open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Non-Vanity Items are Coming - Here's Proof
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Sethose Olderon
Gryphon Chancellery
Gryphon League
Posted - 2011.06.27 08:57:00 - [1]
 

Just to be clear, I hate the idea of any micro-transactions being present in Eve, but I think their eventual arrival in the game is simply a forgone conclusion, including those giving advantage(s). One might say that Eve is a different kind of game with different type of players, but as facts presented in the following presentation, even those who complain (who are a small, but very active and engaged percentage of the player-base) purchase items as well. It also shows The following data presented in the following presentation seems to prove this, sadly.

People, the only winning move is not to play, because eventually you'll have to pay to win. For those of you who want this, all I can say is... Enjoy it.

Originally by: Ben Cousins - General Manager of Easy, an EA business unit which produces Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield Play4Free, and others
So letís follow the user behavior and stop trying to define what a virtual goods game should be in an ideal world, Instead look at what the consumers want them to be. Our consumers told us that our virtual goods game is like a game of golf, a car race or a bicycle race where small purchased advantages are part of the accepted norm, rather than a perfectly balanced game of chess or Poker where no outside influences are allowed.The users accept this, in fact as our survey shows, they demand it.

I urge you to watch the entirety of his presentation called "Paying to Win", it reveals the cold hard, and sad truth.

Funny Note: Maybe Hellmar watched this? Notice the Golf Reference?


catinboots
Minmatar
Vintage heavy industries
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:00:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Just to be clear, I hate the idea of any micro-transactions being present in Eve, but I think their eventual arrival in the game is simply a forgone conclusion, including those giving advantage(s). One might say that Eve is a different kind of game with different type of players, but as facts presented in the following presentation, even those who complain (who are a small, but very active and engaged percentage of the player-base) purchase items as well. It also shows The following data presented in the following presentation seems to prove this, sadly.

People, the only winning move is not to play, because eventually you'll have to pay to win. For those of you who want this, all I can say is... Enjoy it.

Originally by: Ben Cousins - General Manager of Easy, an EA business unit which produces Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield Play4Free, and others
So letís follow the user behavior and stop trying to define what a virtual goods game should be in an ideal world, Instead look at what the consumers want them to be. Our consumers told us that our virtual goods game is like a game of golf, a car race or a bicycle race where small purchased advantages are part of the accepted norm, rather than a perfectly balanced game of chess or Poker where no outside influences are allowed.The users accept this, in fact as our survey shows, they demand it.

I urge you to watch the entirety of his presentation called "Paying to Win", it reveals the cold hard, and sad truth.

Funny Note: Maybe Hellmar watched this? Notice the Golf Reference?




You are adding to the confusion by posting more false rumours , it is people like you that will kill the game

Sethose Olderon
Gryphon Chancellery
Gryphon League
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:03:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 27/06/2011 09:03:10
Originally by: catinboots
You are adding to the confusion by posting more false rumours , it is people like you that will kill the game


Did I say anywhere in my post that CCP will do this? No, I did not, I never once mentioned CCP. I am merely pointing out the inevitability of it based on the facts of virtual goods sales. If you had watched the presentation as I urged, you might have seen this. Instead you shot from the hip...

Alejan Gerakh
Minmatar
Clan Hyena
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:05:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 27/06/2011 09:03:10
Originally by: catinboots
You are adding to the confusion by posting more false rumours , it is people like you that will kill the game


Did I say anywhere in my post that CCP will do this? No, I did not, I never once mentioned CCP. I am merely pointing out the inevitability of it based on the facts of virtual goods sales. If you had watched the presentation as I urged, you might have seen this. Instead you shot from the hip...
The thread title did it all by itself.

By the way, this video's been posted before, and the same argument has been used against it then: F2P vs Subscription.

Johny Fuckkin Dango
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:06:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 27/06/2011 09:03:10
Originally by: catinboots
You are adding to the confusion by posting more false rumours , it is people like you that will kill the game


Did I say anywhere in my post that CCP will do this? No, I did not, I never once mentioned CCP. I am merely pointing out the inevitability of it based on the facts of virtual goods sales. If you had watched the presentation as I urged, you might have seen this. Instead you shot from the hip...


"However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum. In Fearless people are arguing a point, which doesn't even have to be their view, they are debating an issue. This is another example of how information out of context is no information at all."- Zullu

There u go dumb ass now go to bed

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/2/1/3/7/5/3/dumbass-46243766065.jpeg

Sethose Olderon
Gryphon Chancellery
Gryphon League
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:09:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Johny ****kin Dango
Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 27/06/2011 09:03:10
Originally by: catinboots
You are adding to the confusion by posting more false rumours , it is people like you that will kill the game


Did I say anywhere in my post that CCP will do this? No, I did not, I never once mentioned CCP. I am merely pointing out the inevitability of it based on the facts of virtual goods sales. If you had watched the presentation as I urged, you might have seen this. Instead you shot from the hip...


"However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum. In Fearless people are arguing a point, which doesn't even have to be their view, they are debating an issue. This is another example of how information out of context is no information at all."- Zullu

There u go dumb ass now go to bed


Resorting to personal insults only prove that your a dumbass.

Jaxom Asgard
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:10:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Just to be clear, I hate the idea of any micro-transactions being present in Eve, but I think their eventual arrival in the game is simply a forgone conclusion, including those giving advantage(s). One might say that Eve is a different kind of game with different type of players, but as facts presented in the following presentation, even those who complain (who are a small, but very active and engaged percentage of the player-base) purchase items as well. It also shows The following data presented in the following presentation seems to prove this, sadly.
Look at DUST..... It's highly likely that it will be P2W, based on whats come out over the last few days & the DUST Website, that will have a direct effect the EVE Universe as we know it, so we are going to get advantage giving items from one source or another, most likely question here is, how are they going to interact?

Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:10:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Vice Admiral Spreadsheet on 27/06/2011 09:11:00
THE OP'S QUOTE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVE
I just thought that I'd post the text above with a ridiculous amount of formatting to ensure that nobody jumps to conclusions.

Jasdemi
Interstellar Whine Brewery
Monocle Overlords
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:11:00 - [9]
 

Butthurt much, OP?

Sethose Olderon
Gryphon Chancellery
Gryphon League
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:12:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 27/06/2011 09:21:55

Originally by: Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Edited by: Vice Admiral Spreadsheet on 27/06/2011 09:11:00
THE OP'S QUOTE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVE
I just thought that I'd post the text above with a ridiculous amount of formatting to ensure that nobody jumps to conclusions.

Actually it does, but once again people don't take the time to read or inform themselves. Another shot from the hip.

Originally by: Jasdemi
Butthurt much, OP?

Troll much Jasdemi?

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


Kinuko
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:29:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Ben Cousins - General Manager of Easy, an EA business unit which produces Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield Play4Free, and others
Our consumers told us that our virtual goods game is like a game of golf, a car race or a bicycle race where small purchased advantages are part of the accepted norm, rather than a perfectly balanced game of chess or Poker where no outside influences are allowed.The users accept this, in fact as our survey shows, they demand it.


Geez, people are much more stupid than I realize.

Karunel
Princeps Corp
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:32:00 - [12]
 

Initially, EVE was supossed to have 5 'tech levels'. We've only got to T3 for now, but seeing how CCP is acting nowadays I have little doubt that one of the 2 remaining tech levels will be for Pay to Win items (Probably, Tech 5 Jove items).

Terminal Insanity
Minmatar
Convex Enterprises
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:33:00 - [13]
 

I have a quote from valve software's Gabe Newell explaining thaht L4D1 would be getting new weapons, infected, maps, etc.... and then they released that as L4D2 and charged money for it....

is this also proof that CCP will start charging for expansions?

Constantinus Maximus
Paxian Expeditionary Force
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:35:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Constantinus Maximus on 27/06/2011 09:35:42
Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Funny Note: Maybe Hellmar watched this? Notice the Golf Reference?



oh gawd.... yes.... pre-seeded.... human brain.... ugh that is a bad connection.

edit: like we were pre-seeded with the "EVE: FUTURE" trailer.

Sethose Olderon
Gryphon Chancellery
Gryphon League
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:37:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 27/06/2011 09:39:14

Originally by: Terminal Insanity
I have a quote from valve software's Gabe Newell explaining thaht L4D1 would be getting new weapons, infected, maps, etc.... and then they released that as L4D2 and charged money for it....

is this also proof that CCP will start charging for expansions?


I have no idea, but if that is the driving direction in the industry, I don't think it's out of the question for CCP. It's important to remember that CCP is a business, and all businesses exist to make money, period. They will do whatever is required to push the bottom line, whether that is micro-transactions, expansions, or whatever else. It's apparent they need an increase in revenue, so I wouldn't dismiss anything out of hand.

catinboots
Minmatar
Vintage heavy industries
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:38:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Johny ****kin Dango
Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 27/06/2011 09:03:10
Originally by: catinboots
You are adding to the confusion by posting more false rumours , it is people like you that will kill the game


Did I say anywhere in my post that CCP will do this? No, I did not, I never once mentioned CCP. I am merely pointing out the inevitability of it based on the facts of virtual goods sales. If you had watched the presentation as I urged, you might have seen this. Instead you shot from the hip...


"However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum. In Fearless people are arguing a point, which doesn't even have to be their view, they are debating an issue. This is another example of how information out of context is no information at all."- Zullu

There u go dumb ass now go to bed

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/2/1/3/7/5/3/dumbass-46243766065.jpeg


instead of calling someone a dumbass, you moron,wake up
the fearless newsletter is standard marketing practice, +at my previous employer we used something similair aswell,when discussing marketing strategies for the comming months , the idea is to circulate several extreme ideas and to come up with a idea that benefits the company and makes the customer happy
So next time you call someone names , get yourself informed

Alejan Gerakh
Minmatar
Clan Hyena
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:39:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Alejan Gerakh on 27/06/2011 09:42:22
Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 27/06/2011 09:21:55

Originally by: Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Edited by: Vice Admiral Spreadsheet on 27/06/2011 09:11:00
THE OP'S QUOTE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVE
I just thought that I'd post the text above with a ridiculous amount of formatting to ensure that nobody jumps to conclusions.

Actually it does, but once again people don't take the time to read or inform themselves. Another shot from the hip.
And some of us ARE informed, but aren't jumping to conclusions so readily based on internal newsletters (which, I feel, could easily be about showing two extremes and highlighting the ridiculousness of the pro-'useful items' MT one to reaffirm, internally, CCP's commitment to no 'useful items' MT) or supposedly official CEO emails (which, if it was official, may have been in response to the earlier, lighter complaining if you really think about it; you know, the stuff that was more on-par with the average past expansion).

And if they're not saying anything, it's that they may have felt we were unapproachable by the time they did realize what we were REALLY ****ed about, AND they fail at communicating. All you have to do is look at that glassdoor.com site's testimonies for the communications thing.

Ayame Yubari
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:40:00 - [18]
 

That is a scary presentation indeed. I would still be careful taking everything you hear in there as the universal truth though. Surely there is a good bit of "told you so" and general corporation greed attitude in there as well. Then there is the question if it would play out the same for any MMO, especially EVE with its mature and (probably) above average intelligence player base.

It also largely depends how much player skill vs. money is needed. They clearly talk about "small purchased advantages" in this context. Taking golf as an analogy, although I'm no golfer, I would think that actual skill of the player makes up more than 99% of wether someone wins or not. Better equipment is most likely only the icing on the cake (play with the best gear against Tiger Woods using a crappy self made wooden golf club and you'd still lose).

It can generally be said that skill cannot be bought with better gear in real life. You can buy the best guitar out there and you'll have some more fun playing it, but you won't play better because of it.

How would this play out in Eve? It's a slippery slope for sure, because there is very little actual skill involved. It's just point and click, most "skill" comes from knockledge of weapons, ranges, ships etc. There is some kind of skill for sure, but it's nowhere near as difficult as golf or playing guitar.

So what happens when none-vanity items or even skills can be bought with money in EVE? How much of an advantage will players have? Is it less than 1%, 10%, 50%? The temptation for CCP to introduce massively expensive items with equally massive advantages would be very big I imagine. And since this is a virtual reality where basically everything can be changed (as opposed to real life golf), I shudder at the prospect of having to deal with it.

Constantinus Maximus
Paxian Expeditionary Force
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:44:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Constantinus Maximus on 27/06/2011 09:45:46
Edited by: Constantinus Maximus on 27/06/2011 09:45:07
Originally by: Sethose Olderon

Originally by: Vice Admiral Spreadsheet

THE OP'S QUOTE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVE



Actually it does, but once again people don't take the time to read or inform themselves. Another shot from the hip.





^^

They were all scheduled to give speaches on how awesome this stuff was to game developers conference over the next few days.

Was going to be them getting pats on the back for successful stealth launch of RMT.

Alejan Gerakh
Minmatar
Clan Hyena
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:48:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Ayame Yubari
That is a scary presentation indeed. I would still be careful taking everything you hear in there as the universal truth though. Surely there is a good bit of "told you so" and general corporation greed attitude in there as well. Then there is the question if it would play out the same for any MMO, especially EVE with its mature and (probably) above average intelligence player base.

It also largely depends how much player skill vs. money is needed. They clearly talk about "small purchased advantages" in this context. Taking golf as an analogy, although I'm no golfer, I would think that actual skill of the player makes up more than 99% of wether someone wins or not. Better equipment is most likely only the icing on the cake (play with the best gear against Tiger Woods using a crappy self made wooden golf club and you'd still lose).

It can generally be said that skill cannot be bought with better gear in real life. You can buy the best guitar out there and you'll have some more fun playing it, but you won't play better because of it.

How would this play out in Eve? It's a slippery slope for sure, because there is very little actual skill involved. It's just point and click, most "skill" comes from knockledge of weapons, ranges, ships etc. There is some kind of skill for sure, but it's nowhere near as difficult as golf or playing guitar.

So what happens when none-vanity items or even skills can be bought with money in EVE? How much of an advantage will players have? Is it less than 1%, 10%, 50%? The temptation for CCP to introduce massively expensive items with equally massive advantages would be very big I imagine. And since this is a virtual reality where basically everything can be changed (as opposed to real life golf), I shudder at the prospect of having to deal with it.
I'd like to think it takes a bit more skill than that to know how to approach situations strategically, or even tactically. I could have sworn I've seen it often quoted that EVE isn't always about the best, most expensive hardware.

Johny Fuckkin Dango
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:52:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: catinboots


instead of calling someone a dumbass, you moron,wake up
the fearless newsletter is standard marketing practice, +at my previous employer we used something similair aswell,when discussing marketing strategies for the comming months , the idea is to circulate several extreme ideas and to come up with a idea that benefits the company and makes the customer happy
So next time you call someone names , get yourself informed


WTF are u talking about QuestionQuestionQuestionQuestionQuestionQuestion

flapie 2
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:56:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Sethose Olderon

Originally by: Ben Cousins - General Manager of Easy, an EA business unit which produces Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield Play4Free, and others




Thats the problem area "EA Business", you might aswell drop the "Business" and just leave it at "EA". They have shaken up the game world more then once, and also upset manny EU players in the past. EA in general just sucks, they dont even have 1 game that comes even close to what EVE has to offer to players, why would i value there costumers opninion ?

How ever, the title your are reflecting with you topic is not right at all, and you should first read some more long forum posts and DEV Blogs. Cause buying a ship that has a diff paint job then an other simular ships in the game (as a small example), doesnt sound like pay to win to me. And im sure the ammo they are going to make doesnt represent an "I Win Button" either.

Im still keeping the same stand as i did after reading the "leaked News Letter", i dont give a **** about other people there cash pushed into the game to get some wierd eye piece or gay clothing. Niether am i going to get ****ed off because a company released a news letter that invokes discussion among there employees, for the sake of having a discusion about a heavy topic like MT.

Constantinus Maximus
Paxian Expeditionary Force
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:56:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Johny ****kin Dango
Originally by: catinboots
iamdumbiamdumbiamdumbiamdumbiamdumbiamdumbiamdumbiamdumb


WTF are u talking about QuestionQuestionQuestionQuestionQuestionQuestion


lol

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:58:00 - [24]
 

Equating anything EA does to just about anyone else in the gaming industry is like saying that Bernard Madoff is synonymous with Warren Buffet.

EA started sucking balls so long ago that they are completely smooth today from friction alone.

"Next!"

Fi1ippo
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:58:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: catinboots
Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Just to be clear, I hate the idea of any micro-transactions being present in Eve, but I think their eventual arrival in the game is simply a forgone conclusion, including those giving advantage(s). One might say that Eve is a different kind of game with different type of players, but as facts presented in the following presentation, even those who complain (who are a small, but very active and engaged percentage of the player-base) purchase items as well. It also shows The following data presented in the following presentation seems to prove this, sadly.

People, the only winning move is not to play, because eventually you'll have to pay to win. For those of you who want this, all I can say is... Enjoy it.

Originally by: Ben Cousins - General Manager of Easy, an EA business unit which produces Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield Play4Free, and others
So letís follow the user behavior and stop trying to define what a virtual goods game should be in an ideal world, Instead look at what the consumers want them to be. Our consumers told us that our virtual goods game is like a game of golf, a car race or a bicycle race where small purchased advantages are part of the accepted norm, rather than a perfectly balanced game of chess or Poker where no outside influences are allowed.The users accept this, in fact as our survey shows, they demand it.

I urge you to watch the entirety of his presentation called "Paying to Win", it reveals the cold hard, and sad truth.

Funny Note: Maybe Hellmar watched this? Notice the Golf Reference?




You are adding to the confusion by posting more false rumours , it is people like you that will kill the game


CCP is doing a fine job of killing the game, they dont need much help from anyone else.

Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
Posted - 2011.06.27 10:01:00 - [26]
 

Its already fairly pay to win.

Somebody with a T3 booster alt, and sets of pirate implants fare really well against players who don't have those things.

Constantinus Maximus
Paxian Expeditionary Force
Posted - 2011.06.27 10:02:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Fi1ippo
CCP is doing a fine job of killing the game, they dont need much help from anyone else.


CHORUS
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Katra Novac
Posted - 2011.06.27 10:15:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 27/06/2011 09:03:10
Originally by: catinboots
You are adding to the confusion by posting more false rumours , it is people like you that will kill the game


Did I say anywhere in my post that CCP will do this? No, I did not, I never once mentioned CCP. I am merely pointing out the inevitability of it based on the facts of virtual goods sales. If you had watched the presentation as I urged, you might have seen this. Instead you shot from the hip...


Even if you did not say it you did imply it.



 

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