open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Dev Track Feedback: Monetizing Your Apps and Services
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 ... : last (49)

Author Topic

Strrog
Caldari
Zero Excavations
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:16:00 - [991]
 

Edited by: Strrog on 16/06/2011 17:20:03
Well finally after rather brutal session of criticism top Lead Dev recognized the issue.

However I do want to remind the dev team that the tranquillity server population has not really breached 40-50 k since I started playing 3-4 years ago, which suggest that the game is not growing in subs- its a clear stalemate.

There were a lot of issues with tools and applications demand for different projects, the innovations came from players ONLY. Charging those players any form of fee to improve EVE On-line game-play borderlines treason. An excuse of a security issues with API....when hackers flood your MAC tables, or RMTers botting in hulks perhaps is a far greater issue, plus the API keys produce no threat to the server, as it would simply not have been released for users in the first place.

So what is the problem here? Its getting obvious that business plan is getting altered to harvest more money from current subscription base. This may have severe consequences.

There should be a proper review of the situation and one of the issues such as the lack of new subs should be one of the top priorities.

Also forgot to mention the rather absurd 514 release, its like shooting yourself in the foot few times in a row and not noticing!!!.


PS. There was no miscommunication at this point I believe, it seems someone is testing the player base with new (stupid) ideas.

thank you

Rhivre
Caldari
TarNec
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:20:00 - [992]
 

It seems like an initial haphazard solution to their promised "within 1 year monetization for 3rd party developers" after the capsuleer debacle last year.

On the other hand, it also seems they are going the blizz route and just incorporating the 3rd party features into game eventually, such as the new agent finder thingy in CQ.

Castia
Caldari
Invicta.
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:21:00 - [993]
 

Edited by: Castia on 16/06/2011 17:26:34
Maybe if they sold some improved version of the API with documentation and code samples... and support...

It's still a bad idea tho.

Koramok
Amarr
Cold Carbon Institute
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:21:00 - [994]
 

Subscription fee, item shop, nickel and diming, hmmmm so Bill Roper works at CCP now?

Miilla
Minmatar
Hulkageddon Orphanage
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:23:00 - [995]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online



Please also read ...

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1528666

and

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1528874


Consortium Agent
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:28:00 - [996]
 

Ran out of room. :P

On a final note, one additional variable would be key in the commercial and free license agreement(s) - CCP cannot steal our intellectual property or ideas and implement them into the game without compensation to the originating authors of those ideas. There needs to be equal protection for our intellectual property as well.

This would apply to me (bot report tool) but frankly I don't care about me so much as all the guys who took the time to write some awesome agent finders only to have an agent finder tool suddenly show up on SiSi! So, CCP is not opposed to taking our ideas and implementing them in the game as evidenced by the forthcoming bot report tool and the new agent finder tool - so I think that that licensing should include a clause to protect our intellectual rights as much as it protects CCP's.

That is all. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program ;)

1Of9
Gallente
The Circle
White Noise.
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:31:00 - [997]
 

Originally by: Mal Plox

Capsuleer, please come back!


this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this

darmwand
Blood Money Dark Angels
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:31:00 - [998]
 

kilothread!

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:31:00 - [999]
 

P.S. Misunderstanding and confusion my arse. Zulu, you're so bad, you didn't even read you own dev's FAQ post.

But whatever, dude. It's only your customers to lose because it's not exactly like you have a reputation to uphold anymore.

Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:34:00 - [1000]
 

A "free non-commercial license" What the hell are you talking about?

I already pay > $100 a year in order to be able to offer a free tool to the community for your game. That fee is called "monthly subscription", because without a valid account, I can't access the API data.

I'm cool with a commercial license for those 3rd party devs that like to charge RL money for their tools/services. This is good for CCP and if you as a 3rd party dev think you have a tool that's worth the money - go for it.

But I very much dislike that people like me have to get any kind of license, free or not. Because I'm just a little hobby programmer, not a lawyer. And knowing all the legal **** lawyers are able to put into legal documents to screw sane and honorable people like me over, I don't feel very compelled to that idea.

Caphelo
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:35:00 - [1001]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).


You are so full of crap. If you don't want to make money off of people FIXING YOUR BROKEN GAME, then your fee will be a one time $0 or $1 fee.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:38:00 - [1002]
 

Originally by: CCP Whatever

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.



Translation: Look, Look everyone! Shiney Stuff, look over here! Look, Shiiiiineeeeey. This way to the great egress!

Aww did I hurt your feelings? Such is the price of mistrust and skeptisism.

MissyDark
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:42:00 - [1003]
 

This devblog is the first time I wanted to fill a whole page of profanity, in caps, huge font directed at CCP. Are you ****ING HIGH? You have the best community, people spending huge amounts of time and money to build things around EVE and you bithslap them in the face for that. It's clear signal for potential developers - wanna do something for community? Then don't cuz you're gonna pay! It is INSANE, whoever came up with this should be fired and kicked out of 10th floor, as an example.

I'm... just speechless. It's like someone coming up on stage at fanfest, throwing poo at the audience.

Aphoxema G
PONIES EVERWHERE
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:46:00 - [1004]
 

CCP says it's not to make money, but it is up to them to arbitrarily decide how much their "intellectual property" is worth. While I can understand them wanting to restrict others from making money off of their work, this "agreement", or the disclosure of it, seems awfully insincere.

Yes, this is to make money. Even worse, it's specifically to make more money off of existing revenue streams that have zero cost to CCP already.

Dograzor
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:50:00 - [1005]
 

Edited by: Dograzor on 16/06/2011 17:53:50
Originally by: Kronus Heilgar

You are charging people who work for free to make your game better you asshats





EDIT: Why do I see thesame failscade incoming as when CCP tried to get us to vote EVE as the game of the year? Just when I thought CCP was making progress. Confused

Siphra D'morte
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:53:00 - [1006]
 

Based on CCPs recent decisions; (Glad they are temporary putting a hold on this one) I think they hired recently someone with an MBA, It might be a good Idea to FIRE the DUMBASS before you become the Atari of MMOs.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:56:00 - [1007]
 

Originally by: Aphoxema G
CCP says it's not to make money, but it is up to them to arbitrarily decide how much their "intellectual property" is worth. While I can understand them wanting to restrict others from making money off of their work, this "agreement", or the disclosure of it, seems awfully insincere.

Yes, this is to make money. Even worse, it's specifically to make more money off of existing revenue streams that have zero cost to CCP already.
Given how CCP continually manage to screw the pooch, hump the dog, jump the shark etc with every second thing they do and say, and the resulting damage that does to CCP's brand, they should actually be paying us to use their IP.

Personally, I would love to know how a company as bad as CCP can actually function.

Victor Dreadwolf
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:56:00 - [1008]
 

Edited by: Victor Dreadwolf on 16/06/2011 17:56:59
So you are going to charge people who work for free to close the gaps in your terrible product/service.

In the long run this will significantly hurt EVE in exchange for a minuscule quick profit.

Edit:
Originally by: Kronus Heilgar

You are charging people who work for free to make your game better you asshats




MissyDark
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:58:00 - [1009]
 

Edited by: MissyDark on 16/06/2011 18:04:25
Originally by: CCP Zulu

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development.



But it will deter. It's like putting a huge entry tax for every startup company in a country and expecting people to start businesses. You will a lot less "startup" projects around eve. If this existed before we probably would have never seen evemon or eft.

Originally by: CCP Zulu

The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand



Stop right there. Great community grew around eve because there was no control. People created and you didn't throw obstacles and even helped (eve api). Whye the hell do you want to change that? People's apps don't have "made by ccp" all over them, right? Besides you should know already you cannot "control" your brand. Brand is the reputation of the company, product quality, employee conduct, standards of communication, financial reliability, customer support and most important: trust. They affect reputation and create brand. You "control" the brand by executing on standards and policies set within company. You do not "control" the brand by trying to force your customers and business partners to work the way you want them too. It never works and every company that tries that quickly gains a reputation of corporate *******s and survive by maintaining monopoly or dies.

This are the basics of brand management in corporate organization - what the hell is going on at CCP so you would make such insane decision? Can't you see you have just hurt your reputation and broken trust of your customers? Good god...

Originally by: CCP Zulu

and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).


Man but why?! Everything was already achieved happened without this control. Why break things, WTF? The eve is about free market and now you want to regulate the "market" of things build around eve, instead letting them live and die due to popularity, demand, usefulness?

Originally by: CCP Zulu

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.


You should throw it out of the window and start long and tedious process of rebuilding the trust you have violated.
By this single devblog you just transitioned from cool-guys-at-ccp to corporates-from-SOE/EA. Congratu****inglations.

Originally by: CCP Zulu

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online


I'd rather have a video of me pink painted and running naked on the highway placed on youtube than have my name associated with such PR failure.

DraLaFi
Caldari
Volition Cult
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:00:00 - [1010]
 

Basically this means our corp have to pay CCP 99US/year to run eve-volt.net website...

Why? Cos we have a link to a GTC provider (ShatteredCrystal.com) that is paying alittle money to maintain the domain name this is by far not covering the amount needed to maintain it tho!

I don't see that as being fair to anyone other then somebody at CCP
figured out a way to "Milk" the users even more for more "isk"...

We will now have to remove that link cos its definitely not viable to keep it in place since it will cost us far more to pay for a license then to miss out on a few bucks to help pay for an upkeep fee...

Chai Ming
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:11:00 - [1011]
 

seem like CCP's gettin tired of fighting Bots and have turned on a much fatter prey.. THE CAREBEARS

I to run a small service for isk, (No, not a kissing booth), but like many others this service will stop, and I will have to reconsider why I play this 'Game-which-once-were-the-greatest-thing-since-Zelda'

hugs to all (But BizDevs)

Chai..

visableone
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:18:00 - [1012]
 

simple solution for every 3rd party app dev,... host all your sites from malaysia, your trivial interwebby laws mean nothing there!!


Devan Corvel
Intaki Liberation Front
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:23:00 - [1013]
 

First, I want to echo the general sentiment that there needs to be a differentiation between in-game ISK donations/revenue, and real world money. Please re-examine this thoroughly.

Moving on, I have a suggestion for a way to address several of the issues raised with not-for-profit type sites like DotLan, etc:
  • Introduce a category of the license for the not-for-profit sites.

  • Make an option on the account management screen to support these sites (individually or in groups, to be decided by the license holders) with one-time or recurring payments.

  • Give these sites a grace period of something like 3 months for donations to pay their license fee before paying out of pocket.

  • Contributions beyond the license fee go to the license holder(s) to offset hosting/bandwidth/upkeep costs.

  • Include monthly & annual donations vs expenses meter (info could be submitted to CCP to avoid scamming). Once it's full for a rolling 12-month period, payments could be temporarily disabled and a "thanks, we're all good" message would show instead.


Benefits to the community, people who run these services, and CCP:
  • Players then can easily contribute to the sites/services they use, and see what goes into running these services.

  • Site operators benefit from increased exposure and financial support.

  • CCP gets their license fees and to feel good for helping out the little guys who run this stuff.

  • Everybody wins.


(Sorry if this re-hashes anyone else's ideas, 34 pages is a bit much to sift through.)


Mechanoid Kryten
N0VA 5
Brainfarts
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:28:00 - [1014]
 

Two things bother me in ccp zulus response. One is the emphasis on control. Why? To what end? In my experience eve players are good at shooting down less than perfect 3rd party code.
The other is that he reminds me of an alliance I was in b4 it fell apart. They also tried to resist growing from their mistakes and when they could not resist it they blamed it on members mis understanding orders. the leaders wrestled for control blindly unaware that they were there to serve their members instead of contol them causing each contolled member to defect one at a time. They lasted 3 weaks and caused the deaths of most of their member corps.
Ccp... stop. Now. Capsuleermaybe cool but it isn't worth the rest of th is trash. We pay money to play a game. That's it. Not to be contolled.

Silicon Sailor
Northgate
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:29:00 - [1015]
 

Edited by: Silicon Sailor on 16/06/2011 18:29:42
Instead of trying to limit/control/own the brand/UI
you COULD go the other way....
Open the UI. Add a boatload of API calls that are UI based. Watch the UI grow in ways you never imagined

Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM making reference to WOW. Fact is, their Modding community is deleriously happy, and robust, because they have more options then they know what to do with.


Dyner
Minmatar
Midgard Protectorate
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:33:00 - [1016]
 

I guess my biggest question is:

How "stupid" are you people that attend Fanfest? I ask this because of this part:

Quote:
At this year's Fanfest CCP hosted the first Dev Track in what we hope will be a regular event. To kick off the event I gave an exciting announcement about monetization


So...were you all to drunk to call CCP out then?

I mean, I wasn't there, but it sounds like it wasn't openly opposed...boo-ing, shouting, maybe some stuff thrown (like plastic cups; nothing deadly) at the Dev Booth.

I love the Internet..."Ball-less Wonders" in 'Real Life'; Heroes 'Online'. <-ya, that's right, I'm ****ed. You attendees didn't protest this; if you did....YOU FAILED 'PROTESTING 101'.

...lol...charging money for what you once provided free (API).

Selthae
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:34:00 - [1017]
 

Originally by: Silicon Sailor
Edited by: Silicon Sailor on 16/06/2011 18:29:42
Instead of trying to limit/control/own the brand/UI
you COULD go the other way....
Open the UI. Add a boatload of API calls that are UI based. Watch the UI grow in ways you never imagined

Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM making reference to WOW. Fact is, their Modding community is deleriously happy, and robust, because they have more options then they know what to do with.




I'll bet their API is better documented and easier to consume as well.


Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:35:00 - [1018]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulu
Hello all.

At the risk of sounding corporate-y, I have to say Im impressed and greatful for the amount of passion shown in this thread.

There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.

It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).

Its obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.

Unfortunately that will take some time and were kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.

So what well do is take a step back, harvest feedback from this thread, do an iteration pass on the contract and terms and give you an updated version before the end of summer. Until we have a license that meets our needs and your expectations we will not make any changes to our terms or enforcement thereof.

As always, your feedback is not only welcomed but in fact essential to us. Thank you.

Arnar Hrafn Gylfason
Senior Producer of EVE Online



If you're so swamped by Incarna/CQ why are you releasing devblogs and tests for non CQ stuff just before release, while keeping total silence on Incarna, which is about to release?

There is more feedback in this one thread, than we have had in the past week on the patch you are about to release.

Given that as you say, most of the feedback is based on 'misunderstandings', or in other words you failing to write a dev blog that was clear and informative, as opposed to vague and confusing...

I would take a long hard look at your communication... which is said a lot... which is a hint that you need to do something about it.


Xailia
Unsteady Corporation
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:36:00 - [1019]
 

Any time that you, CCP, are looking for community feedback on an idea via a dev blog, you should make it VERY CLEAR on the header (rather than brief mention in the body) of the dev blog that this is a preliminary draft and is in serious need of feedback.
e.g. "We are seeking feedback..." rather than "We are pleased to announce.."

Idea Most of the outrage over this was due to it sounding like a committed feature, instead of an early proposal.

Helicity Boson
Amarr
The Python Cartel.
The Defenders of Pen Island
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:39:00 - [1020]
 

Originally by: Xailia
Any time that you, CCP, are looking for community feedback on an idea via a dev blog, you should make it VERY CLEAR on the header (rather than brief mention in the body) of the dev blog that this is a preliminary draft and is in serious need of feedback.
e.g. "We are seeking feedback..." rather than "We are pleased to announce.."

Idea Most of the outrage over this was due to it sounding like a committed feature, instead of an early proposal.


Wrong. Most of the outrage is based on the fact that we have lost faith in them in general.

An endless parade of cow-dung, lies, failure and general mismanagement has eroded our faith in CCP so much that we have no choice but to always assume the worst.

And frankly they deserve it. Money-grubbing fools.


Pages: first : previous : ... 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 ... : last (49)

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