK, no new information about the game has been released to contradict/expand what we have, so unless there's a specific complaint, the {{update}} template should go. --RayaruB 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. You obviously know how the article could be improved, what's stopping you? jacoplane 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)

Duplicate link

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 removed the dedicated wiki link since it redirects to STGU. Best to keep the non-redirecting link in the list. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Links section

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)

• I've cut them down to one link each, to their homepages, this will save the petty editing adding links to every other feature, all of which people can easily find from the homepages of each site.--Caiman 19:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Step in the right direction. Actually, though, I think some of the links had merit. Take for example this link--it basically mirrors this page but in much more depth than a Wikipedia article can or should have. I'm adding a third section--hopefully this will allow us to keep good information without turning this article into a linkfarm. --ComputerSherpa 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of date?

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)

• They were only small parts really, which have been rectified, in turn perhaps my statement was a little ambiguous as I was referring to information that exists but is not yet present too, which I am hoping to add. The majority of which comes from the new FAQ as well as various developer posts made on http://www.StarTrek-Online.net in the past month or so. This mainly revolves around the way ships will be operated, what ships are likely to appear, how players will progress through the command structure and a few other tidbits. I have though, removed the out of date notice for now. --Caiman 18:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Monthly Costs?

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)

• According to the FAQ, STO will have a monthly fee and it "will be competitive with other products of our genre". --ComputerSherpa 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Assignments?

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)

No one knows yet. We're probably a good six months (at least) from knowing much about details like that. Speculatively, it seems likely that assignments will come through a variety of methods; you will likely be able to choose from among several assignments, but some assignments will also probably be given to you directly (either by NPCs or by other players). Characters are almost definitely going to have their own living quarters, probably on a starbase, large starship, or planetary facility. Space stations (starbases) will almost definitely be in-game, but most missions will probably require going out in a ship. Powers 14:03, 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)

Just wanting to be clear, as it is in the same area.... can you chosse WHERE you live? Or do people randomly get put on space stations/starships for their quarters? Sorry if that has been anwered, I know it's so far away before Beta Testing even happens, but I just wanted to know these things.--Trekkie84 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, no one knows. Rest assured, however, that they know that people will want to be able to choose with whom they play. Powers 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

a time known as the "En'ock tu Ch'enock,"

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)

In the lore, it's Andorian. Powers ^T 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a fictional story, and I imagine that the writers can call it that, even in the characters don't.PureSoldier 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question

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)

It'd be a neat idea, but it's not the direction Perpetual is taking. They intend to have a very story-driven game, and the challenge of having that mixed with extensive player-created content is not one they seem interested in tackling. Powers ^T 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Player Mount system?

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)

• I updated it a little. The idea is that STO is not a starship simulator and for the most part won't concentrate on activities aboard player-owned ships, apparently though you'll be able to crew with 5 or 6 other players, while each player controls relevant overall ship functions relating to their department, etc. Given the amount of non-ship related activities PE intend to include, this seems to be a concious decision of de-emphasis --Caiman 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. Glad to have you involved. Caiman, and Ben W Bell, what is the indication on this? Ben removed a statement that players will be unable to walk around the interior of their personal starships. However, I did see this indicated at one of the cited websites. Is there anything clear on this? This seems a significant detail, since that happens to be one of the main feature of most Star Trek episodes and lierary narratives. --Sm8900 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not been confirmed one way or another whether players will be able to wander around their own personal starships. It's been hinted that it will be possible, and I've not seen it categorically denied. Ben W Bell talk 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

sounds good. Appreciate the reply. Since I am a Wikipedian, and a professional, I will not express any personal views, and will simply say that if players are not able to explore their own starship, than it seems to me that the game would kind of stink --errrr, I mean that the entry will have to be updated. um, that's what i mean. :-) :-) See you. --Sm8900 15:50, 19 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?

Release date source??

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)

It doesn't say that. The source states around the time of the next Star Trek film scheduled for December 25th 2008, but doesn't say whether it is later or earlier. Ben W Bell talk 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic Studios and STO?

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 wouldn't add anything until it has been confirmed by a developer, be that Cryptic or someone else. --Resplendent (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Anonymous sources" are notoriously unreliable. I hope the news is true, but until either P2 or Cryptic says something it's just a rumor. ComputerSherpa (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that P2 no longer exists?? just want to ask. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

P2/Perpetual still exists, but is solely devoted to developing their PEP now. --Resplendent (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

P2 Entertainment is a seperate corporate entity to the now defunk Perpetual Entertainment. But it is semantics, the same management is in place with the same assets minus STO --Caiman (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename this entry and create a new one?

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)

Leave it for now. If something else rises then we'll deal with it as and when it happens, but for now we don't know a new game will come out, or even if the same game will come out from someone else. Canterbury Tail talk 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, assets were transferred to the new developer; until we know to what extent the game will use those assets, it's premature to assume it'll be a different game. Powers ^T 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we do make another article and make this one into Cryptic's version. Right now this article is kind of awkward with past tense like "The game would have . . . " which is less important than how the game will be made by the new developer. We already have some good info from a webcast and Q&A from the Star Trek convention in Las Vegas to base a new article on. The Iron Rooster (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all mention of how Perpetual was developing the game should be put on its own page, for historical reference. Since it has really no relevance to the game now being developed, it doesn't belong on the main page.--Tandalo (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic Studios mentioned again

"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)

Yep, that very article is reference #5 in the article right now. Powers ^T 13:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. thanks for the update. Actually, I think that the closest thing to an active Star Trek Online on the web right now is this talk page. :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

reverting edits by IP sock of User:Fredrick day

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)

Said user certainly raises a valid issue. Most of the information he attempted to remove is accurate as far as last-known information from Perpetual, but a lot of it was early design work that may have changed even before development was halted. Of course, with a new developer, it's even more likely that a lot of it will change. As such, while I don't think it necessarily has to be excised wholesale, the entire section does need to be refactored to better reflect the information as plans and for appropriate weight issues. I don't have time for that right now, but maybe soon. Powers ^T 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Clock

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)

So then why use old STO concept art as the timer backdrop?137.164.220.245 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

August 10 event

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

1Up preview/interview with Emmert JAF1970 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Massively

Cryptic reveals first Star Trek Online in-game trailer JAF1970 (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fan/community links

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)

Community Links In MMO Articles

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)

I agree that we should be able to retain community links here. I support their inclusion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As an adminstrator of community sites for several different MMORPGs, I also support this. Obviously, not every site is significant enough to warrant a link, but to not allow any seems naive on the part of Wikipedia. --Resplendent (talk) 22:37, 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)

I will get to those, too. If you wish to include links you must justify why they are included. Why is the link you just readded special or noteworthy? Why would this unreleased MMO have fan links, why 99% of the others do not? rootology (T) 02:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have justified links to community sites in articles about MMORPG's. I would've reposted the others however I did not keep a list. I do not know why 99% of the other MMO articles do not have "fan links" as you call them, but I know that you have yet to show me a specific policy forbidding them. Your reason seems to be limited to "nobody else has them, why should this one?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.170.170 (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here you are: WP:EL#AVOID sums it up. In particular: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority," and there is additional consensus that I'm looking for the link on now that we don't do this--Wikipedia is not a fan guide site, or a place to spam links for traffic to outside sites. The above comments by someone claiming to be an admin at such a site are another example of a problem--thats a clear conflict of interest. I'm going to ask for some more folks to weigh in here for a totally unbiased view. rootology (T) 02:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to that. The policy you link to does not support your reasons, I'm afraid, but this is an issue of interpretation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.170.170 (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Admin noticeboard discussion is here if you'd like to weigh in there. The following links here, here, and here back up my position, our traditions, and how Wikipedia articles work for dealing with fan site links and spam. The discussions, consensus on those discussions (which determine policy) and WP:EL are clear on dealing with spamming of fan links, unfortunately. rootology (T) 03:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea there was such a thing as edit-warring. I will not repost the links (which I assume you have removed again since you previously marked them as "spam" - rather insulting, but I won't respond to that) until this has been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.170.170 (talk) 03:15, 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)

For reference, the AN/I thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive468#Aggressive re-adding of spam links/edit warring - Star Trek Online. Powers ^T 23:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PS3 version?

Can anyone confirm what's in this [2] post?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 13:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No confirmation. JAF1970 (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You can read it on page 5 here [3]. I'd say the OPM is a reliable source. Thinkharder (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Release Date Fall 2009

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)

Jack Emmert said it would be out in less than 3 years a couple of months ago.. But apparently (according to what I've read on the ST:O forums) the release date HAS been set to Q4 2009, That would be really fast, and I'm not believing the game will be out in 2009 until I see it ;) --Erlend Aakre (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone should try and find a source for this.. I suppose we can't cite a forum that is referring to a magazine :) --Erlend Aakre (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added it. If that magazine is not an OK source (no links to release date) then someone just remove it.. But Several different people have posted about the date on the official ST:O forum --Erlend Aakre (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The official FAQ still says no release date has been set, and the Community Manager explicitly quoted that part of the FAQ yesterday. Powers ^T 01:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed Perpetual development process

(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)

I doubt any of that old dev stuff had a place on an encyclopedia. If anyone whines, they can make a separate Development of Star Trek Online article. StevePrutz (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I partially disagree. The game is still only in development, so it's not a stretch to talk about all development efforts. The Perpetual development was notable, especially in the way it ended, but I don't think it's notable enough for its own article. Until the game comes out I think the Perpetual development info should be included in this article. However, what existed before was way too much for this article. I'm in favor of having a couple paragraphs about the old development here and possibly moving the rest, as appropriate, to a section at Perpetual Entertainment. I've attempted this is the article... please check it out. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing you only brought back the most general history of the dev process, and specifically not all those hypothetical implementation details, this looks nice and clean to me. Well done! CapnZapp (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Contest Controversies

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 --HeMan9500 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with the basics for our group of new editors - for wikipedia to consider something a notable event, it has to be reported in reliable sources - wikipedia considers reliable sources to be newspapers, magazines, research journals and other sources which fit a certain criteria (editoral control being one of them) so

1) This isn't reported in reliable sources, so for us it's "invisible".

Secondly, for something to be considered a controversy, a reliable source has to call it a controversial - we can't make that determination because it's considered original research.

2) No reliable sources have called this controversial.

This is the problem with the section as it currently stands, there are no reliable sources (and wikipedia does not consider forum posts to be reliable sources) - now, we can edit war over this for a bit but eventually the page will be locked, long-term editors will get pulled into the argument and the content will be removed.

So - moving forward - do any reliable sources (newspapers, magazines etc) cover this issue? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:22, 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)

Because I've seen this article and I haven't seen those? There are 100,000s of articles on wikipedia that need clean-up, that doesn't mean we can't clean-up this one up. The crucial thing that you have to grasp about wikipedia is that the underlying principle is verification not "truth", that means we let reliable sources decide what is important and we then report on it. We don't decide ourselves that something is important. As wikipedia policies were formulated, it was decided that forum posts just aren't reliable sources for most things - that's not specific to this article, it's a general policy. So even though we can see that forum posts have been made about this issue, it's just not something we'd put in an article until a reliable source discusses it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Posts on the official game forum where you can find the developers' announcements aren't important and reliable information? Intriguing. The bottom line is, it is an information, a certain knowledge, it might be circumstantial but it concerns a factual issue that involved many people. Because of this it is valuable and shoudl be known. Why delete valuable piece of information (which will not be reported anywhere and its only validation is its direct source. And btw what better source there is than a direct one?). Fine, don't make it a new section, add it to a previous one, brand it e.g. "contests" but do not destroy it. It is an awful, negative, completely irrational action. You just deleted an honest, accurate report, on which someone worked hard. Folks interested in STO deserve to have the broadest look on the game and the actions of the developers. I find your strict, "by the book" approach unjustified and completely ridiculous in this situation. You did a huge disservice to the whole community, imo.

Shame on you. GoGolan (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why not try finding a reliable source to include this information? We appreciate that you are acting in good faith and improve the encyclopedia, but we must have some minimum standard of sourcing and forums have never made the cut. –xeno (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides having to come from a reliable source, the information also has to be notable. The devs had a contest on their website. Rightly or wrongly, the devs picked a winner. What does that really have to do with the game itself, which is what this article is about. Seems like blogs and forums have picked this story up, and it seems like that's where is belongs. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no game as of now. It is in development. The actions, missteps and reparations of the devs are the concern of the fans that long for the game. The article in itself is not a big one, it can use any factual information it can get. As soon as the game hits the beta tests the article will grow and the issue at hand will become redundant indeed. But till then it is a real shame it got deleted. GoGolan (talk) 02:49, 27 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)

What you mean is reliable sources. A developer post on a forum is not grounds for notabilty. Coverage by reliable, secondary sources is, however. Since this has none of these, it doesn't belong on the encyclopedia.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We would use a moderator post in addition to reliable sources in certain circumstances. So if 5 reliable sources all agreed this was a scandal then it might be seen than a forum post from a moderator *might* be allowed - but we wouldn't build a section based *upon* those forum posts - it can be a window frame, it can't be the foundation of the house. The crux of the problem is this - it only becomes a scandal or controversial when a reliable source makes that judgement, otherwise we are breaking one of our core policies - that we do not publish original research. As for a vote!, you could try that, but the problem is that they can't be used to opt out of core policy and the decisions are based upon the strength of the arguments - and with respect, it's clear that the basis of this problem is a misunderstanding of what wikipedia is for and how our articles are constructed. I don't see any disagreement amongst the experienced editors about what the problem is (no reliable sources = no inclusion) and how it can be solved (mentioned in multiple reliable sources). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:21, 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)

Because (as far as I can see with a quick skim, I'll take a closer look after lunch) they are strict factual - so

"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)

I personally felt that this was telling tales. Something not even issue a week from now but just an attempt to bad mouth Awen away from moderation. Should never have left those forums. She made a mistake, people upset, she apologizes, some people still not happy. Khonshuknight (talk) 12:45, 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)

• Seems like a classic example of a tempest in a teacup; years from now no one will care that they ignored a contest rule to award a prize and did their best to make up for it (this is why it doesn't belong in the article). All this over 2 beta keys? If there is a wider pattern of botched community interaction then it will be picked up in reliable sources. –xeno (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, Xeno, for making our point for us. IF(key word) years from now a pattern of unethical behavior has emerged from the Dev team or Cryptic, this event could very well mark the beginning. However, due to your efforts, this information will be lost, and people who may have chosen not to play STO based upon unethical behavior of the company making will not have that information to base their decision on. The fact of the matter is, these events DID happen. –HeMan9500 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.64.127 (talk)
• Information added to a wiki is very rarely lost. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_Online&oldid=279851273#Contest_Controversy , where the addition is available on a past version of the page. I appreciate that you are passionate about this piece of information, I was once also very passionate about adding something to an article, in my mind it was the most important piece of information and it had to get out there. But sometimes outside perspectives are helpful and in the end it really wasn't that notable in the grand scheme of things. I hope that you will stick around and come to understand why we require things asserted to be "controversies" to adhere strictly to our standards of sourcing. –xeno (talk) 13:12, 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)

That's exactly the kind of reliable sourcing we're looking for. (Weblogs Inc. blogs usually just make the grade). –xeno (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It may make it as a reliable source; but it still doesn't mean that the kerfluffle is notable enough to make it into the article on this game. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content as long as the section isn't given WP:UNDUE weight, it could be mentioned. But I really doubt a reliable source would report on the alleged misgranting of a single beta code. (Not to downplay the importance of said beta code to the diehard fans of the game, I know back in 2004 I was willing to sell my soul for a closed beta account for World of Warcraft) –xeno (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy! It was not about the laughable beta key. It was about the devs' breaking their own rules and their disregard for the fans, honest contestants and other community members. The worst case of taking their fan base and future customers for granted. It was also about the community's reaction that actually made a difference, resulting in the devs doing the right thing and making amends. Gosh, I didn't think it'd be that difficult to get it across to you, guys. Makes me sad. GoGolan (talk) 01:32, 28 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)

would prefer this incident Well it's more than we don't care - and I don't mean that in the negative sense but rather than we have a clear goal of what wikipedia is and the sources we use, the actual issue being debated is less interesting to us than the sources being used to support it. All of the long-term editors you see here who say they don't think it should go in are people who haven't been involved in this matter and became involved here at the article because other editors were concerned about the editing warring that's gone on. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:17, 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)

sources

• Todd Kendry, Craig Zinkievich (April 2009). msnbc.com video: 'Star Trek Online' Interview (streaming media). msnbc.com. Retrieved 2009-04-18. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

New website

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)

trimming previous development

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)

Some trimming may be in order, but I think you removed too much. That history was widely reported on. Perhaps as more information comes out about the current game, we could move that data to either a new article or to Perpetual Entertainment, but for now I think much of it was quite relevant. Powers ^T 03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not have the info I thought that it was okay before there was not much anyway. So long as the game is still been made I think the information should stay when the game comes out though, I think at that point it should be looked at again--Inputdata (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Pre-order chart

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?   Thorncrag  20:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Too many release dates

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)

 Done --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

how much?

how much it cost? montly payments or what?Tinybelt (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know that too. Any information so far? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.212.201 (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered checking the official web site? Especially since the game was released a couple of weeks ago. Powers ^T 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Instancing

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)

Price Changes & Forum Outrages

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)

Seems the page has been edited a dozen times or more in the few hours since the lock was removed. This seems to suggest the controversy hasn't died down an the edit war is starting up again. Wandering over to their official forums, it looks to me like this thing will be ongoing at least another week or two.KarmaInferno (talk) 18:45, 1 March 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)

This count? http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/81508 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.139.16 (talk) 06:08, 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)

I saw the link above about the controversy, that seems to be a good start. However, I'm still not seeing any reason to clutter this article with things that happened on a forum. In the scope of an encyclopedia, is anything that happens on a forum notable to external sources? Dayewalker (talk) 06:21, 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

Since the stuff about the forum bans and all the commentary has been removed, I am going to remove the neutrality dispute message. Everything there now is neutral and factual. Raluboon (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Find and cite some actual article or other publication, and incorporate the citation into a neutral point of view entry. Ideally a reader of a wiki entry should not be able to tell what side of the argument that the entry writer personally supports. Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions.KarmaInferno (talk) 12:22, 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)

I have moved and shortened the info on the price reduction. Now it is short, cool, NPOV, and it is up to the user todraw any conclusions. CapnZapp (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"This lead to outrage by players who had pre-ordered, forcing Star Trek Online to cancel the promotion early." - This was added on 3/10, is there a source for this? It's a reasonable deduction based on the timing of events, but it should be backed up by an actual source.KarmaInferno (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable deduction, sure, but that would fall under original research and therefore couldn't be used. Yes, a source is needed, and it cannot be the forums themselves. It must be a third party commenting on the subject that is independent from the source and reliable. A blog of a user won't do for this. A game review site, like MetaCritic or a magazine, like Electronic Gaming Monthly would be a reliable source meeting our policy on the matter. Our guideline on notability must also be considered. This is really no matter, as if the content is notable, a reliable source(as described above), should exist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception

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)

I agree, with the exception that the quotes perhaps are unnecessary. All the people coming to this article from the Star Trek forums need to chill out with the verbal diarrhea all over the article. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

While the quotes are not exactly necessary, I don't see anything wrong with them. Most other game articles here also include quotes from the reviews. Raluboon (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just brings up WP:QUOTEFARM issues. But it's not a big deal. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The page kept being reverted before due to the initial additions about the "discount controversy" being biased, inflammatory, and uncited. Player rage isn't appropriate here. The current version has been formatted more appropriately, however, and seems okay to keep. KarmaInferno (talk) 09:56, 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)

 Note: This is not a content dispute. The game hasn't even been out for a month....need anything else really be said? Editors need to stop adding unciteworthy references and non-NPOV content or else face warnings and possible temporary blocks. This article doesn't even need a reception section for a while; it doesn't help readers or improve this article, and is only being added as an agenda for those who are evidently disgruntled with the game or game publisher.   Thorncrag  05:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC):::

I agree with CapnZapp below. The idea of neutrality does not mean we have to balance every negative point with a positive one. It means that we have to present the best representation of the truth, no matter how we feel about it. The reviews have been overwhelmingly lukewarm to negative, and the reception section should certainly reflect that fact. Raluboon (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I agree as well. Ignoring the fact that thre WERE negative reviews and you seem biased.

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)

• If there the negative reviews aren't balanced by positive reviews, the solution is to add the positive reviews, not to remove the review section altogether. –xeno^talk 15:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotefarm issues I referred to are specifically the need to add quotes from the other side of the spectrum, which leads to an ever increasing supply of counterbalanced quotes. It would be better to remove them completely from the article and just leave the scores/metacritic; if people want, they can read the entirety of the reviews on their relevant sites. -Falcon8765 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Falcon is 100% correct here. This is textbook WP:UNDUE and if anyone does not understand this, they need to completely re-read the entire WP:NPOV article from start to finish before modifying the article again.   Thorncrag  20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So you would propose an empty reception section with simply a table of scores? No, that's not how we do things. See WP:VG/GL#Essential content. If they are issues with the quotes, then the appropriate response would be to edit, not simply remove, the section. WP:QUOTEFARM is an essay, by the way. –xeno^talk 20:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The current revision seems okay to me. Everyone happy with it? Raluboon (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is arguing against the obvious fact that a well-crafted, balanced, and neutral reception section is the overall long-term goal as it is best for the reader, but when that isn't happening either because of neutrality of editors, lack of reliable sources, or otherwise, the only alternative is to leave out the section until the game has matured a little bit. Reception is always going to be hyperbolic when a game is first released, which fosters neutrality problems and that is a strong reason to let the game mature a bit before including it. For heaven's sake, how about at least 30 days?   Thorncrag  21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. We aren't going to leave a reception section out "for the time being" because someone subjectively thinks it has "too many negative reviews, and surely more positives ones will be forthcoming!". Please see WP:NPOV. If you can find more positive reviews from reliable sources, please do feel free to add them. In any case, tomorrow will make a month and two days later will make 30 days. –xeno^talk 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think nixing the reviews would be a violation of the very policy he is claiming to preserve here. Raluboon (talk) 23:04, 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)

Criticism

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)

If you'll find reliable sources showing this, it could be added to the article. However as I stated above, I don't think anything that happens on a forum is notable unless it's picked up somewhere else. Dayewalker (talk) 23:21, 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)

The "article" is an self-proclaimed opinion piece. It needs to be covered by a reliable source, not the opinion of one columnist. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 03:13, 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)

This kind of player outrage almost never is worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. Don't takemy word for it; check out the other MMO articles.

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)

Only if it is covered in multiple reliable sources - if it's blogs and fan forums, we aren't interested as the material cannot be used. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point of view. What would be "reliable" sources by your definition? 93.202.164.2 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are defined by Wikipedia policy. They'd include newspapers, game magazines and respected sites; they wouldn't include fan sites, minor review blogs or forums. --McGeddon (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there have been articles at both Ten Ton Hammer and MMORPG.com, both of which are respected sites. The TTH article is above, and the MMORPG article is here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/352/view/news/read/16347/Star-Trek-Online-Limited-Time-Offer-Triggers-Immense-Backlash.html Raluboon (talk) 20:21, 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-–-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)

• Early this year, STO was a controversial MMO with a top-flight franchise title. It was (by any measure) rushed onto shelves by Cryptic and "lukewarm" is perhaps the best thing you can say about the reception. Now that some time has gone by, a sober look at the critics and supporters would be helpful to making this article objective and complete. Jusdafax 03:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Massively"

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)

copied from User talk:Xeno to centralize discussion and get more opinions on this. –xeno^talk 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an MMORPG, it's described as an MMORPG, it's sold as an MMORPG, that it's not massive is the IP addresses own opinion and does not seem to be borne out by the rest of the world. Guild Wars is not described as an MMORPG because the developers choose not to describe it in that way, not because it doesn't meet the definition. Star Trek is not different than WoW or any other MMORPG. Yes it uses instancing, but you can still interact with thousands online. Canterbury Tail talk 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

24.14.x.x commented at my talk page that they were unable to find sources to back up the claim so they would stop making the change and comment here if they do find said sources. –xeno^talk 22:08, 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)

Back when playing multiplayer games involved LAN parties, there was usually a hard limit of 4 (Doom), 8 (Warcraft II) or rarely 16 players. But then MMORPGs came out allowing essentially unlimited numbers of players to connect at a time. In reality, there probably is a cap on the total number of players, but it's not a cap that's meant to be reached. Since then, games have come out that have caps that are much larger than the 16 that was once common, but not "unlimited" in the sense of MMOs. But that doesn't mean that there aren't games that are clearly "massively multiplayer"; there are, and Star Trek Online is clearly among them. Powers ^T 13:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

30 Years after Nemesis?

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)

No the game is set in the mainstream Star Trek universe, not the new alternative one. And Vulcan isn't destroyed, you can go visit it and walk around on it. Romulus is destroyed, as is correct for the mainstream universe, it wouldn't be destroyed in the alternative one. The Enterprise design in the game is very obviously based off the standard Enterprise design from Star Trek I-VI, not the new movie.

If still in doubt, see this page, and this one. Canterbury Tail talk 11:36, 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)

No, it's very definitely in the original timeline. Romulus has been destroyed, as per the original timeline, and its destruction plays a big part of the storyline. Also you can go and walk around Vulcan if you like. There is no evidence in the game to suggest it's the alternative timeline. The ships are original timeline, the history everything. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 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)

Updated

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)

This is correct. The Foundry went to the live server (Holodeck) on March 28th, 2011. And because I just know that someone will delete all of this because we haven't cited a source [9] There's a source. Seanr451 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Season 4?

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)

Per Dan Stahl, STO's Executive Producer, "Season 4 is going to be somewhere between June-July." Seanr451 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And I just updated the Season chart with the info that they're shooting for a July 7th release of Season 4. Seanr451 (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sold to Perfect World

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)

I believe that the information about Cryptic Studios being purchased by Atari and then sold to Perfect World should be added to the Wikipedia article about Cryptic Studios, and not added to this article, which is solely about Star Trek Online. - Seanr451 (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dan Stahl

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)

Klingon Faction

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

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 agree, unless there is a reliable source giving coverage as to why these outages are out of the ordinary for online games then its just normal. All online games have outages and covering them here unless they are abnormal isn't necessary.Caidh (talk) 14:41, 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)

I've removed the section - there hasn't been any opposition stating a reason to keep it. It can only be re-added if there is a reliable source discussing the outages (and not just a listing of outages, some reason that they are abnormal compared to similar games).Caidh (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirect Link

The link for Reman goes to remanufacturing. What does that have to do with Star Trek???

Nothing at all. Someone probably linked it without checking where the link went. I didn't find a suitable replacement link so I unlinked it. Caidh (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Retail editions are still available

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)

Season 9.5

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)