open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Dev Track Feedback: Monetizing Your Apps and Services
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 ... : last (49)

Author Topic

Overlord PinKy
Gallente
Firebird Squadron
Terra-Incognita
Posted - 2011.06.16 15:51:00 - [961]
 

CCP wants to make money every single way they can off of this. The 4.5 million pr mo they make off subscriptions isn't enough.

Seriously CCP, if you want to make more money - do more work yourselves and charge for it. That's how honest people do it, I have 2 jobs as an example.

You can hire people to build apps for iPad, smart phones etc that augment your game where it's lacking. If you do that you can charge for it.

But don't think for a second that your ENTIRE player base won't turn on you and make you the fool in the public media world wide by charging your customers to do work for you that they already do for free...

Again, maybe you should be concentrating on something like oh say killing botting accounts???


Blacken Dekar
Gallente
Dark Sun Legion
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:00:00 - [962]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online


This isn't the players problem, its CCP's. You guys chose the time to drop a ball of crap on the paying customers. Thanks to the idea of having to pay for EFT, EveMon, BattleClinic and killboards, I'm down two real life friends from Eve and you are down 9 accounts. I believe if they were paying month to month this puts CCP down $134.55 US a month in income.

Congrats.

Andreus Ixiris
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:03:00 - [963]
 

Originally by: Arakkis Melanogaster
Do you guys understand that these freelance developers are making third party programs that make your terrible game playable


Why do you continue to play it if it's terrible and unplayable without third-party applications?

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:04:00 - [964]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.



There was no misunderstandment.

You tried to get the low hanging fruit by throwing a pomato on a wall to see where the spurts would land.
Done several times so it's not new.

If all were fine, you'd proceed with the new scheme at once, else you post some corporate "sorry we will iterate", which is what is happening.


The worrysome part is that you even published that (posthumous) label "draft", ie someone in CCP really believed in that stuff.

I am sorry but the iterations have to happen in your CCP ranks too, not just on the blog.


It HURTS US SUPPORTERS to see CCP go down like this, didn't you know?
It's heart shattering to see these last months seeing you embarking in EA / Sony loan shark mode.



You are meant to be different. And better. Don't betray us.

Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:11:00 - [965]
 

Originally by: Andreus Ixiris
Originally by: Arakkis Melanogaster
Do you guys understand that these freelance developers are making third party programs that make your terrible game playable


Why do you continue to play it if it's terrible and unplayable without third-party applications?


Why do you continue to post when its so tedious to type with the on screen keyboard?

Busca Torr
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:18:00 - [966]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha


You are meant to be different. And better. Don't betray us.



Well It looks like the thing is stoped for now, but i hade to say amen to Vaerah Vahrokha!

Gurgeh Murat
Minmatar
Blue Republic
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:27:00 - [967]
 

Dear CCP Zulu, there is really only ONE thing thats really outraging people in this thread.

Charging people for receiving any form of recompense for costs incurred. Be that isk or real life donations (not charges, DONATIONS) or a pitiful ad stream revenue that doesent even cover hosting costs never mind garner a profit.

The developer of capsuleer and indeed any other CHARGE TO USE 3rd party app is perceived by almost everyone posting here to be quite rightly liable to charges from yourself. Theyre using your IP to make themselves PROFIT. Not cover costs, they hope to profit. And good luck to them.

The dedicated souls motivated not by profit but a genuine love of the game, pouring their own money and time into something they love, they are the ones were all standing up to defend. The ones who dont demand a fee for their app, but are pleasantly surprised to log in and find someone liked their work enough to fling a couple of dollars or a couple of million isk their way. Which encourages them to do more to enhance y/our game, everyone wins.

Noone can possibly object to you wanting to firmly establish control over your IP, but why wasnt this stated as an intention in the original Dev Blog?

D'ya think people might have reacted better if they knew what your REAL aim was?

If you require real world personal verificication, a 1$ Transaction on your website with a credit card should be sufficient surely? Works for paypal.

One final point in the defence of the people working hard, at a loss, to improve y/our game. One even the BizDev *retch* team might understand.

How many people would have quit eve fairly early on if their capsuleer career hadnt been aided by evemon, or evehq, or eft. Never mind the more esoteric apps like mentat. How many? 1000? 10000?

Lets say ten. for an extra year. 1800 euro's you wouldnt have had if free apps hadnt kept them in the game. Pffft, you say, nickels and dimes, we earn MILLIONS!!!!

Then stop trying to nickel and dime good souls working for the community at large and trying to ignore the red line on their personal balance sheet. The value of their work cant be measured by "BizDev".

Orakkus
Minmatar
m3 Corp
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:29:00 - [968]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online


Not so fast there Mr. Zulu. I've seen this little dance before. While I honestly hope that this is a harbinger of truly re-thinking this issue, the last time you pulled something like this was with the Anomaly changes. It went a lot like how this is playing out in that CCP starts out with a really bad idea. Then the players get rightly enraged because it's a major and poorly thought out change. Then you come along say, "Oh, wait a minute, don't worry your sweet heads about it. We'll review this because clearly the community thinks this a bad idea." The players calm down thinking that cooler and wiser heads have prevailed. Then a week later, the change goes through anyways.

Let's take a hard look at what these free apps have done for CCP:
"Eve-Search" - Chribba's search engine for the CCP forums because CCP's original search engine.. was just horrible. Eve-Search made it possible to keep the community aware of growing patterns in the game. Changes to the Amarr and Minmatar ship line ups, Falcons, ECM, etc. All can be traced back to the fact that you could find those issues with Eve search.

"Eve-Kill.net" and "Battleclinic.com" - Without these two sites, killmails would not have been recorded. Without killmails, there would be no way to gauge how well one corp/alliance/coalition was doing against another. Without the ego that comes with your number of kills or with bad fits, the complexities of combat would be only thought of as a frustration and poor game design. Less combat = Less people losing ships = less modules selling = less manufacturing being done = less people finding the game fun = Less people paying to play Eve Online. It is fair to say that without these two sites, there would be no Eve Online and everyone working at CCP would be doing some less.. fun.

"Dotlan" and "Ombrey" - CCP's galatic wiremap is confusing and difficult to navigate. Dotlans and Ombrey's Brilliant map designs made it useful, effective, and easier to think about where you needed to go, either for trade, for combat, or for exploring. Again, this free app, was vital in making Eve Online successful. And your Biz Dev didn't write it.

"Evemon" - Another Free app that helped people organize their skills and plan out what they needed, as well as many other features. Maybe not vital, but certainly made Eve much easier to understand and play.

"Eve Fitting Tool" - This tool may not be vital.. but it definately improved the game's playability.

Dawn Ramsey
Lets Get Rocked
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:32:00 - [969]
 

I have read all the CCP related posts in this thread and to say the least, I'm very disappointed in this most recent blog.

To announce something like this, and it not be a troll of some kind leaves me almost speechless.

CCP ....you are destroying a community that SUPPORTS your game..and enriches your game, with THEIR time ...and now you want to charge them for it, all while NOT offering them official support of any kind??

This is outrageous, and I agree with others in this thread..I thought CCP was above this kind of money grabbing action.

I strongly urge CCP to reconsider this idea and scrap it. It's a terrible idea and will have negative effects in the long term on EVEs community and the 3rd party programs that help to make it so great.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:36:00 - [970]
 

Edited by: Bomberlocks on 16/06/2011 16:39:27
Edited by: Bomberlocks on 16/06/2011 16:38:05
Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online
TL;DR Yes we fcked up, again, and will try to come up with something that doesn't cost us even more long term customers and make the press laugh at us even more than they already do. C/D?

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

You are meant to be different. And better. Don't betray us.


Tutskii
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:36:00 - [971]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online


Dear Zulu:

I think the feedback you are experiencing has two main reasons, both very valid:

1. Although your Legal department is not really expected to know the game, your Biz one should have a passing familiarity with it, and Atlas should be.. really familiar with it.

This familiarity is not obvious in the posted draft. There "miscommunications" make you look, utterly incompetent and cost you massive amounts of good will.

Wasn't there for instance another one just a few days ago with the Ishukone Scorpion? I don't know whether the problem is the people that work there, or your preferred mode of backpedaling but it seems that not only nobody plays Eve in your company anymore, they also don't even bother to think things through and lack basic common sense.

Whether you say that it was but an interesting case of broken telephone or not, the prospect of you monetizing the game even more, is infuriating. Which brings us to number 2.

2. If you solely want to control your IP then there is no need to open the door of third party app monetization. Look at your feedback:

The prospect of paying actual money for apps that are basically required to play the game, is not a popular one. The ability to charge for apps is not one that most developers are asking for, in fact, its one that is making them shut down their applications, as can be seen.

Finally its not an ability that even makes sense: The userbase is tiny for a serious outfit to consider making apps for it, said userbase is aggresively against the idea of paying for apps that basically fill voids in the game's design, and this is a userbase that you are simultaneously trying to monetize even more with vanity items, and even ships, for Aurum.

The only thing you will get from such a policy is further fragmentation of the playerbase in a game that is already remarkably hard to get into. Not only will new people have to learn to love all the quirks of Eve what with their vanity items being bullseyes, but they will need to spend 10/20 dollars more for the apps to even be able to plan their skills (something that should be in game), tally their kills, fit their ships, fly around the galaxy, share their player skills with others, etcetera.

Is that a path you want to take? it is one that seldom leads to growth, but one that leads to destruction. I can say that when I have to pay even more IRL cash to be able to fill the gaps in your design, is when I will be gone, so will most others.

Shame, it was a charming game, too.

LtCol Laurentius
Caldari
Digital Fury Corporation
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:40:00 - [972]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.



Zulu, the chances that the issues raised in this thread are a result of "confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document" is excatly ZERO and you know it. First of all, the so-called "DRAFT" wasnt a draft until you got the feedback in this tread. Second, there is very little room for misunderstanding in the FAQ part of the devblog.

Luckily, some of you seem to still have some sense left. Its good that you take a step back an re-evaulate. Take the opprotunity to fire the marketing departement while your at it.

Lederstrumpf
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:41:00 - [973]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks


== quoting from the link above ==
weve talked about Incarna and what we want it to be. Internally we've argued
== snip ==

"We, We, We"

I doubt you'll ever get it.

Madcapnl
The Rising Stars
The Volition Cult
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:42:00 - [974]
 

Edited by: Madcapnl on 16/06/2011 16:43:39
Edited by: Madcapnl on 16/06/2011 16:42:37
Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online

Welcome more lies and spinRolling Eyes.
Let's not admit we made a mistake, but let's accuse the customers of being stupid and not understanding the words clever CCP employees use in their devblogs, because you know it's all misunderstood by those dumbass customers. And in no way we are trying to make money of you, we just want you to send us $99 because we want to have control and we want to have some regulation (god forbid giving Cant Communicate Properly control over all those wonderful tools out there, they will **** them up in no time). Yeah and we will do a step back till you customers wind down and then we are going to implement it anyway when you are not looking. Like we did with all changes lately.

Sorry, I for one don't believe you anymore. Somehow there's some weird stuff going on @ CCP that is pushing it further and further away from their customers. When was the last time a new feature in Eve was succesfull?

Look here (the interwebs never forgetsWink: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/04/02/ccps-torfi-frans-olafsson-on-the-future-of-eve/

This is the same dude delivering Incarna right now interviewed in 2008. It might be me, but isn't Incarna very crappy compared to what he envisioned 3 years ago. Three years to go from that idea to Incarna, is just sad. It makes me wonder whether CCP really wants to go forward with Eve at all.


Natalia Kovac
Minmatar
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:42:00 - [975]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online


Terrible. Why does it take a threadnaught every time before you listen to us? We don't want this ****.

Jalal II
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:43:00 - [976]
 

Originally by: Overlord PinKy
CCP wants to make money every single way they can off of this. The 4.5 million pr mo they make off subscriptions isn't enough.

Seriously CCP, if you want to make more money - do more work yourselves and charge for it. That's how honest people do it, I have 2 jobs as an example.

You can hire people to build apps for iPad, smart phones etc that augment your game where it's lacking. If you do that you can charge for it.

But don't think for a second that your ENTIRE player base won't turn on you and make you the fool in the public media world wide by charging your customers to do work for you that they already do for free...

Again, maybe you should be concentrating on something like oh say killing botting accounts???




While I agree this is your IP. That said, all these 3rd party apps are where you had holes in your game. Do you really want to start over? I mean you scare off/**** off Chribba, Dotlan.net, EveMon, Battleclinic, EFT, Aura, etc, etc, ....Ad nauseam they found where your game is lacking and provided important features that benefited you and the players. Now your just taking a ***t on them. If they leave which I would not blame them where is your game then??? Are You going to provide 1st party apps for my phone, regional maps, training plans, remap optimization. Your game is so complex it needs these extra things. Using your stuff is more like we'll lets try to fit this our oh ***T I can't do this reaction all on one Large POS.


Take your head out and fix the holes in your game before you Ctrl-A Shift-Del your 3rd party apps and developers. Because that is where your heading.

Eclorc
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:44:00 - [977]
 

Originally by: woddel
Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online


hello again

which part of

Quote:

Will services for in-game currency require a commercial license?
Yes, if you require any sort of payment for your services you will need a commercial license.

Will website ads require a commercial license?
Yes, for ad-supported websites you will require a commercial license.

Will donations require a commercial license?
Yes, for donation supported websites you will require a commercial license.



leaves room for misunderstanding? i can also not find any confusing wording in these sentences...



.. so vague pronouncements, some smoke and mirrors hoping to hide the clearly stated intent of that blog, and "we'll look at this again" as a response huh?

No assurances, then, that you are not indeed gonna screw folks over who enhance your product's value for us all willingly and from their own time and purse, and just accept help with expenses (at least partly) through donations?

You're right Captain Zulu, this DID sound corporate-y, sickeningly so.

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:44:00 - [978]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online


Thanks Zulu :)

I hope when you guys go over the next draft that you will engage with the CSM as well as with key 3rd party API devs (wollari, chribba, etc). That way you can avoid another threadnaught :)

philip3000
Evoke.
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:44:00 - [979]
 

Originally by: Kronus Heilgar

You are charging people who work for free to make your game better you asshats



Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:44:00 - [980]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online


I hope you learned something from this.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:51:00 - [981]
 

Cripes Zulu. May I kindly suggest you guys have a couple lawyers + high level staff on standby to answer questions immediately? If you guys had been on the bounce with regards to feedback we might have had 5-10 pages instead of "30 pages of hate" and countless troll/not troll threads all over the forums.

Good luck!

OmgNoFreeNames
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:01:00 - [982]
 

Selling bots for EVE.
What can you do about it? I guess nothing.
What will you be able to do with your new hallucinations you had described? Same nothing?
So what is the point to post this "unfinished" blog? No point?

Looking at the calendar shows a date far from april 1st. Laughing

Inappropriate link removed. Zymurgist

SoulBlythe
Knights of Redwall
Men with Fancy Hats
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:07:00 - [983]
 

So that was a long 33 pages to read and I just have to say this...

If the country that is home to your corporate HQ is using the internet and it's population to build a new constitution, why are you not following the same idea as them? Do you do know that your current subscriber total and the population of Iceland is roughly the same yea? So why not follow in the ground-breaking precedent Iceland is setting and do the same for the Eve Online franchise and CCP Games as a whole?


Enik3
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:09:00 - [984]
 

Yeah this is "great news for 3rd party developers" you f**king morons Rolling Eyes

Between this and the microtransaction BS, you're really pushing people. There's too many games and other competing forms of entertainment CCP--don't assume we're all like Apple fanbois and will keep opening our wallets to buy what you're selling.

Bubba Phet
Caldari
S0utherN Comfort
Imperial 0rder
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:11:00 - [985]
 

Is ccp actively trying to kills this game? How long before certain alliances make it a requirement to have access to certain 3rd party applications? I currently have two active subscriptions in eve and that is already more per month than I really plan to spend on a game. And I promise you right now i'm not dishing out anymore money to aftermarket programs that enhance gameplay or fill in the gaps ccp leaves.

Consortium Agent
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:12:00 - [986]
 

The more I read this thread the less motivated I am to defend CCP, however, here is what I think is going on (I don't know - it's just an educated guess):

1. CCP wants to have a legal premise upon which to take down commercial RMT websites which are currently operating. If access to EVE IP requires a commercial license and none of those RMT operations are granted a license to operate, CCP then has legal grounds to sue not only for the immediate termination of all operations, but for compensation. At this point they can only hope the ISPs will do them the favor of closing them down.

2. CCP wants to cover all bases with this policy such that RMT cannot go from RMT to a legal workaround (such as donation or 'advertiser' supported models).

3. CCP is slightly r3t@rd3d and didn't really give much consideration to the question 'Will ISK based websites be required to have a commercial license?' except to throw a very broad blanket over a more narrow concern. RMT is about RMT CCP, not about charging ISK to use a service which provides services you do not offer.

4. Commercial license agreements for 3p developers would be beneficial to honest 3p developers. I imagine some expedited level of support, full documentation of and enhancements to the API would be part of any final commercial license agreement the community would agree to. It would also be beneficial to CCP because, like Apple, they can pick and choose which commercial applications they want to support or endorse, and which ones they don't.

5. Free license agreements to non-commercial sites also gives CCP a modicum of control over which sites get access to use their intellectual property and would likely involve no support but the same full documentation of and enhancements to the API being driven by the commercial license holders. This also helps CCP protect their player base by denying access to those websites that are not on the up and up (or who are discovered not to be on the up and up - like some of the nefarious 'raffle' sites that turned out to be total BS thieves griefing ppl out of their ISK). Community reputation helps, but not all Eve players are aware of or participate in the community, either.

6. CCP isn't out to make money on 3rd party developers. If they were, they could most certainly get away with charging a lot more than $99/yr and still have large commercial vendors pay it to get a stab at some cash from Eve players. 'But there are no large commercial vendors who care about Eve' you say? They will if they can buy a commercial license. Especially if they only have to pay $99 for it. Again, this is where CCP's real purpose comes into play, however. Ultimately the decision will be CCP's who they license and who they don't. So they can prevent the competition from getting a license and making RL money on us, for example.

7. If you are a 3rd party developer who intends to make real life money from the intellectual property of Eve Online (or indeed any of CCPs future games, I'm sure) then you need to pay real life license fees and be subjected to the same quality controls as other API vendors customers.

8. If you are Chribba or any of those of us like Chribba who develop for, and get laughable revenue from, the IP of Eve Online, CCP isn't likely to include you on the no fly list. In other words - I'm pretty sure that most of the currently developed Eve Online sister applications that exist from 3rd party developers would be 'grandfathered' in the end anyway. They're not going to charge Chribba. Seriously, if they did - I quit. No lie. I would absolutely quit Eve forever and plaster my reason on every single tool and web page I run for Eve Online.

I think that is the most accurate assumption based solely on conjecture that I can muster up in CCPs defense. I could be horribly, horribly wrong - they've let me down before - but I have a good feeling about how this is all going to turn out in the end. /me crosses fingers, toes, eyes and balls... OWW!

Kerrisone
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:12:00 - [987]
 

Originally by: SystemAdministrator
Originally by: CCP Zulu
Sanity and Reason.


And sanity wins again (for now). Only took 32 pages of us saying this was a bad idea. Zulu thanks for listening. You may wanna run this sort of stuff past the CSM in the future before int ends up in a devblog Smile


If CCP doesn't use yammer you guys should really get it like yesterday it could help the seemingly horrible communication that exists at your hollowed out fish factory.

https://www.yammer.com/

Dyner
Minmatar
Midgard Protectorate
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:13:00 - [988]
 

Um, am I just being stupid or does CCP want to charge a royalty* to developers to make things like EVEHQ, EFT, EVEMon, etc?

Cause I have to say that would be really stupid.

*license is just a fancy way of saying "royalty"

--
Now if they mean Developers can now charge money for us to use their product...um...that's still stupid *points to Blizzard's stance*

In closing, it's sad when you see Bob Kotick as a better person than <insert other entity>.ugh

Mitchello
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:14:00 - [989]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online


Thanks Zulu :)

I hope when you guys go over the next draft that you will engage with the CSM as well as with key 3rd party API devs (wollari, chribba, etc). That way you can avoid another threadnaught :)


If only this csm's chairman made some effort other than being cosy with staff brosefs while throwing comments around everywhere like "I don't give a **** about RMT", "I don't give a **** about MT" and so forth.

Maybe thats just posturing. If it is, it is to say the least counterproductive. Then again, we haven't seen much of anything of this term sofar, other than tales of bacon and drinking in Reykjavik (with the exceptions of Seleene, Two Step and most notably Trebor). But, got to be honest here, nobody has any insight anymore in to what was a - by CCP presented - virtual democratic experiment turned stakeholder (and now back to no power feedback group out of choice). There are no more weekly meeting minutes, which thusfar always served to provide the communities of EVE with a measure of validation of whether a CSM is representative and engaged in their interests.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:15:00 - [990]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online


I hope you learned something from this.
That's what I like about you, Malcanis. You're an optimist in the face of certain defeat.


Pages: first : previous : ... 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 ... : last (49)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only