open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked I've read "Greed is Good"
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:35:00 - [1]
 

Or to give it its proper name: I've read "FEARLESS: 'Greed is good? the Gordon Gekko Issue'"...

...and I don't see what the fuss is about.

It's a discussion, a debate. It's a series of observations on the current state of things, and people's reactions to and opinions on said state of affairs.

That's all. That's the whole thing. A lot of what's in there is well thought-out, sensible and academic. None of it is disrespectful of the community. Both sides of the argument are considered, and considered intelligently in the spirit of an informed conversation.

So I've become convinced of something - I'm convinced that people need to be challenged to stop, just for a second. Leave behind your knee-jerk objection to the idea that you might be asked to pay something in addition to the subscription, or indeed instead of.

There's a debating technique where you argue the other side for a while. You research its arguments, consider them on their merits, make an honest attempt to fight that corner for a little bit and in so doing come to understand the subject in greater detail. You might go back to your "native" opinion afterwards, but then you're armed with a better understanding of the issue with which to argue your point. Or you might be converted, and that's not a bad thing. There should never be any shame for a thinking person in being swayed by an argument on that argument's merits.

The foundation of the scientific method, after all, is willingness to accept that being proven wrong is just an opportunity to learn.

Clearly, the issues raised in "Greed is Good" are important ones to the EVE community. Fine. Good. well then let's discuss them, rather than falling back on our prejudiced assumptions about microtransactions and suchlike. Let's avoid emotive, accusing turns of phrase and start treating the opposite point of view with respectful dissent.

So long as the bulk of responses on this board are calls for heads to roll, threats to quit, or mockery of the above, we won't get anywhere. Right now, we've got a seething horde of angry villagers with pitchforks, and when the mayor points out that yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" doesn't actually achieve anything, they just yell it some more.

My name is Stitcher, this character is my main, and I agree with most of the content in "Greed is Good".

Unit CA108AF
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:38:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
Or to give it its proper name: I've read "FEARLESS: 'Greed is good? the Gordon Gekko Issue'"...

...and I don't see what the fuss is about.

It's a discussion, a debate. It's a series of observations on the current state of things, and people's reactions to and opinions on said state of affairs.

That's all. That's the whole thing. A lot of what's in there is well thought-out, sensible and academic. None of it is disrespectful of the community. Both sides of the argument are considered, and considered intelligently in the spirit of an informed conversation.

So I've become convinced of something - I'm convinced that people need to be challenged to stop, just for a second. Leave behind your knee-jerk objection to the idea that you might be asked to pay something in addition to the subscription, or indeed instead of.

There's a debating technique where you argue the other side for a while. You research its arguments, consider them on their merits, make an honest attempt to fight that corner for a little bit and in so doing come to understand the subject in greater detail. You might go back to your "native" opinion afterwards, but then you're armed with a better understanding of the issue with which to argue your point. Or you might be converted, and that's not a bad thing. There should never be any shame for a thinking person in being swayed by an argument on that argument's merits.

The foundation of the scientific method, after all, is willingness to accept that being proven wrong is just an opportunity to learn.

Clearly, the issues raised in "Greed is Good" are important ones to the EVE community. Fine. Good. well then let's discuss them, rather than falling back on our prejudiced assumptions about microtransactions and suchlike. Let's avoid emotive, accusing turns of phrase and start treating the opposite point of view with respectful dissent.

So long as the bulk of responses on this board are calls for heads to roll, threats to quit, or mockery of the above, we won't get anywhere. Right now, we've got a seething horde of angry villagers with pitchforks, and when the mayor points out that yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" doesn't actually achieve anything, they just yell it some more.

My name is Stitcher, this character is my main, and I agree with most of the content in "Greed is Good".


Bump. Agreed. And thank you for not raging like a homicidal maniac neckbeard like everyone else in this forum.

larry hotter bigpants
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:39:00 - [3]
 

You sir are an idiot. You MIGHT be able to say that page 2 is a debate, but everything afterwards clearly shows the direction they have choosen.

HeIIfire11
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:40:00 - [4]
 

People will stop raging..as soon as their subs run out.

Serpents smile
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:41:00 - [5]
 

Yep. If it was just 'fiction' or 'brain farts' then all they had to do was to say so.

M14D
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:42:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: larry hotter bigpants
You sir are an idiot. You MIGHT be able to say that page 2 is a debate, but everything afterwards clearly shows the direction they have choosen.


Don't be such a crybaby. You're blaming a company for being a company, and dare I say, one of the finer companies in the MMO world. When's the last time you had to pay real money for an expansion / large content update?

Randomize All
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:43:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
None of it is disrespectful of the community.


It's not disrespectful when my girlfriend treats me like a walking wallet too.
It's just disrespectful when she tells her sister and friends that I am her walking wallet.

On the other side, she can treat me like a walking wallet, because she occasionally sucks my dong. I extend the same offer to CCP.

Zarus Alexander
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:43:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: M14D
Originally by: larry hotter bigpants
You sir are an idiot. You MIGHT be able to say that page 2 is a debate, but everything afterwards clearly shows the direction they have choosen.


Don't be such a crybaby. You're blaming a company for being a company, and dare I say, one of the finer companies in the MMO world. When's the last time you had to pay real money for an expansion / large content update?


This.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:44:00 - [9]
 

OMG!?!!!!111

Fanboi!! Brown-noser!!!! Quisling!!!

How dare you oppose the emo-raging mob rule!!

Never did understand why grown men revert to the single most useless behaviour of their childhood: The tantrum.
Only ever works on extended family or weak-ass parents who shouldn't have kids in the first place .. chalk it up to web anonymity I suppose.

PS: Will edit if it needs more exclamation marks, you have been warned.

Kobayashi Marru
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:44:00 - [10]
 

Newsletter didn't get you alarmed? Ok... you are entitled to your opinion, as are others.

If they were going to allow fittings to be stores user side, as apposed to charging AUR for more then 50 fittings, I should of stayed silent. But after that in itself, the emo rage is on.

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:46:00 - [11]
 

Page 2 is a debate over something that the player base has said, time and again, that does not want to see. CCP has said to us that they will not include game-changing itens on the virtual store. That is what they said to us.

That debate was not meant for our eyes. So in front of us they say one thing, and behind us they debate about whether or not to break their word.

This is something we all already knew that CCP does. But this was too much in-your-face.

People are upset, and they damn right should be. Good thing you're composed and not pessimistic/bitter. But don't criticize those who are. They know what they are talking about.

Kuronaga
Black Snake Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:47:00 - [12]
 

The fact that there even was a discussion about breaking promises to the playerbase is cause for an upset.

You see no problem with that?

Andreus Ixiris
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:50:00 - [13]
 

Dude, if you were anyone else, I would troll the **** out of this thread.

Instead, because I respect you so much, I will merely quote a member of one of the most respected corporations in EVE and a former CSM member:

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
As a recurring member of the CSM, whose duty it is to represent the players (something I took very seriously), I went to CCP to discuss the issue of microtransactions. In fact, this topic was discussed several times on CSM summits (both in October and in December). We were assured that microtransactions would be vanity items only.

I was told, to my face, that CCP would not sell anything in their virtual goods store that would not be a vanity item (vanity items being useless fluff, not giving any benefits). Now I read in your newsletter that one of your main game designers is openly argueing to break this promise. I take that as a personal insult and a clear sign of disrespect towards the Eve community as a whole. Shame on you for even considering to break your word!

Tyto
Minmatar
Ardua Astra
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:50:00 - [14]
 

I agree with the OP.

Been here a loooong time, and the contents of Fearless were not unlike any other internal company communication. At least CCP are having the debate internally which means they haven't decided which way to go. There are clearly some in CCP who think it is the right way, and some who don't. It's a debate. The proponents clearly were aware of how this would be received, and the community that I used to think was one of the best has proved them right.

Time to put the pitch forks down and talk like grown ups.

T

Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:50:00 - [15]
 

In and of itself the newsletter wasn't that damning, however in the context of 24 June 2010 CCP Shadow saying "We have no plans to introduce MT" and we aren't changing our business model. Then in November 2011 CCP Zulu saying, it will ONLY be vanity items, we learned out lesson, to NOT THIS DOCUMENT

it is, we're trying to get past your anger over this ****, and we got caught.

AG

Koronakesh
Amarr
Seekers of a Silent Paradise
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:53:00 - [16]
 

I was wondering how long it'd take for you to get around to making a white knight thread.

Nikita Alterana
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:54:00 - [17]
 

Stitcher, I really want to agree with you, and hope that everything will be fine, but I honestly can't see that happening at this point.

Khamelean
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:55:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Khamelean on 24/06/2011 12:58:12
To make a good decision, you must understand both sides of an argument. That's all the newsletter is doing, promoting discussion, it brings up good ideas and bad ideas, but it commits to nothing. There is a line, CCP has not crossed it yet and I doubt they will, but in order not to cross it they need to know exactly where it is. Discussion helps to nail down exactly what is and is not acceptable.

If CCP try to offer game breaking items for cash, that is the time to cancel your subscription in protest. But this is not that day.

Andreus Ixiris
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:55:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Koronakesh
I was wondering how long it'd take for you to get around to making a white knight thread.


OH HEY LOOK WHO IT IS.

Theocrates
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:56:00 - [20]
 

Nonsense, the document list no conclusions or any implementation schedule and is at best the beginning of a conversation. Having read the document myself I can understand that it a matter of interpretation but I submit that the older vets previous beliefs have tainted their viewpoint. Simply put much ado about nothing.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:58:00 - [21]
 


Zeimanov Kalzumaan
Haruspex Industries
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:59:00 - [22]
 

It's pretty simple,

CCP need to make money - somthing any reasonable player understands. CCP gave an undertaking to the community that vanity items only would be MT based in response to community feedback.

CCP internally plan to break this committment - furthermore the attitude towards the community grates against the (false) bonhomie that CCP portray.

This comes on the back of trying to charge all community sites/apps $99 for a license - as well as $60 vanity items.

The amount of quality players are recieving for their money is declining (incomplete content and needed fixes/tweaks) while at the same time we are increasinlgy being looked at to fund other CCP ventures, money taken from us will\does not feed back into improving the game.

Players are unhappy and want some answers - and we are being placated rather than listened to.....

Naitrayera
Arthashastra
Posted - 2011.06.24 12:59:00 - [23]
 

Yes i see the OPs point.
I tried something somewhat similar in my thread yesterday, to ask people what would they say if they are in the shoes of ccp-s PR guy, how would they justify all this.

In my humble opinion microtransactions for vanity items are fine.

But for the in-space advantages they are tricky at best.
If eve economy is ruined by spawning ships and ammo from MT store than eve WILL become pay to win game and ultimately fail.

On the other hand, ammo bpc-s bought by aurum could function in the same way as ammo bpc-s bought by LP points.

But, for example, i am firmly against buying standings or something similar, with AUR, LP, RP or ISK for that matter.
There are people in eve whose mini profession is getting your faction/corp standings up and it should be left that way.

Honestly my biggest concerns about all this is performance of CQ and stability of PLEX and subsequently whole of eve market if MT model is implemented lousy.

Spookyjay
Caldari
Animosity.
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:01:00 - [24]
 

STAND FOR SOMETHING, OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING.

Kai'il Bhaal
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:07:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Spookyjay
STAND FOR SOMETHING, OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING.



You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.

Oh hey, I can throw out Malcom X quotes like a know everything political activist high schooler, too!

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:12:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Stitcher on 24/06/2011 13:13:34

Regarding Dierdre Vaal's statement - I should point out that Dierdre was told these things in October and November of last year. So, eight months ago, or even up to a year ago.

In any industry, a year or even half a year is quite a long time, and in that time microtransactions have gone from being an unpopular niche to, as said in the newsletter "not only becoming increasingly commonplace, but fast-becoming the de-facto standard".

A large part of this has been driven by smartphone games, Facebook games like Farmville and so on. There has been an explosion in recent months of titles which rely on these kinds of transactions for their business model, and this explosion has happened since October/November 2010.

in response to that shifting paradigm, it's not only sensible that CCP should start talking about it - it was inevitable and essential.

We're in a different market now, one where microtransactions really shouldn't be the bogeymen that some people make them out to be. A promise made a year ago may not, in another year, turn out to be tenable as a business model. Who's to say that, if EVE stuck with as things are right now, people wouldn't be calling for it to become Free-to-play with MT financing in two years' time?

This is why discussions like this need to happen. It's essential to adapt to the changing reality of business in the games industry, and that will inevitably mean having to give serious consideration to stuff that was unthinkable this time last year.

Does that constitute a broken promise? yes, I suppose it does. Some promises HAVE to be broken, however, because they were made in good faith at a time when they were the right promise to make, only for the situation to change and for the promise to become a hindrance.

Yo Boss
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:17:00 - [27]
 

Lol...seriously? The doc clearly states what it means, and what it means is MICRO TRANSACTIONS.

Khamelean
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:19:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
Edited by: Stitcher on 24/06/2011 13:13:34

Regarding Dierdre Vaal's statement - I should point out that Dierdre was told these things in October and November of last year. So, eight months ago, or even up to a year ago.

In any industry, a year or even half a year is quite a long time, and in that time microtransactions have gone from being an unpopular niche to, as said in the newsletter "not only becoming increasingly commonplace, but fast-becoming the de-facto standard".

A large part of this has been driven by smartphone games, Facebook games like Farmville and so on. There has been an explosion in recent months of titles which rely on these kinds of transactions for their business model, and this explosion has happened since October/November 2010.

in response to that shifting paradigm, it's not only sensible that CCP should start talking about it - it was inevitable and essential.

We're in a different market now, one where microtransactions really shouldn't be the bogeymen that some people make them out to be. A promise made a year ago may not, in another year, turn out to be tenable as a business model. Who's to say that, if EVE stuck with as things are right now, people wouldn't be calling for it to become Free-to-play with MT financing in two years' time?

This is why discussions like this need to happen. It's essential to adapt to the changing reality of business in the games industry, and that will inevitably mean having to give serious consideration to stuff that was unthinkable this time last year.

Does that constitute a broken promise? yes, I suppose it does. Some promises HAVE to be broken, however, because they were made in good faith at a time when they were the right promise to make, only for the situation to change and for the promise to become a hindrance.


I for one am really interested to see where this promise was made. When exactly did CCP say that they would never do micro-transactions?

Zeimanov Kalzumaan
Haruspex Industries
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:22:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
Edited by: Stitcher on 24/06/2011 13:13:34

Regarding Dierdre Vaal's statement - I should point out that Dierdre was told these things in October and November of last year. So, eight months ago, or even up to a year ago.

In any industry, a year or even half a year is quite a long time, and in that time microtransactions have gone from being an unpopular niche to, as said in the newsletter "not only becoming increasingly commonplace, but fast-becoming the de-facto standard".

A large part of this has been driven by smartphone games, Facebook games like Farmville and so on. There has been an explosion in recent months of titles which rely on these kinds of transactions for their business model, and this explosion has happened since October/November 2010.

in response to that shifting paradigm, it's not only sensible that CCP should start talking about it - it was inevitable and essential.

We're in a different market now, one where microtransactions really shouldn't be the bogeymen that some people make them out to be. A promise made a year ago may not, in another year, turn out to be tenable as a business model. Who's to say that, if EVE stuck with as things are right now, people wouldn't be calling for it to become Free-to-play with MT financing in two years' time?

This is why discussions like this need to happen. It's essential to adapt to the changing reality of business in the games industry, and that will inevitably mean having to give serious consideration to stuff that was unthinkable this time last year.

Does that constitute a broken promise? yes, I suppose it does. Some promises HAVE to be broken, however, because they were made in good faith at a time when they were the right promise to make, only for the situation to change and for the promise to become a hindrance.


You are correct to a point, but games funded by MT are not also funded through subscriptions. Subscriptions significantly higher than the industry standard too.

People don't mind vanity MT - in time they willbe embraced if pitched at he right price point - but MT-funded items with in-game consequences are wrong for a subscription-based game.

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:33:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Stitcher on 24/06/2011 13:33:34
Originally by: Yo Boss
The doc clearly states what it means, and what it means is MICRO TRANSACTIONS.


and why are microtransactions a Bad Thing, exactly?

people are afraid that it will interfere with the sandbox and grant an unfair advantage to the guys who are willing to go fishing for their Visa card, fair enough.

What CCP are aiming at however, according to the newsletter are so-called "Concierge Services" - "Items that simply make life easier for the player without directly bettering the character's potency in the game"

Even if you could magically teleport ammo into your cargo hold with a shower of Aurum, you're still not guaranteed to win the fight if you've brought an inferior ship and worse tactics. Even if you could bribe the Amarr Empire into loving you after years of doing Republic Fleet level 4s, you're still not gaining anything other than access to Amarr space and all the competition and opportunities it represents, which you could promptly wreck again if you do some more Minmatar missions.

What they're considering selling is convenience, not advantage.

To continue with the quotes: "One important aspect of CCP's virtual goods sales philosophy is that any item bought for use in-game can also be sold on the market in-game." So. Nobody's gaining exclusivity here by being willing to tap their RL£. All services will be available to everyone whether they want to pay ISK or they want to pay AUR.

That being the case, I don't see an unfair advantage anywhere. Given time for the market to establish itself, there's no reason why, say, standings bribes or "ammo nanoassemblers" shouldn't be as commonplace as PLEX, and just as healthy and integral to the EVE economy. We know a lot of people get very rich off the PLEX trade without ever spending a single RL£ on it.

A big part of the objection here hinges on the notion that MTs are bad, and will confer an unfair advantage on payer-players. I'm yet to be convinced of that, especially in light of CCP's philosophy as expressed in an internal newsletter not intended for community attention.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

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