open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: CCP Zulu on third party application licensing
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2011.06.22 18:15:00 - [1]
 

During the Alliance Tournament IX finals, CCP Soundwave conducted an interview with CCP Zulu regarding the third-party application program, which is currently in draft form. CCP Guard’s newest dev blog provides both a video and transcript of the interview. Read the blog, and watch the video here.

DE

RU

Chruker
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:25:00 - [2]
 

I doubt any kind of contract requirement will keep people from making sites with advertising and certainly wont protect anybody from harmfull apps.

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:32:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Seleene on 22/06/2011 18:42:03

"So no $99. We need a token charge and it is going to happen and we are all good."

So, token charge = 99 cents.

Amirite?

Regardless, I'm glad to see him addressing this issue so directly. Thank you.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:35:00 - [4]
 

Quote:
Dear space friends


.... have you looked at your game since the last patch?

Iurnan Mileghere
Singularity Foundation
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:36:00 - [5]
 

I don't see anything unreasonable about charging RL $ to sites that do the same.

However, for sites that charge only ISK, perhaps you could require them to pay a PLEX every year? Or something along those lines?

Marchocias
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:36:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Chruker
I doubt any kind of contract requirement will keep people from making sites with advertising and certainly wont protect anybody from harmfull apps.


Of course, the cowboys are always gonna be out there scamming away, and there would be nothing to stop someone from foolishly downloading an app without checking its on the registered ccp list.

However, this should provide a seal of approval which would help the playerbase separate the good stuff from the bad (assuming ccp provide a public list of registered 3rd party devs and apps), whilst at the same time the licensing of the api service will allow CCP the option to persue the malware authors via appropriate legal channels.


Glasgow Dunlop
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:37:00 - [7]
 

so if there now saying they need a token charge, then why the hell tell everybody is was $99? im sure most of the guys the run the 3rd party apps would have been ok with like a small charge, but now you screwed up massively, you might have lost the trust of the 3rd party guys, where this goes from here who know . . . hopefully for the best thou :)

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:38:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Seleene
Edited by: Seleene on 22/06/2011 18:34:12

"So no $99. We need a token charge and it is going to happen and we are all good."


So, token charge = 99 cents.

Amirite?


I hope so.

Marchocias
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:40:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Marchocias on 22/06/2011 18:44:50
Originally by: Seleene
So, token charge = 99 cents.

Amirite?


No... you have to cut out and collect tokens from the back of the Eve box. You'll need 50 of em. Wink





Edit: Oh look... here come the voices of reason: ↓

Pierce Alta
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:47:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Pierce Alta on 22/06/2011 18:48:13
Token charge? What's needed for the contract is an exchange of value...I'm certain the creative minds at CCP and their legal counsel can characterize the value exchange in terms of something other than cash.

There are plenty of other third party/community developer arrangements that don't charge anything to the developers (token or not), and still have effective contractual terms.

Besides...a 'token' exchange (and admitting it's merely a token) may have other implications CCP/their legal don't intend. Shocked

Sakura Zendragon
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:58:00 - [11]
 

Glad to see there is some good, common sense in Iceland, after all.

Still, some clarification regarding donations ($$ or ISK), Shattered Crystal affiliate links, et al. would be nice. And regarding ISK-based "comercial" services, as well, since you can't actually convert ISK->$$.

Nice distraction from the CQ-gate/NeX-gate, btw ugh

PC l0adletter
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:05:00 - [12]
 

If your attorneys insist that you need an exchange of substantial money to make a contract binding, you should fire them and send them back to the first year of law school.

Ask them how GPL is binding, for example.

Pretty convenient to blame some lawyers for the failed moneygrab, though, isn't it? Too bad they can't take the fall for monocolegate.

Phoenix Tyrox
Krupp-Stahl
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:09:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
What is going on is that we as a company saw the need, and this is coming from all third party developers, that they want to make some money or have the option to charge ISK for services that they are providing to the community.


Really?
From who namely?

Buzzmong
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:18:00 - [14]
 

Crikey, has CCP been taking U-turn lessons from David Cameron? (For non UK people: He's our current ineffective Prime Minister).

The turn arounds in the original feedback thread were impressively quick, this is just icing on the cake.

At least Zulu has the good grace to recognise the calls of BS were correct and justified.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:19:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 22/06/2011 19:24:33
Originally by: Phoenix Tyrox
Originally by: CCP Zulu
What is going on is that we as a company saw the need, and this is coming from all third party developers, that they want to make some money or have the option to charge ISK for services that they are providing to the community.


Really?
From who namely?


I would imagine anyone wanting to develop an Iphone app to sell for a buck or two in the App store.

That being said, it is deemed too much money to expect a 3rd party developer to pay $99 for the ability to make money off of an app they develop for EVE.

However it is perfectly acceptable to expect your average player to spend $60 to buy a simple monocle from the Noble Exchange.

I think a blog on what is going to be done to fix the Noble Exchange should be a priority, as it is a far, far bigger issue (and screw up) than the licensing fee could ever hope to be.

Prince Kobol
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:21:00 - [16]
 

They needed a token payment so somebody thought "hey, this is great way to screw more money out of our players.. lets charge them 99$ but what ever you do.. don't mention the token payment part"

Gives me a mental image of Basil Fawlty saying "Don't talk about the War" in The Germans episode.

What they didn't expect (god knows why they didn't) was the outrage.

They probably expected us to be grateful.


Zaxix
Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:23:00 - [17]
 

I just want to know whether Red Frog Freight site falls into this category or not. Then I'll know whether I should care about this.

Gripen
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:37:00 - [18]
 

Would be great if CCP set up a shop where 3rd party developers could place their software and people could use CCP payment processing system to buy it.

Xailia
Unsteady Corporation
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:38:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Pierce Alta
Token charge? What's needed for the contract is an exchange of value...I'm certain the creative minds at CCP and their legal counsel can characterize the value exchange in terms of something other than cash. . .
I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps CCP could have a tools page on eveonline.com, and the something of value they receive from the developer is the right to mirror a copy of the tool.

It could get complicated with websites, etc. but CCP is full of creative people, find some creative lawyers too.

If monetary, I'm assuming a token charge can be as little as 1 króna.

Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:43:00 - [20]
 

It is better that I dont say anything... after few years you will realize what it was when you find dusty spaceships hidden behind all kinds of worthless crap.




Dorkus Americanus
The Laugh Factory
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:54:00 - [21]
 

I think perhaps this blog was released not only to try to explain the $99 fee for third party apps and so on, but also to try to direct people's attention away from the issue of $68 pixel monocles. Wink

electrostatus
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:54:00 - [22]
 

So I do NOT need this license IF I only ask (not charge, or actually ask) for ISK donations, is that correct? This is only for people who want to charge real money or ISK for their programs?
Free programs are exempt from this license, correct?

If not true, will a license be required even if someone insisted to donate ISK for a free program?

Etown
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:01:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Etown on 22/06/2011 20:01:42
Originally by: Dorkus Americanus
I think perhaps this blog was released not only to try to explain the $99 fee for third party apps and so on, but also to try to direct people's attention away from the issue of $68 pixel monocles. Wink


Don't buy it...
I'd give up if I was CCP.
Gamers just aren't what they used to be.
I don't see how they put up with you.

Makko Gray
Pheno-Tech Industries
Crimson Wings.
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:04:00 - [24]
 

I don't think the token charge of $99 was on it's own the problem. Part of the problem was $99 per year - if it's just a token payment why not make it a 2, 3 or 5 year licence in turn decreasing your own administration and potentially allowing you to reducde the cost without shouldering the burden yourself.

As well with the $99 charge is that for all there people that play eve there is still not a big enough community to make a good profit on many platforms. Apps the are dicipline specific and tied to a platform will have a limited number of potential subscribers, for example how many people who like to mine and would use an app have an android phone.

And with yearly licensing you'd either need to implement a similar model in your app or accept the once people bought it if you wanted to keep covering your licence costs year on you you may end up dipping into your own pocket.

Personally I think a charge of $49 every 3 years might have gone down a lot smoother but I'm sure the community could feed back on what sort of terms they'd find palatable.

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:21:00 - [25]
 

nothing you can dress up now will make me think anything other than your getting gready and trying to grab every last cent from your customer base.
look at the total garbage you just released. its nothing more than an abortion with a price tag in AUR

Vanessa Vansen
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:22:00 - [26]
 

It seems like CCP kind of realized what the impact of $99 would be to their 3rd party developers.
I hope that the community will be involved in the developing the draft into its final version.

Eclorc
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:30:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Eclorc on 22/06/2011 20:36:20
I do get what CCP want to accomplish with this.

An "approved product" or "developer" scheme, is a decent thing to aim for, enhances quality and allows commercial apps to be developed.

BUT, calling this a licence, requiring a fee - even token - from freeware community developers sets a worrying precedent legally.
This would in effect open the floodgates on anyone (with EVE IP and otherwise for other games), that provides the facility for others to voluntarily donate or use adverts on their hosting websites.
Now that would be a very slippery legal slope, and will ultimately damage community development for all games.

A registration mechanism to simply confer an "approved supplier" rubber-stamp, with zero fees for community developers that do not REQUIRE a fee to use their add-on product I have no problems with.

The fact that we're seeing a company that believes it has the right to start charging a fee to anyone else, if that person allows other folks to buy them a beer or contribute to hosting costs via RL cash donation or adverts is a signal to worry and strongly object imo.

Also, charging any amount of RL cash for a licence for ISK-donations (or even ISK-fees for that matter) is also questionable, in-game currency ain't RL currency.

I get the need to validate contract in some way, I really don't think this is a sensible or good-for-gaming's-future way to do it.

(edit: I derped)

Vertigo Ren
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:40:00 - [28]
 

99/year is basically paying for nearly a whole other account. For nearly most of the developers, even if we I did charge, would probably never make a profit enough to even recoup that fee over the course of a year.

I know for the stuff I've been working on, I would love to receive isk donations, but am I going to require that? no. am I going to expect it? no. If someone gives me donations, now I'm suddenly in violation of these licenses?

Secondly, what about programs I develop never uses your API? How does that fall under any of this? It's certainly eve related, but doesn't require any of the api.

I want to develop stuff for this community to use, but not at my own monetary expense for services you already provide for free to every member of the community, not to mention I can't ever see myself recouping your 'license' fee within a year. Not everyone can make an Evemon blockbuster program.

Ulair Memmet
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:58:00 - [29]
 

Quote:
Walk safely


You haven't been watching the forums lately haven't youRolling Eyes

Playing Eve
Posted - 2011.06.22 21:05:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Seleene

"So no $99. We need a token charge and it is going to happen and we are all good."

So, token charge = 99 cents.

Amirite?



Well, I'm sure that it will cost no more than a virtual monocle for your pilot.


Pages: [1] 2 3

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