Posted - 2011.06.22 22:58:00 - [242]

 

Edited by: Miilla on 22/06/2011 23:02:52
Edited by: Miilla on 22/06/2011 23:02:14

Originally by: Caladan Broood

---

The slope is too steep here. If you allow faction standing to be bought then SP will be right around the corner. How about buying sov points next?

---

It is JUST vanity items...


Ignore the man

(bizdev, marketing, accountants, banks, creditors, russian mafia)...

behind the curtain.

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:01:00 - [244]

 

Edited by: diaufop on 22/06/2011 23:03:00

Originally by: Raid'En

---

however there's an error on dust model ; at E3 it was said there were NO fee for the game itself. on this document it is said there is one. and this document is from before the E3... but not that much before.
meaning either it was a change made on last minute... either it's a FAKE.

---

Just going to jump in here and point something out to you that you may not be aware of:

Company employees say whatever they're paid to say, not "the truth".

As a specific, verifiable example in the MMO genre: Turbine were actively stating that there was no intention of Lord of The Rings Online going f2p less than 2 weeks before the official announcement was made. The various PR people and Devs were standing up in public and lying to their customer's faces, knowing full well that the f2p+microtransactions model had worked so well in DDO that they'd started implementing a changeover for LoTRO months previous to the official announcement.

It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that they're saying one thing *right now* for the sake of PR, and will announce something completely different when the crunch time comes and the product goes on release. An internal document such as this might differ from the public party line on a number of points.

In my own personal experience (of course, anecdote=/=data), I've been told to lie to customers on more occasions than I can count, as do many (I'd even venture to say most) people who are in a customer-facing role in any sort of large company.

I have no idea whether this "leak" is genuine or fake, but discrepancies such as this can't really be used to say it's a fake.

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:03:00 - [246]

 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Full unedited version from CCP

---

Emphasis.

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:04:00 - [248]

 

Edited by: Tutskii on 22/06/2011 23:07:10
EDIT: This thread is moving TOO FAST!

http://www.mediafire.com/?ccl135embyb6c2v

Here is the unedited version with TOC, etc.

Eve is real.

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:05:00 - [250]

 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Full unedited version from CCP

---

Epic

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:06:00 - [252]

 

Quote:

---

And it couldn’t come at a better time. As EVE edges closer to being the
grand dame of gaming, turning 8 years old this month, and our other
game titles continue their prodigious growth (yes, World of Darkness too
– you got the t-shirt to prove it), our development road map is shaping up
stronger and better. However, as a subscription based golden goose, EVE
needs to incorporate the virtual goods sales model to allow for further
revenue – revenue to fund our other titles, revenue for its developer: you.
The model also supports the notion of creating a meaningful experience
and identity for the player (more in our main feature on page 4).

---

What is the thing they say about golden geese?

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:07:00 - [254]

 

Originally by: Tutskii

---

The funny thing is that CCP is sacrificing their userbase for a mythical one that will magically come from the ether and give out ponies and unicorns for everyone.

CQ is supposedly the bait for this.

Now lets think, for every person that quits, a bunch of alt accounts go too. Whether those alts are paid with money or PLEX, CCP is getting money.

To replace them, they need to get one new account per every account that quits, then.

But look around. There is EVE marketing everywhere but EVE player growth is linear at best. Despite massive marketing, EVE just doesn't seem to pull new people, and when it does, to retain them.

Will a single room with nothing to do, which looks terrible even at max settings, and microtransactions that are completely out of whack with reality change this?

I have a hard time believing so.

---

I'd wager they're riding on DUST being at least enough of a boost to offset vet losses, allowing them to ride the truly dedicated "until the server shuts off," crowd into the ground and/or until they can crap out WoD and try their hand at a pure-bread microtransaction game.

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:08:00 - [256]

 

Edited by: handige harrie on 22/06/2011 23:12:44
Edited by: handige harrie on 22/06/2011 23:08:52
lol CCP,

You can develop a friendship by “spending” your time, or you can pay to get the same benefits that friendship would otherwise allow.

I really hope this isn't someones personal experience with people, because it's kinda sad. Because it translates to 'if you have money, you don't need friendship'.

Does that mean that they’re universally good, and we should slap a pricetag on everything? Probably not

Than why do you state you want to MT every last damn non-vanity thing in this game then? (Ships/Ammo/Sov)

I don’t really understand the logic behind it [players against MT and Cash Shops to get an advantage], but that’s probably because I’ve been using virtual goods sales for a long time now and actually prefer them over subscriptions. Why? Because they let me manage my spending, and I’ll sometimes prefer to buy a better experience when engaging in my hobby.

If you play any competitive sport as a hobby, you'll realize how dumb this argument is. You can't buy a smaller goal in soccer, you can't buy a higher PAR in golf. You can't MT better Champion skills in League of Legends, the only you can buy is Fluff and some nice shoes and bag, while the player skill makes the difference.

I shop therefore I am

presented as a fact, but is wrong. Only applies to certain sub groups who caress their vanity not as a negative trait, but as a way of life.
so as a subbed player, am I lesser a player now than someone who buys his Ships for real money?
Apparently, EVE's lead designer thinks so...

Now does this mean that we should go for unbridled evil consumerism, trying to squeeze every single penny from our hapless customers? Of course not.

Then why write a large piece about how you want to do this?

or

$60,- monocle anyone?

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:09:00 - [258]

 

Originally by: Tutskii

---

Quote:

---

And it couldn’t come at a better time. As EVE edges closer to being the
grand dame of gaming, turning 8 years old this month, and our other
game titles continue their prodigious growth (yes, World of Darkness too
– you got the t-shirt to prove it), our development road map is shaping up
stronger and better. However, as a subscription based golden goose, EVE
needs to incorporate the virtual goods sales model to allow for further
revenue – revenue to fund our other titles, revenue for its developer: you.
The model also supports the notion of creating a meaningful experience
and identity for the player (more in our main feature on page 4).

---

What is the thing they say about golden geese?

---

So we are funding games we probably will not play.

That is reason right there to not support MT.

Ofcourse they WILL increase subs to compensate.

Either way, CCP will lose revenue in the short term.

Does this also mean that the price for eve will drop once these other games are "self funding?"

I doubt it.

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:10:00 - [260]

 

Originally by: Miilla

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Full unedited version from CCP

---

Can you summarise what is in this verison that was edited out?

Good, bad, ugly? Key points?

---

Mostly just header, footer, staff pictures, etc. Proves it's real but not relevant to the MT stuff.

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:10:00 - [262]

 

Originally by: Axemaster

---

This must not be allowed to happen.

Also, CCP needs to suck it up and fire the eggheads who came up with this garbage.

GARBAGE.

---

Thatt would be the lead game designer among others.

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:11:00 - [264]

 

Perhaps not the apocalypse.

DISCLAIMER:
The views put forward in
this magazine do not refl ect
general CCP company policies
or decisions and are strictly
individual opinions, written by
CCPers or about CCPers who
feel strongly about these issues.

I want to believe...

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:12:00 - [266]

 

Originally by: Cailais

---

"....as a subscription based golden goose, EVE
needs to incorporate the virtual goods sales model to allow for further
revenue"

Golden goose eh? Cute.

C.

---

– revenue to fund our other titles

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:12:00 - [268]

 

I don't think find it important whether this leak is real or not. But I think it's important, now that MT has come up on the agenda I think we as a community need to let CCP know that MT for anything other then vanity items are not OK

Posted - 2011.06.22 23:13:00 - [270]

 

Originally by: Miilla

---

Is this getting any news coverage?

If not, start linking to the games news sites (including this threadnaught).

---

im sure its gunna get some but sending a few tweets to some big mmo sites wouldnt go a miss lol