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

Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2011.06.22 21:07:00 - [31]
 

Thank you for the clarity CCP,

AG

Ban Doga
Posted - 2011.06.22 21:24:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
Charging $99 for a third party development suite or license is not what we are trying to accomplish.


Are you sure this time?
Because one week ago it sounded exactly like that:

Quote:
To become a licensee, developer must enter into a commercial license agreement with CCP. The fee for a commercial license is $99, payable annually by credit card or wire transfer (for identification purposes). We do not require further payments from developer or royalties.

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.22 21:35:00 - [33]
 

Yes we know you ballsed this up... but this is a PR screw up, whereas the the forums are currently on fire with the "actually live on TQ" balls up you have going currently called Incarna....

Would you like to stop pretending this isn't happening and SAY SOMETHING...

Please.

Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
Posted - 2011.06.22 21:55:00 - [34]
 

This is CCP. We aren't going to change a damn thing, we weren't wrong and **** yourself sideways if you want to disagree with us.

Always true to form. You never listen.

Epitrope
The Citadel Manufacturing and Trade Corporation
Posted - 2011.06.22 22:02:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: transcript
Now, I feel that the blog that was put out was good in many aspects and we had our lawyers go over the contract to ensure that it is sound. There were some nuances in there which the community called ‘bull****' on, and rightfully so. What we are going to do now is go back, factor that in to a new arrangement and try to come up with something which is more to our needs and more to community expectations at the end of summer.

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

We still haven't seen the contract. We called bull**** on the proposed outline. In order to have happy devs, you'll need to solicit feedback on (and later incorporate that feedback into) a draft of the license itself in advance of you requiring us to agree to it.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.06.22 22:04:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 22/06/2011 22:13:19
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 22/06/2011 22:11:58
Good clarification and +1 for the effort of linking the info in a separate devblog (for those of us who were at work at the time of the original broadcast).

I guess I can remove my signature (for) now and get back to developing my non-commercial ISK donations accepting app. Don't do anything stupid in the mean time as I'm spending time that I don't really have on making an application that will improve your product and ask nothing in return explicitly.

edit: And yeah. Since we're at lawyers... Can you please show them your EULA and how it states that anything in game, including ISK, is not the property of the account owner, but belongs to CCP? Accepting ISK donations or even charging ISK for services should not be in any way covered with the commercial license, since the developer does not get any real profit - the developer "gets" ISK that is not his property, but the property of CCP.

Tex Bloodhunter
Posted - 2011.06.22 22:48:00 - [37]
 

So the way I understand the token charge is that CCP wants something to be at stake for app developers. Something that keeps them from screwing around - doing things which are bad for EVE Online. So that when an app dev does something silly CCP can just ban him and his apps and he effectively loses real money - the 99 dollars. If the token charge was just one dollar all the isk traders out there really don't give a **** a about their dev license being retracted.

Anyhow, one dollar doesn't solve the problem while a high amount of money shuts off the "good" devs. When trying to find a trade-off CCP went for those 99 dollars - which obviously doesn't work with the community. So why not use a different token. Something that is already there. Like for example you need to have a 20+ million skill point character associated with your dev license. Btw 20 million obviously is just an example and an association with an account doesn't work since characters can be transferred out, making an account just an empty (worthless) hull.

That way there is something at stake for the app dev. There is a token in place. CCP has a handle on things via this token, allowing them to enforce their rules (which is a good thing as it makes EVE a more secure environment).

Dark Odile
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.22 23:10:00 - [38]
 

Guys, it won't be $.99, simply because the contract need to have a certain value to be legally binding. In addition, the value of the license is also important for the type of legal action CCP can take when someone bypasses the contract altogether or violates the contract in any way.

On the bright side, if this goes through, it will give CCP a way to deal with botters etc, simply because botters and people who sell bots no longer simpy violate the ToS/EULA but violate a licensed service by either having no license at all or by violating the license's conditions.

Minidd
Posted - 2011.06.22 23:11:00 - [39]
 

soo... hmmmm... they want to make money by charging for teh API use. Then for teh $99 per ear I want atleast a premium API where I am able to change my skills, send mail, do corp stuff and many other things offline from Eve.

Now as that is NEVER going to happen I think this is just BS!

They have no idea what they are doing, they wanne charge for the API, they are massively overpricing the new Noble items. maybe the next thing is paying tax to fly ship in space ... aaaaahhhhh

Aahh well - close Eve - play Rift Very Happy

Besbin
Posted - 2011.06.22 23:21:00 - [40]
 

Firstly: I do wonder why CCP didn't swing this proposal by the CSM first. After all that's what they're there for...

Secondly: You ppl should learn to read. I quote from the first dev blog:

"we need to charge a fee so that we get proper non-spoofable information about the applicant"

So... Question to the crowd: How'd you feel about a $10 fee? And how about a $25 fee?

Wilhelm Riley
Posted - 2011.06.23 00:49:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Wilhelm Riley on 23/06/2011 00:50:19
Originally by: Seleene

So, token charge = 99 cents.

Amirite?



19,600 Aurum

Gene Windstar
Posted - 2011.06.23 03:40:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Gene Windstar on 23/06/2011 03:41:20
Ok guys, the witch-hunt is over for now, they accepted that it was poorly conveyed and that some of you were right about some aspects of that draft and its far from being perfect "wee called bs on them, and rightfully so". Its a much better response then the original one, and they finally came out from the bunker, going as far to addressing it live during the tournament.

Yes there are things there that need to be hammered out, and hopefully they are doing that now as they could clearly see that many were less than amused.

Thank you for addressing this issue, and hopefully continued feedback will help refine the issue.



El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.06.23 04:40:00 - [43]
 

Doesn't need to be a charge to be a binding contract.

For example 3rd edition DnD allowed an OGL to anyone that wanted to help produce stuff for it. It was updated from time to time and really allowed 3.0 and 3.5 DnD to flourish. In essence it could be argued CCP has been doing this.

Then fast forward to 4th edition DnD where the license was changed significantly to the point that much fewer 3rd party publishers put out stuff for it and generally there has been a slowdown in the marketplace for DnD in general.

It's much like I figured though CCPs made up their mind and the rest of us be damned. I'd like to hear what Chribba, Wollari and others have to say that are actually affected.

Photon Ceray
Posted - 2011.06.23 04:47:00 - [44]
 

CCP, what are you doing?

You're trying to make profit in the stupidest of ways. make EVE attract 1 more eve player and you'll get more than the 99$!

Token charge? that's BS, 99 cent would be enough.

I am fine with setting a reasonable charge but that should be no more than 29$. if you want more then charge per user of the app, like 1$ or 10% of what the app will make.

Do you realize that charging 99$ would stop many developers from making these apps that make EVE a better game, you are reducing the quality of EVE online!


On a side matter, I think you have a horrible marketing department and worst financial planning one.

If you want to make good profit from EVE then invest in better marketing, and most importantly, fix the game! you say you're working on it, but I've been playing since 2006 and I have yet to see any real fix to R&D, Sov and 0.0!
Only thing that ever came close was speed nerf, but that was just a nerf!

Instead of spending so much time and effort and money to make bigger fights possible, which happen 0.00001% of the time players play EVE, invest that time and effort into fixing the real problems that face players 80% of the time!

For the record, I think eve has no more than 10% of the player base it could have, fix EVE itself, not by trying to attract a new market through DUST514 or charging more money here and there.

Lykouleon
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.06.23 05:04:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Dark Odile
Guys, it won't be $.99, simply because the contract need to have a certain value to be legally binding.


International contract law only requires that a contact (written or verbal) was created and that both parties agreed (written or verbally) to the terms of the contract.

There is nothing in international copyright law that requires a monetary transaction to occur to bind the contract.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.06.23 05:53:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 23/06/2011 05:54:35
Originally by: Soden Rah

Would you like to stop pretending this isn't happening and SAY SOMETHING...
Please.


Elsewhere you may read how they are fearless.

Some pride and even some arrogance given by a feeling of doing well, could be a good thing, until you start delivering lower quality content that should make you worry and be humble instead. These days are actually the case.


Anyway, I can't see why asking for ISK payments makes someone commercial, since ISK is a wholly owned CCP property to boot.
How can you demand a license fee on something that is totally yours already?

It's not like we can take ISK off the game and listen to them in a separate device like i.e. an MP3 song.


Finally, CCP proposal is not covering AT ALL the following situations:

- Charities, expecially those collecting PLEXes for CCP emergency relief campaigns. I had to sustain tangible RL penalties for hosting it on my website (since I went beyond the allowed server usage).

Now, I collected 245 PLEXes but I did not even keep 1 ISK for me. So I am meant to pay web host penalty, I created a video showcasing the CCP goodness, I did not keep an ISK and I am ALSO considered commercial? Because I have 2 Google ads?

- Meta-gaming entities: I perform audits and several ISK paid other activities that due to CCP forums inadeguacy I have to host - on my own cost - on my website.
Again, since I enrich other players (Market Discussion mostly and 2 in game chats) experience at my own cost *to offset CCPs facilities deficencies*, I am required to shell further money?

- 3rd party software: I salvaged some old open source software that stopped working since Apocrypha. I spent MY time and MY money and host the downloads at MY cost for ZERO isk, ZERO money.
That software downloads the market orders via API.
Now, who is going to charge the original author, who has still the outdated software available for download on an abandoned Google Ads free website?
Now, how am I going to justify the fact I am meant to break his license because I need to make money on the software I salvaged and upgraded?
Why shall I also pay on top of that, since I don't use the software but just gave it to everyone to download and use?


These are the questions, and so far I got Z E R O answers.

Captain Mung
Posted - 2011.06.23 08:02:00 - [47]
 

Why don't they just include this "token charge" as paid by our subscription fee. They said MONEY WAS NOT AN ISSUE, so why charge anything? Unless of course they were just lying to their customers.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.06.23 08:14:00 - [48]
 

Walk safely Razz

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.06.23 09:32:00 - [49]
 

How about the license is already granted by having an active eve subscription?
Simplest way really, just add the required paragraphs to the EULA.

Zopha
Gallente
Interstellar Business Machines Corp.
Posted - 2011.06.23 09:55:00 - [50]
 

I think the flip side of this will be those who do not pay the token license fee and instead of getting a letter of "nice doing business with you, keep up the good work" they'll get a cease and desist order. Wonder who will be the first.

ghost st
Posted - 2011.06.23 11:03:00 - [51]
 

If you are worried about your ip there are much better ways than to charge people, especially those you are paying for your game, and then paying again for hosting free services for your game.


As far as the API is concerned.
- Create a 'locked down' api, where an api key is required for any data.
- Create a 3 tiered system for api access; Player, Developer, and Commercial Developer.
- Player api keys allow developers and commercial developers to request data on thier behalf, but cannot make requests directly to the api.

- Developer access requires an active eve account, that is verified somehow (say a credit card used to pay the account, at least every so often).

- Commercial developer access is required to charge rl money for web apps, and comes with the fee.


This way CCP can see (and control) access to their IP.



Also, make the 'fansite toolkit' available to developers only.



*notes*
- Having ads or a donation button on the page should be allowed for developers, though the ads nor donation (rl money) cannot be a requirement for access. (so developers can have them, but cant make them a form of payment)


- Using CCP ip (images) in your ads should require commercial developer access.


Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.06.23 11:04:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Besbin
Secondly: You ppl should learn to read. I quote from the first dev blog:

"we need to charge a fee so that we get proper non-spoofable information about the applicant"


Ah, valid point there. Let me quote that.

Still, it will properly not stop lesser gifted people from continuing to ask why they should pay anything at all.

Rrama Ratamnim
Posted - 2011.06.23 11:20:00 - [53]
 

welll this is leaning more towards the old CCP i loved, hopefully they will clarify the cotnract and pricing for the token charge... but honestly for most sites 99$ was too much and they realized it, especially for smalls ites like killboard hosts etc.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.06.23 11:33:00 - [54]
 

After the latest fiasco, I wish you lots of luck finding those 3rd party developers.

Havegun Willtravel
Posted - 2011.06.23 12:01:00 - [55]
 

If this was a simple one time mistake it could be tolerated.

When combined with the fiasco of Incarna this just doesn't cut it. The curtain has been drawn back and we've seen the ugly truth. If it was " in draft form " then why was it rolled out in what looked very much like a done deal way ? I smell damage control. Holy Crap are they ever mad, lets call it a draft and pretend it didn't happen. Lets pretend not to be money grubbers real fast and maybe they'll forget about this. Lets stab people in the back who for the most part never charged and isk let alone a penny for anything they did. Lets screw the very people who filled the gaps and closed the holes in our crap dev process because we're to lazy or to busy making garbage no one wants.

Try harder. This just don't cut it.


Raid'En
Posted - 2011.06.23 12:01:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Raid''En on 23/06/2011 12:04:39

we wanted you to do a big jump, you only put a little step on the good direction.

what i read on this blog :

Quote:
hello guys, seems we need a very tiny mistake on com last week, our plan was pretty good, i'm sure we all agreee on that, it's just a little word that was wrong, don't worry, we'll make a little ajustement and you will all love us again (well not like you don't love us anymore after all). btw you saw how good was our monocle ?


what i wanted to read :

Quote:
sorry guys, we totally ****ed our com' here. we heard some of you wanted a way to monetize, and we though it was a good idea, and so tried to. however, from the idea to the result, there were a big hole. we though it would be clear enough, and we though it would not be this problematic for you to pay this for any dev... seems both our marketing and com' dept made big mistakes. we apologize and we'll gonna make something way better, that is useful for those who want it, and which do not hurt any of the others. really sorry guys... and don't worry for the NEX things, we listened, and we're gonna whip the guy who decided on the prices until he change them to an acceptable level.


here you didn't said at all if you are still planning to put a paying licence for people who want to be payed with ISK or some others pretty small payment. and it MUST be free for them.
you only told you would change the 99$, but we told you tons of time it's NOT the ONLY issue here.

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2011.06.23 12:25:00 - [57]
 

The AT clip was quite good. However I have a question that has boggled my mind a bit, and it's pretty much around this statement:

What we are trying to accomplish is building an environment where we can have as many people developing third party apps as possible while we still maintain a measure of control in how these people portray our IP and brand.

Do you (CCP) feel that there are services/software out there that do portray your IP and/or brand in a bad way? And now I'm not thinking about macros/bots/those things - since they would never be paying the fee anyway - and if so, in what way are they making EVE look bad?

/c

Zagdul
Gallente
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.06.23 14:02:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Zagdul on 23/06/2011 14:02:41
Originally by: Gripen
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.



I don't think this post got enough emphasis. People could use game time as a form of payment or RL $$.


Hire chribba and have him develop the method of delivery.




Wingi
Amarr
The Wolfhounds
Posted - 2011.06.23 14:33:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Chribba
The AT clip was quite good. However I have a question that has boggled my mind a bit, and it's pretty much around this statement:

What we are trying to accomplish is building an environment where we can have as many people developing third party apps as possible while we still maintain a measure of control in how these people portray our IP and brand.

Do you (CCP) feel that there are services/software out there that do portray your IP and/or brand in a bad way? And now I'm not thinking about macros/bots/those things - since they would never be paying the fee anyway - and if so, in what way are they making EVE look bad?

/c


I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head Chribba, i believe this will tie nicely into the commercialisation of the eve IP, it’s a nice place to be to issue licences based on CCP's opinion of what
Constitutes a good representation of the brand or perhaps in other words Eve files will be fine until someone can show they can make money at it, and then perhaps you might find it hard to renew that licence.

i know its sceptical but i am somewhat feeling like that at the moment.

Mordrake
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.06.23 14:34:00 - [60]
 

Hey look the waitress came out of the kitchen to give me a fortune cookie....


THERE IS STILL A FLY IN MY FREAKIN SOUP!!!


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