New pageEdit

I've moved the original version of this page to Star Trek Online (Perpetual Entertainment). Since the new version of the game by Cryptic appears to be a completely different animal to what Perpetual had announced, all of the information on that page was essentially redundant. Rather than gut it and start again, I felt that having an additional article on the defunct version would allow us to preserve that information, whilst not getting this page confused with what was and what will be. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the old version now located in the different location needs to be sanitized of changes made since Cryptic took over. It had been getting updated for weeks now. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not a huge amount changed between the revelation of Cryptic's involvement and now - it was mostly still dealing with the Perpetual version's gameplay and design (here's a diff comparing just before the Cryptic announcement with my latest version), I've simply removed most of the intro which discusses the change in developer, and changed the tenses. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Atari Edit

Atari bought Cryptic - That's all I know but there are possibly changes in the outcome related to this game - someone who knows might need to get some updated info. [1] [2]Morder 05:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The developers assert that they retain full control over the game and are still on the same track they were before the buyout.R2data 11:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that the parent company which owns Atari, Infogrames, purchased both Atari and Cryptic Studios. Atari in itself has little to no control over Cryptic Studios and the Star Trek Online game's development.Jlandeen 05:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Is the storyline of this game canonical? (Star Trek Online: Path To 2409) Relinquo 03:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In a word: No. -- Renegade54 03:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth not? So far it doesn't conflict with anything. It's set in a time so far unexplored. Vulcazoid 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Because no games are canon. Neither are novels, tech manuals, or anything not from the TV series and movies. That is how Paramount and Roddenberry himself decided to do things. TV shows and moves are canon, everything else is licensed, but non-canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I find your baseless "because no games are canon" argument to be both pithy and arrogant.
  • "Star Trek Online is shaping up as an impressive addition to the ever-expanding selection of massively multiplayer games, and a worthy installment to the Star Trek canon."GamePro Preview, 11/10/2009
Yes, in the past Roddenberry and Paramount deemed non-film and non-TV as non-canon. However, Roddenberry is dead, everyone involved in TNG, DSP, Voyager and Enterprise has been fired or retired from Star Trek, and the only canon Paramount is interested in putting on screen is the J.J.-verse Star Trek: 90210. The impression I got was that, with STO being the ONLY media product taking place in the socalled "Prime" trek universe, this game is now the Prime canon. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen a release from Paramount going either way on this. - Khaaaaan! 03:37, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
The point is unless there is a change in policy at Paramount on this issue, and then a change in our policy, this is non-canon, both there and here. As for the rest of your "statement", I'm not going to feed the troll any more then I have to. - Archduk3:talk 03:51, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
From a MTV Multiplayer interview with Cryptic Studios' Craig Zinkievich at the 2009 New York Comic Con:
MTV Multiplayer: Is the story in "Star Trek Online" part of the official canon?
Zinkievich: What is the official canon is really an argument that anyone can have. For us all the shows and movies are canon. But you can get in an argument with any of the fans about how even some of the shows may have small contradictions in them. We want to make sure that we follow that timeline, and we're true to that timeline. We see the shows and movies as canon. We're reading the novels now; the novels are considered soft canon with a lot of more conflicts in there. You can never call yourself "canon," but we can't take a 90-degree angle and go it's all totally different.
MTV Multiplayer: Has there been any involvement with people working on the movie, like J.J. Abrams?
Zinkievich: We've talked to [J.J. Abrams' production company] Bad Robot a little bit. We worked with CBS to make sure anything they've been doing matches up with what we're doing, but there aren't massive tie-ins. "Star Trek Online" isn't going to come out with everybody looking exactly like in the movie. It's not a movie game; it's really continuing the franchise.
I ask, where else is CBS/Paramount continuing the series? Will they ever? Is STO the closest we'll ever have to a canonical continuation of the "Prime" Trek universe? - Khaaaaan! 04:15, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
It may be as close as we'll get to a canonical continuation in the main timeline, but that doesn't make it canon anymore than the novels are. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:28, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
Take it up with Paramount. I'll be more than willing to help change our policy when they change theirs. - Archduk3:talk 04:28, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, they're continuing the franchise in the "prime" timeline in comics and novels. *shrug* -- sulfur 04:31, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
I'd argue that—no matter what Roger Ebert says—Movies, TV Shows, and video games are one thing and that print media such as comics and novels are another. I'd love to ask "the powers that be" for an answer, but who would that be at this point, CBS or Paramount? - Khaaaaan! 04:38, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
I'd also guess that, if asked, CBS or Paramount or whoever will ride the fence on this for 20 some odd years—the same way they did with the animated series' canonicity—until it's painfully clear that they'll never follow up TNG, Voyager, DS9, or the rest of the "Prime" reality with a film or television production. This has producers, directors, production artists, voice actors, and a lot of other things you'd find behind a cinema or TV product. If it smells cinematic, feels cinematic, tastes cinematic... - Khaaaaan! 04:59, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
Still ain't canon, and won't be any time soon. Sorry. Them's just the way that we roll. -- sulfur 05:08, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
I do not dispute the Memory Alpha Cannon Policy in any way. Though I believe the original question was "Is the storyline of this game canonical?" not "Are articles on Memory Alpha about this game going to be treated as canonical?" (whether or not the latter should be inferred) and personally, whether the rest of the world should consider the game canon is the answer I came to this section of this discussion page to look for. I don't care if the answer comes from CBS, Paramount, Cryptic, or Gene Roddenberry's ashes reconstituted and reanimated into a zombie.
If this game, and other productions like it are all we'll ever see of the "prime universe" again, outside of fan fiction... Well, for one thing that'd make me a little sad, and for another I'd personally start to re-evaluate what I considered "canon". - Khaaaaan! 06:13, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
You can hold whatever personal beliefs you want, it's a free country. I know people that consider the Destiny novel arc to be canon. That is their personal belief. It does not change the official policy, as set out by Paramount. No gamer article can change that, no interview with people flat out admitting that they can't decide what is canon will. Games, not official canon. Is there anything new you can actually bring to the debate, or are we just going to keep running around in circles on this? --OuroborosCobra talk 06:57, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Cryptic is working with Paramount, to establish it as canon. Wormulon 07:17, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
It will be as canon as all the novels. Don't kid yourself. It's not canon, doubtful it ever will be. Let's just drop this as the entire conversation has gone nowhere. — Morder (talk) 07:30, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
@Wormulon: Maybe! I'm still looking for mention of it on their site. @Morder: I didn't think we were really debating anything. I'm just looking for answers. - Khaaaaan! 08:38, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
Well, you got your answer. It isn't. If you want another version of it, go ask at TrekBBS. -- sulfur 11:27, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to butt in,but a trekkie point of view, everything is canon. Do we trekkers follow theory, or do we not? Every decision you make, neigh, anything imagined can create an alternate universe (tmeline). Who cares what's canon in our (Star Trek) universe, when all that is imagined is in actuallity...true.--Thoggnee 02:40, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. What is canon is not up to fans, it is up to Paramount(or whoever owns Star Trek) and they have consistently stated that only what is seen on the TV screen is canon, and not licensed products. You can personally believe whatever you wish, but that does not make it canon. --31dot 07:49, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
CBS is beginning to cannonize this game. These days Star Trek Online is about as close to TV cannon as we are ever going to get again. CBS has placed very strict rules on Cryptic in terms on content and story. It would not supprise me at all if STO becomes official cannon in the near future. -- 00:32, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
It's "canon", not "cannon". Anything is possible, though I don't think it's likely given the nature of the game. It's also an academic discussion until they say it is or not. --31dot 00:55, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Obviously this was a fairly silly 'discussion' but I felt like clarifying what the diff in opinions between the admins and the fans seems to be. Prime universe may never again be touched, thus you can chose whatever you want to continue the story in your mind but if they ever do go back to the Prime universe, if Frakes releases another movie, for instance, he will NOT consider the events of STO first. Because it is not canon. There may be discrepancies at that point. Ofc if they don't touch it, then enjoy your own version of the next, next generation. Degrelescence (talk) 04:59, September 16, 2012 (UTC)


And other races. Will you be able to play as them? The Cardassian ships are by far the coolest in the Star Trek universe, and I won't get this unless I'm allowed my own personal Galor-class. LandBuffalo 20:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The information is on their website. You can play as a Cardi. You cannot, at launch, play as the Cardassian faction, nor can you own a Galor. IT IS GREEN 23:59, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

added a link to my site Edit

Hi I added a link to the sto database.

-- 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Lee Henderson

Ships of the Line Edit

It seems someone tagged the "unknown" ship as Klingon ship, when it is really unknown as to what type it is. We do know it is seemingly of "Romulan design with Borg enhancements. Please check this link to confirm my information. I will move the ship to a new section, Unknown Faction instead of Klingon.Jlandeen 06:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The ship depicted in the bottom left hand corner, the one with listed as a modified sovereign class ship, is not a sovereign class ship at all. The official site designates it as a [[3]]. Vulcazoid 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe Species 8472? Although it is more likely to be Romulan. – Wormulon 01:05, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe Mazarite? We can't be sure, although it closely resembles a Romulan bird. We'll find out when the game comes out. IT IS GREEN 00:08, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure Cryptic is saying that Star Trek Online is due to be released, quote, "early 2010". Apparently, they really mean that. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Unknown rankEdit

I changed the unknown rank heading above miranda, centaur and soyuz to Lieutenant. Cryptic speficially says that you start as a lieutenant.--IT IS GREEN 00:10, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the article Edit

Text (21 May 2009) Edit

I've removed the section on "Current Ships". This consisted solely of text copied from the entries at and as such was a copyright violation. -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think using anything they've put in a press release constitutes a copyright violation... - Khaaaaan! 03:55, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Links (14 March 2010) Edit

I have just removed the following links from the "External links" section:

Reason: We're not a link directory. I've kept the official page (but not the additional forum link or the separate developers link), the WP link, and a link to the most active Wiki dedicated to the game. -- Cid Highwind 17:12, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Text (15 March 2010) Edit

Removed the following - not sure what to make of it, as it is unformatted and even contains a request for further editing/fact-checking. Before re-adding, please consider whether we a re the right place for too detailed in-game information, at all. -- Cid Highwind 15:20, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Serius Sector Block/Regulus-Lieutenant(Main Enemy:Klingons)
Pi Canis(Klingons)/Alpha Centurari(Romulans)-Lieutenant Commander
Psi Velornum(Hirogen)/Iota Pavionis(MORE Romulans)/Begin the Cardassian season arc-Commander
Cardassian arc-Captain/A little Admiral
Borg-RA 3
Note:Not entirely accurate, the player editing is a Commander 7. PLEASE edit this to the correct way!

Constellation VS CheyenneEdit

Ok, I've changed Cheyenne to Constellation three times now. Every time, It's been changed back. What's going on? According to, It's Constellation. A I missing something???The preceding unsigned comment was added by NX-74205 (talk • contribs).

From what I gather, at wikis devoted to the game, the official website has the ship mislabeled, and it is a Cheyenne-class in game, see this image - Archduk3 08:37, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Looks like they finally got around to fixing the website. It now says Cheyenne. To bad, I was kind of hoping it would be Constellation. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:06, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Klingon shipsEdit

Can someone please add the klingon ships in the same format as the federation ships instead of just as screen shots? Thank you

Suggestion Edit

Since the game is and has been out for quite a while i suggest we make it so the article is in the present tense. Also if anyone on the wiki has STO they should contribute items like screenshots or in game pictures. (If you rebuff me i wont be like Worf) but hear me out. ScarletScarabX (Talk) 03:17, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

The relevant bits are in the present tense. Bits that are not are portions talking about what the developers said beforehand. And there are some in-game screenshots, but we do not want to go overboard. The real meaty details and screenshots would be better suited at Memory Beta, as they have come up with a method of detailing the game, its missions, and the character changes introduced. -- sulfur 04:07, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

well thank you for getting backto me promtly ScarletScarabX (Talk) 04:30, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

IRW Narada? Edit

Why was that screenshot under "Romulan" labelled as "IRW Narada"? It looks more like the IRW Esemar than Nero's ship. - Mitchz95 (talk) 15:56, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Verant Interactive version Edit

According to this page there was going to be a Star Trek Online MMO for Windows/PS2 around 2000/2001. It predates the Perpetual Entertainment version. Any objections to me creating a page for it under "Star Trek Online (Verant Interactive)"? StalwartUK 23:04, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

I was actually going to do that some day. Why not? 23:46, May 21, 2013 (UTC)SFC3

Whipped something up quick here. Feel free to add anything interesting. StalwartUK 03:37, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.