open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The realities of EVE
 
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 (44)

Author Topic

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:03:00 - [961]
 

They already know they would lose their entire veteran / core player base if they sold gold ammo or changed their strategies.


I wouldnt be suprised if they started this fiasco to get huge player reaction to dictate policy from here on out.

Klezmer
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:06:00 - [962]
 

Edited by: Klezmer on 27/06/2011 04:07:15
Originally by: Ghoest
Ill watch what you do not what you say.


As snide as it may be to use your words against you, this sums it up for me. You have proven consistently incapable of either honesty or to give a straight answer. Which takes me straight to post number two from Don...

Originally by: Don Pellegrino
It's extremely disappointing that CCP is unable to repeat its promise that was made to the CSM one year ago.
How hard is it to simply say: "There will never be non-vanity microtransactions"?

That's all we want.


Finally... my own thoughts. This might be a waste of my time since despite promises in CCP Pann's thread that all posts would be considered and fed back on (mine was only on page 9 so I know Manifest read at least that far), I'm quite sure you didn't bother and your promises again became a load of hot air. My faith in your ability to give a damn about the players is at an all time low.

I wrote this with FHC in mind and not CCP but tense aside, it all applies and I hope to god someone relevant at least sees this, or gets the message.

Regardless...

Incompetent handling of the roll-out of incarna
WIS is OK if only a cosmetic waste of time
lol monocles but no PTW thanks
Make stuff optional, play it down, give ship spinny, fast docking hangers back
Don't **** up the economy/industry thanks
PTW with a subscription is a disaster
Don't be greedy ****s

We now have the beginnings of 'walking in stations' and in addition to spaceships we have player characters. With this comes the opportunity for a bit of cosmetic personalisation, and MT for clothing is theoretically perfectly fine, optional and non game breaking.

Then we have the CCP way of doing things. WIS frankly wouldn't be such an objectionable thing if CCP didn't make such a massive fuss over it and appear to have it's development take priority over the core game (spaceships and the shooting of things) and then on launch... 1. Have only a single room, and then even worse 2. Only have the Minmatar quarters. 3. Forcibly dump you into this and remove (some of) the functionality of the old station hanger while forcing a resource load even if you are just docking up for ammo. Of course lets not forget old promises that WIS would always be optional. OK so it currently IS temporarily optional. What does that mean for us that opt out? A low res brown sludgy image which appears to be CCP telling us to GTFO, or taken literally, showing us the door. Not to gripe TOO much about it but Jesus Christ who on earth thought that was a suitable place-holder image to greet people upon docking? Worse, it's not intuitive how clone jumping etc works because you are both 'out of your ship' and yet have a ship active at the same time. If you have WIS off you have a brown door rather than a simple indication of what ship you are in. It's disorientating, clunky and CCP ought to be embarrassed at how this whole forced to quarters has been implemented. While people are laughing in disbelief about $80 monocles, I believe this is at the hearts of many of the playerbase. That or I'm projecting my own vision of Eve on others.

Let's face it... people miss ship spinning partly as a joke, but also partly because they actually DO spend considerable time simply sitting about in a station browsing the market, planning ops, firing off manufacturing jobs or quite frankly using eve as a glorified chat room. Being able to fart about in stations with your customised avatar shouldn't be so objectionable, it's pretty cool in theory to mingle with others. I've always thought character based MMO's look clunky and weird when you have a few hundred people stood about with speech bubbles everywhere but that's just me. Obviously they are popular for a reason. I gripe like a boss about the fact that you can't do anything of consequence in 'standing in quarters' but there's not exactly anything constructive to spinning a ship either. but. it. should. be... optional.

Continues...

Klezmer
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:06:00 - [963]
 

So, had CCP had rolled this out with a bit less "It's going to be amazing" and a bit more, "here's the beginnings, leave your hanger and go check it out from time to time guys" I'm pretty sure we could have avoided 50 odd pages of rage threads in Eve General, never-mind a large amount of the 300+ pages of PANN's apology thread.

I don't give a **** if a monocle costs $85. I do care if I have to start shelling out additional for lets say the equivalent of using faction ammo over standard. Plus the fact that it skips the player made economy, even if when it comes to me im just paying isk for it same as any other purchase. I actually care that the economy in Eve is the way it is.

As far as the different business models go. FTP games like WOT where a bit of a cash injection gets you cosmetic gain (shiny hanger), eased grind (more XP and 'gold') but ALSO some fancier ammo (If I recall it's not so much better that it really is MANDATORY). I've played that game a fair bit and it's a blast and I couldn't give a damn if they start trying to milk the players a little harder with more PTW features because on joining I accept the fact it is a PTW game.

With Eve... Christ, I've played the beta and finally have been playing since 2005. It's a subscription game, and one I'm heavily 'invested' in. I would never have imagined they would try to inject PTW on top of this and it doesn't make any sense. It literally ****s on the, as Don says, 'complex economy'. Spaceships aside, the economy is the one thing in Eve that just works so inexplicably well that trying to play about with it to the extent CCP thinks they can (reverse alchemy spaceships from thin air) plus the things in their 'internal debate newsletter' like PTW items is... the whole thing is just a disaster. Watching them remove features and then suggest adding them for a charge is also ****ing me off TBH (ship fittings).

As I said, it makes no sense. I have no idea about their true financial state but it's entirely possible they have stretched themselves too far and it looks to me like some suits at CCP have just seen other games charging for stuff and decided they want in on that too with no idea of how it's going to fit with Eve as it is now.

Thank you.

Lady Spank.

Flawliss
Gallente
Pilots of True Potential
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:08:00 - [964]
 

I think For the current EVE online P2W suffers in part because it was developed and has been, a subscription game, also its in game economy faces huge issues with with non-produced items. and its also a different type of game in its time consuming training and many other factors. By starting with the intention of Free to play with a shop, you have set particular expectations advantages or not. Eve Online set different expectations in 2003. And those expectations are being violated.

Understanding of this seems to be ignored, coupled with unfinished additions, feelings of being disregarded by developers at player concerns and promises of this type of platform never being added to EVE online, CCP shouldn't be so surprised.

Feeling betrayed should be the least of the feelings CCP employees should be worried about, especially taking it out on players through either Dev blogs or silence on the forums. Perhaps the numbers look bleak, as players may not be resubbing back into the game as they once did before, but with all the issues and released then untouched systems lying around in the game, CCP shouldnt be surprised by that. Any game full of half fulfilled promises and broken systems should expect that. You should expect that.

But to then throw in a shop on top of a Subscription to fix this theoretical problem is not going to boost your customers confidence that any of the above problems will be fixed.

For myself, 0.0 was fun, but the issues with POS, SOV and changing and breaking Cap ships, along with many ship systems and modules being ineffective even in their "optimum" window of use is discouraging. Faction Warfare is full of promises never delivered, and rotting in space, likely never to be touched again.

Devils advocate memo or not, it shouldn't be even in the conversation if you insist on a monthly Sub fee. Coupled with the dis-respect contained in Memos, emails and Dev Blogs, why then should the player base respect your words, however hallow they have come off recently, when many past promises have rung hollow aswell.

My desire has always been to play EVE Online, my desire now is to play a game run by people with some integrity in their dealings with the people they do business with, thus far, i find CCP lacking in integrity, not only in recent actions, but words and promises in the past.

I look forward to a day when CCP regains their integrity and really does put effort and honesty in their dealings with a universe of people that was once amazing, and is now in a sad state.

From all that has happened especially recently, i have reservations they ever will.

Flawliss

Wish you all well.

Algathas
Minmatar
The Revenge of Auntie Freeze
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:09:00 - [965]
 

No plans for gold ammo. Of course this makes sense. Gold prices have skyrocketed such that the cost to make the ammo would be too great. Pixel ammo is dirt cheap for CCP to make and they can sell it for near the price of real gold ammo.

Lord o'Darkness
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:11:00 - [966]
 

Edited by: Lord o''Darkness on 27/06/2011 04:17:04
Originally by: tika te
Edited by: tika te on 26/06/2011 23:40:28
they dont care. face it.
pay2win or "how winbutton works.."


There is one huge difference between Battlefield: Heroes and EVE, EVE is a subscription based game. Let us use the information in the video to compare the two games. The subscription gives CCP a monthly ARPU of somewhere between $10.95 and $14.99 (technically up $17.50 if everyone was buying plex directly, but I imagine that, in reality, it is a low percentage of the player-base which does this). In Battlefield: Heroes the lifetime ARPU is somewhere around $2.20 according to the presentation. Players in Battlefield: Heroes are paying much less than EVE players.

As John Turbefield said, introducing Pay2Win in EVE would make the players feel they are being "double-billed". Not only does Pay2Win not put everyone on equal footing and give wealthier players advantages, but in a game where players are already being charged a subscription, it is unreasonable to charge for game-affecting items. The two systems cannot exist at the same time without being felt as unfair to the player-base (In my opinion a subscription model is more fair to players as it gives no party an advantage for having wealth). Furthermore, converting EVE entirely to Pay2Win would most likely decrease CCP's revenue, see how Battlefield: Heroes gives a lifetime ARPU of $2.20 and an Eve player generates a monthly ARPU several times higher for CCP. I personally have no qualms with vanity cash shop items, but adding in game-affecting items is going a step too far. In my opinion, the best course of action for CCP to take would be to keep the NeX store, but limit it to vanity items only; if players want to spend money to make their Avatars look better, that is their choice.

We have yet to see if CCP will introduce game-affecting items, but from CCP Zulu's last blog, it sounds to me as if they are not going to (at least at this time). After this meeting with the CSM, CCP will hopefully give us a clear answer about whether or not they will be introducing non-vanity NeX store items. As of now, we are stuck with having to put a little of our faith in CCP, even though they have been less than transparent with information. CCP has made this game great for over 8 years and will hopefully continue to do so. Without product development, the game will become outdated as with any software. I can only hope that CCP will continue take it in the right direction.

Edit: TL;DR: Pay2Win + a subscription is a bad idea, and a subscription model is almost certain to make CCP more money than a F2P model.

Algathas
Minmatar
The Revenge of Auntie Freeze
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:18:00 - [967]
 

Originally by: Lord o'Darkness
Edited by: Lord o''Darkness on 27/06/2011 04:17:04
Originally by: tika te
Edited by: tika te on 26/06/2011 23:40:28
they dont care. face it.
pay2win or "how winbutton works.."


There is one huge difference between Battlefield: Heroes and EVE, EVE is a subscription based game. Let us use the information in the video to compare the two games. The subscription gives CCP a monthly ARPU of somewhere between $10.95 and $14.99 (technically up $17.50 if everyone was buying plex directly, but I imagine that, in reality, it is a low percentage of the player-base which does this). In Battlefield: Heroes the lifetime ARPU is somewhere around $2.20 according to the presentation. Players in Battlefield: Heroes are paying much less than EVE players.

As John Turbefield said, introducing Pay2Win in EVE would make the players feel they are being "double-billed". Not only does Pay2Win not put everyone on equal footing and give wealthier players advantages, but in a game where players are already being charged a subscription, it is unreasonable to charge for game-affecting items. The two systems cannot exist at the same time without being felt as unfair to the player-base (In my opinion a subscription model is more fair to players as it gives no party an advantage for having wealth). Furthermore, converting EVE entirely to Pay2Win would most likely decrease CCP's revenue, see how Battlefield: Heroes gives a lifetime ARPU of $2.20 and an Eve player generates a monthly ARPU several times higher for CCP. I personally have no qualms with vanity cash shop items, but adding in game-affecting items is going a step too far. In my opinion, the best course of action for CCP to take would be to keep the NeX store, but limit it to vanity items only; if players want to spend money to make their Avatars look better, that is their choice.

We have yet to see if CCP will introduce game-affecting items, but from CCP Zulu's last blog, it sounds to me as if they are not going to (at least at this time). After this meeting with the CSM, CCP will hopefully give us a clear answer about whether or not they will be introducing non-vanity NeX store items. As of now, we are stuck with having to put a little of our faith in CCP, even though they have been less than transparent with information. CCP has made this game great for over 8 years and will hopefully continue to do so. Without product development, the game will become outdated as with any software. I can only hope that CCP will continue take it in the right direction.

Edit: TL;DR: Pay2Win + a subscription is a bad idea, and a subscription model is almost certain to make CCP more money than a F2P model.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Constantinus Maximus
Paxian Expeditionary Force
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:21:00 - [968]
 

Originally by: Lord o'Darkness
stuff.


Eve only remains a subscription game as long as we're dumb enough to pay it.

Soon as the transition is complete it goes F2P/P2W and development gets a lot easier.

Tiny Mongo
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:25:00 - [969]
 

Nice read, thank you for clarifying Zulu.

To those that say they said no MT ever - show me that dev blog - I seem to remember no MT for sp/remaps.

Also, for those that say "what you do, not what you say" considering everything that can possibly happen is "words" you will never get action just inaction i.e. no better than already available mods/ships. So to you all I say is "lol"

Constantinus Maximus
Paxian Expeditionary Force
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:26:00 - [970]
 

Originally by: Tiny Mongo
Nice read, thank you for clarifying Zulu.



Hi Hilmar!

pssst. Create an avatar.

VaL Iscariot
Caldari
The Concilium Enterprises
Spectrum Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:27:00 - [971]
 

as so many have said before, I'll watch what you do, not what you say. Until the smoke has settled on this situation, I will remain unsubscribed. July 21st should be more then enough time to act on any plans you make with the CSM. I hope for the very best from you, CCP. EVE Online is an exciting game and one that I have come to enjoy above all others. The community at large and group of players that I've chosen to fly with have become a second virtual family to me. Don't let me down CCP. Don't let me down.

Callisto Ares
Companion Cube Industries
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:28:00 - [972]
 

Edited by: Callisto Ares on 27/06/2011 04:32:55
Originally by: Angeliq

Originally by: Julian Kirov

Here's a presentation from the creators of BF:Heroes that explains why Hilmar gives no fcks about the forums.

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win




This is a very interesting presentation. Everyone should... MUST watch it!

This presentation will tell you why EVE Online WILL have a Cash Shop WITH GAME CHANGING ITEMS beyond vanity ones!! It shows that the business model works and why it will work in EVE too.



Very good info in that presentation and exactly what the consultants CCP hired would have been telling them along with research on the price points to hit with the "microtransaction" items they'd be listing in the NeX store to achieve the best return per sale.

It should be noted however, that presentation did show that the engaged active players that participated on the forum account for 10x more revenue per player than the non-forum players.

This still doesn't change the fact that Battlefield heroes was engineered from the ground up as a game built for micro transactions, and had no monthly fee.

Eve-Online was never designed and has no structure or to support that type of activity within a player driven environment. You can't monetize Eve like that without ruining the game itself.

Balthazar Tsero
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:30:00 - [973]
 

Okay my 2 cents. First if CCP is looking to expand their new offerings let us see a valid representation of the goods they plan on selling not trying to sneak it in gradually. Second it seems like CQ is just a testbed for their other games. This is EVE your flagship offering dont try to pawn off testing your new games on us and then be like 'look at the new toys'. I have no objection to CQ but again the WAY you introduced this content has damaged your credability THIS is what we want you to explain.

Lord o'Darkness
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:30:00 - [974]
 

Originally by: Constantinus Maximus
Originally by: Lord o'Darkness
stuff.


Eve only remains a subscription game as long as we're dumb enough to pay it.

Soon as the transition is complete it goes F2P/P2W and development gets a lot easier.



If you actually read what I wrote, you would notice that I am saying that a subscription model would make CCP more money than a F2P model. CCP would be smarter to keep EVE on a subscription model, even if the player-base grew larger, lets say 3-4 times the current size, the ARPU would be drastically lower and CCP would be making less money overall. I do not see how less revenue would ease development.

Devils Errand
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:33:00 - [975]
 

screw p2w/MT. Just raise the subscription rates some percentage. If you were dedicated enough to buy a year in advance, your golden. if you go month to month, then you bear a burden, and maybe you'll opt for a longer commitment, which then puts more stable income into CCP's coffers. I would also push up plex prices.

If they need more income to front the other projects, then stick with the model they have in place and increase it. don't move the goal post and just confuse the way the game is structured.

Yakumo Smith
Gallente
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:35:00 - [976]
 

I think one of the biggest things CCP seems to forget is how important single players can be in this game.

I've seen a lot of corps fall apart when the CEO or main FC decided to leave. Eve is a sandbox and if you are in it to PVP, the game content can be driven by a few key players. If these key players start to leave, the game experience as a whole diminishes.

Losing a subscription from mission runner johnny in high-sec isn't going to cause eve any problems. Losing alliance leaders, CEO's, directors and most importantly FC's is going to result in a reduced game experience universe wide.

In the P2P model being touted in this thread...you could lose millions of players and those remaining could still have a similar game experience day to day. In Eve, you lose a SINGLE key player and 3000 people have to move their stuff back to empire.


Constantinus Maximus
Paxian Expeditionary Force
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:40:00 - [977]
 

Edited by: Constantinus Maximus on 27/06/2011 04:40:42
Originally by: Lord o'Darkness
If you actually read what I wrote, you would notice that I am saying that a subscription model would make CCP more money than a F2P model. CCP would be smarter to keep EVE on a subscription model, even if the player-base grew larger, lets say 3-4 times the current size, the ARPU would be drastically lower and CCP would be making less money overall. I do not see how less revenue would ease development.


I do actually agree with you, just making a point that there is no conflict between P2W and subscriptions because will go F2P in future once we've been milked.

The thing I see from a dev perspective is F2P is a LOT less work and attracts less demanding customers. Thus more margin.

Lord o'Darkness
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:42:00 - [978]
 

Originally by: Yakumo Smith
I think one of the biggest things CCP seems to forget is how important single players can be in this game.

I've seen a lot of corps fall apart when the CEO or main FC decided to leave. Eve is a sandbox and if you are in it to PVP, the game content can be driven by a few key players. If these key players start to leave, the game experience as a whole diminishes.

Losing a subscription from mission runner johnny in high-sec isn't going to cause eve any problems. Losing alliance leaders, CEO's, directors and most importantly FC's is going to result in a reduced game experience universe wide.

In the P2P model being touted in this thread...you could lose millions of players and those remaining could still have a similar game experience day to day. In Eve, you lose a SINGLE key player and 3000 people have to move their stuff back to empire.




In addition to the diminished game experience, the players who were in a corporation/alliance that fell apart are much more likely to leave the game.

MyjoHe
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:44:00 - [979]
 

Originally by: Chribba
Edited by: Chribba on 26/06/2011 18:42:03

Ok, it's one step in the right direction, I'm glad to see that. And I do agree that communication is of utter most importance and I hope you do push further to improve the communication as well.

As for words cannot express... you could go youtube on our asses? Laughing

But seriously, glad you are taking the time for extra CSM meetups and I hope that there will be good results from those meetings. Keep up the good work and looking forward to what the future brings.

/c


This. +1 Good post that says it all.

Waiting to see what happens before resubbing my main.

Lord o'Darkness
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:48:00 - [980]
 

Edited by: Lord o''Darkness on 27/06/2011 04:48:31
Originally by: Constantinus Maximus
Edited by: Constantinus Maximus on 27/06/2011 04:40:42
Originally by: Lord o'Darkness



I do actually agree with you, just making a point that there is no conflict between P2W and subscriptions because will go F2P in future once we've been milked.

The thing I see from a dev perspective is F2P is a LOT less work and attracts less demanding customers. Thus more margin.



I misunderstood your post, I apologize. In terms of CCP milking us for cash, I believe that they would lose more revenue from players leaving than they would gain if they made EVE Pay2Win. However, I am equally concerned with CCP attempting this strategy to get more revenue in the short term to fund their other projects. I am just optimistically putting a small bit of faith in CCP that they will not mess EVE up entirely.

Monstress
Posted - 2011.06.27 05:01:00 - [981]
 

Ugh, this still isn't a straight answer. Best of luck to the CSM, hope you guys can smack some sense into CCP.

Nac MacFeegle
Argyll Manufacturing
Posted - 2011.06.27 05:03:00 - [982]
 

CCP, don't think for even a moment that by kicking the can down the road that you'll buy any time.

I'm still angry, and I'm still waiting for concrete actions.

Ein Spiegel
Minmatar
Fly-by-Night Industries LLC PTY LTD
Posted - 2011.06.27 05:08:00 - [983]
 

Edited by: Ein Spiegel on 27/06/2011 05:13:23
Zulu,

I appreciate your apology. I understand frustration (from a different line of work, in which it is not uncommon for the "you suck" responses to far outnumber the "thank you for doing a good job"), but it's something that should never influence your public-facing demeanor. CCP put a lot into Incarna, and we took this baby and then **** on it. But, honestly, a mother always thinks they have a beautiful baby, and the internal messaging that seems to suggest that Incarna is beautiful, wonderful, and working smoothly seems to ignore some very real issues with it. (Resource intensive on client, NeX pricing, and my own personal issue - what's up with the hair? It seems to be graphically a step down from what we see in the Carbon technology trailer. Heck, I think the SWG avatars were prettier. (That's the only SWG reference. I promise.))

I understand the frustration, I do. But the communications externally in wake of the leaks, they could have been better. Answering the primary complaint brought about by the leaks in the very first blog would have been better. Heck, if the internal policy all along has been "we will not, and have not, been contemplating introducing 'gold ammo' into Eve Online" I just don't understand the internal gag. Each and every developer at CCP could have posted a one line reply in the threadnaught simply saying "No, we aren't doing gold ammo or RMT for game affecting goods/services" (if they wanted to post). You would have done two things that way... calmed the angry player base, and also helped calm internal fears that maybe that was the direction coming from on high among your own employees. Continuing the silence until after meeting the CSM also isn't comforting - not commenting on specifics, yes, I understand. But letting employees reiterate the "no gold ammo" message would be good, and allow them to start probing the lesser sources of concern - ie, why does my ATI card temperature jump up 4 degrees immediately and why does CQ add 40% more memory usage?

I understand also you're upset about people leaking internal stuff to the internet. But you should also realize that your employees, and your players, also love Eve. If they're so upset that they are willing to risk their employment with CCP, working on something they love, by leaking internal information to the players, you need to (as a company) do some internal review at the highest levels. Not to discover "how could this happen", not to "prevent this from happening again", but to determine "what is our direction and why is this making the ground floor employees upset"? As a company, CCP could perform an internal witch hunt to find the source of the leak, and decide that high level decisions must be made more secret to prevent a potential leak from having information that would be damaging, but that only treats a symptom and not the underlying problem. Internal messaging should be clear, and be something that even if you published it to your player base, would clearly show "omg, that will be cool" and not "dear god, what are you doing?" Internal information is exactly that... internal. But that doesn't mean that at some point, it may be subject to disclosure - and CCP as a company should assess how such disclosure may cause perceptions to change, and be ready to meet that with a strategy of engagement, not silence. Silence is always more fearful than engagement, in a PR context.

Anyways, Arnar, you have a lot of work to do on this, with the CSM's help, and hopefully Pann can assist you once her daughter has fully recovered. Seeing where you started (tester), and where you are now, 5 years later, remember that help is good. You must be something to get where you are so fast, but your PR under stress seems a bit iffy. Grow through it, and let's see some solid awesome in future dev blogs.

(yadda yadda, account status dependent on actions, yadda yadda)

(edit: fixing d'oh typo)

Ianus
Caldari
Geminus Gateway
Posted - 2011.06.27 05:08:00 - [984]
 

Originally by: Ghoest
Ill watch what you do not what you say.

CAAN0N
Project Nemesis
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.06.27 05:11:00 - [985]
 

Haven't read the thread yet but has anyone yet considered the fact that CCP might be inviting the CSM to Iceland to go all snuff film on there asses? Careful guys could be a TARP!

Raz Xym
Posted - 2011.06.27 05:16:00 - [986]
 

Originally by: Zephy Russ
What he said was "gold ammo" in quotation marks. That does not denote a specific item, at the very least it refers to premium ammo full stop and likely refers to more than that.


So a sompany that is claiming to be misunderstood, has days and days to determine EXACTLY what they want to say, with no misconceptions and this guys writes "gold ammo". Some people will truly believe anything, and probably buy anything. Sorry Zulu, you are failing hard. We know what is coming.

Constantinus Maximus
Paxian Expeditionary Force
Posted - 2011.06.27 05:19:00 - [987]
 

Originally by: Lord o'Darkness
I believe that they would lose more revenue from players leaving than they would gain if they made EVE Pay2Win.


They're bankers. They think different to humans.

Alexis Sachs
Posted - 2011.06.27 05:20:00 - [988]
 

So I read that again. Slower this time. A bit less sleepy than the first time I read it.

And I think even less of it now than I did initially.

Apologizing for the tone was nice. I liked that. Maybe I'm an ass, but frankly an apology was needed.

But once again... What does that sentence mean? I'm a bit of a semantic jerk - it doesn't read as making any sense to me. If trying to achieve clarity was the goal, I'm afraid to say it failed on that score. It should have said either "no - never!" or "sorry, but yeah, pay to win is coming." I want the answer to be no, never. I can accept that the answer could be yes, it's coming. But I need to know. I need to know so I can determine if I will continue playing or not.

My other issue is this idea that we need to tell the CSM any other issues we players may want addressed. First, we have. Second, they knew it anyway. Most importantly though - are you serious?! Nearly 400 pages of threadnarok and no one at CCP knows that we have other issues (while not as serious perhaps as pay to win, they're still damned serious!)? And you know what, of course they know. I'd have been much happier to have seen a line akin to "and we will also be discussing some of your other concerns with the CSM such as performance, yadda yadda yadda." Just seems like... Really? You don't really know what we're thinking?

vasuul
Posted - 2011.06.27 05:32:00 - [989]
 

Edited by: vasuul on 27/06/2011 05:42:56
heres a bit of the links to the bad press ccp has earned from its stone walling ...HA yeah wait us out i hope you enjoy your 52 monocles sold

http://forum.mmosite.com/thread/2/2/20100616/Top_10_Reasons_Why_MMOs_Are_Dying-4da8339c09edb1813-5.html


http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/25/eve-online-controversy-erupts-in-protests/

http://n4g.com/news/793980/eve-online-players-protest-against-microtransactions-and-monocles-lasers-involved/com

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/319384/page/1

http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion/30/eve-online-in-game-protest/503801/?page=last

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqRgX1g0aeQ&

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/06/25/1847248/emEVE-Onlineem-Players-Rage-Protest-Over-Microtransactions

http://www.blogbookmark.com/story.php?title=eve-online-players-rage-protest-over-microtransactions

http://mmodata.blogspot.com/2011/06/riots-in-eve-against-microtransactions.html

http://muscatoxblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/eve-online-protests-continue-over.html

http://www.pcgamer.com/?p=58382

http://games.on.net/article/12887/EVE_Online_Users_In_Protest_Over_Third_Party_Development_Fees

http://beefjack.com/news/eve-online-players-riot-in-game-against-microtransactions/

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1087505

http://segmentnext.com/2011/06/25/eve-online-new-changes-lead-to-riots-and-fan-rage/?amp&

http://massively.joystiq.com/

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/26/eve-evolved-the-day-that-eve-online-died/

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/24/ccp-addresses-eve-controversies-in-new-dev-blog/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387588,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03069TX1K0001121

AUR is extortion say no to aur isk is good rl greed sucks, and again we ask

WILL CCP START SELLING NON VANITY ITEMS ON NEX(SUCH AS FACTION ITEMS, STANDINGS AND OTHER CHARACTER ADVANCEMENTS)? YES OR NO
"SAY IT AINT SO JOE "
answer us please
I hope you don't fill our sandbox with concrete
Seriously we are passionate cause we love this game and would hate to see it die if you need more cash raise subs a few dollars
and in turn give us some new missions im sure no one would complain if you were honest and said look our production costa are going up and we need to generate a bit more revenue as such rates for playing are going to 19.95
and the AUR well it was a bad idea we will just seed these non vanity items on the market or put em in the lp store



Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.06.27 05:48:00 - [990]
 

Originally by: Constantinus Maximus
Originally by: Lord o'Darkness
I believe that they would lose more revenue from players leaving than they would gain if they made EVE Pay2Win.


They're bankers. They think different to humans.


They're called Banksters.


Pages: first : previous : ... 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 ... : last (44)

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