open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Did any of you actually READ the Fearless internal newsletter?!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Tsadkiel
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:37:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Tsadkiel on 29/06/2011 21:43:08
Edited by: Tsadkiel on 29/06/2011 21:40:42
I keep seeing post after post of emo rage and butthurt over this thing but the only actual LINKS about the letter I see are predominantly to eve news 24...

EVE News 24 Link


...which only quotes the letter ONCE in the whole article! Here is a link to the actual Fearless newsletter. I made sure to find a version of it with all of the credits and stats at the end removed. I don't care if I shouldn't be putting this here or not. If a moderator removes the link then go and google it. It'll take three seconds and it will be worth it.

Fearless

*note, I couldn't get a direct download link working. this takes you to the fail heap forum. the OP links to media fire where you can get the PDF of the article*

First thing I want to point out is the title of the news letter. It ISN'T "Greed is good." or "Greed is good!", it's "Greed is good?" MOTHER F***ING QUESTION MARK! That right there tells you the gods damned nature of the piece you are about to read.

It is obvious that the newsletter is an internal editorial! In fact, there is an ENTIRE ARTICLE that features the opposing opinions of two CCPers on the subject of virtual goods sales. One PRO and one CON (funny how everyone seems to quote the CON feature and not the PRO...hmmm...) Every discussion I have found concerning the opinions expressed in the letter have quote mined it to make it appear more formal than it really is. Because of its internal and informal nature, you see many instances of "we are looking into..." or "we are planning..." etc. For example, the single most misunderstood quote I have seen so far is...

Quote:

One other service we’re looking at is selling faction standings. We want to offer convenience for a price.



This doesn't mean they are going to do it. This doesn't mean that they are going to "offer convenience for a price". It means EXACTLY what it gods damned says. This specific author and the people he works with are LOOKING INTO selling faction standings. They are exploring the possibility. This is a GOOD THING! Such ideas need to be examined and this forms the basis for ALL corporate research and development. I would be upset if CCP didn't have a group of people looking into this sort of thing.

Tl;Dr (which is really unfortunate in this case...)
Read the article for yourself. I did and I honestly don't see why so many of you are up in arms over it. Kudos to CCP for monitoring and sharing the opinions of their members internally. I think they are doing a great job given their limited resources and the **** they have to deal with.

Tsadkiel

Takseen
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:41:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Tsadkiel

It is obvious that the newsletter is an internal editorial! In fact, there is an ENTIRE ARTICLE that features the opposing opinions of two CCPers on the subject of virtual goods sales. One PRO and one CON (funny how everyone seems to quote the CON feature and not the PRO...hmmm...)


Yes. And the Pro MT dev is the lead game designer, the No MT dev is someone from the back office we've never heard of before. And the rest of the article comes down firmly in the pro MT camp, with no real discussion of the negative side effects, as far as I can remember.

Krotius
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:42:00 - [3]
 

And what don't you understand about people standing up and saying they don't want it? EVER. The whole point of all this rage and bellowing and riots etc, is to make certain CCP know exactly where we, the players, stand on this issue.

Erichk Knaar
Caldari
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:44:00 - [4]
 

I'm afraid that your reasoned argument and logic will have no place here dude.

Tsadkiel
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:46:00 - [5]
 

I totally understand people standing up and voicing their opinions about it and I absolutely support that. What I DON't support is people voicing their opinions on the nature of CCP and their stance on this article when many of them CLEARLY haven't ever read it.

Ezra Vouland
Lords 0f Justice
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:49:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Krotius
And what don't you understand about people standing up and saying they don't want it? EVER. The whole point of all this rage and bellowing and riots etc, is to make certain CCP know exactly where we, the players, stand on this issue.


What you and the mob fail to see is, you are a minority. The larger portion doesn't care or do want it.

Tsadkiel
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:49:00 - [7]
 

and yea, i keep forgetting that i cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into -____-

AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:51:00 - [8]
 

I read it. I suspect you did as well. I'm telling the truth about the contents. You're lying about the contents. Anything else I can help you with?

Ezra Vouland
Lords 0f Justice
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:51:00 - [9]
 

Zealots gonna Zeal

MadManMaura
Amarr
Hedion University
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:51:00 - [10]
 

ahh more ccp propaganda

Mister Smithington
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:52:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Ezra Vouland
Originally by: Krotius
And what don't you understand about people standing up and saying they don't want it? EVER. The whole point of all this rage and bellowing and riots etc, is to make certain CCP know exactly where we, the players, stand on this issue.


What you and the mob fail to see is, you are a minority. The larger portion doesn't care or do want it.

Yes, the forum posters are the vocal minority. And the MT supporters of the forum posters are the vocal minority of the vocal minority. Which makes your opinion even less valid.

souhyeahright
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:53:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: souhyeahright on 29/06/2011 21:53:31
You missed a couple of money quotes. Like these:

Quote:
Not all virtual purchases will focus on customization: some will simply be new items, ammunition, ships, etc. that can be purchased outright.


Quote:
we will effect a universal strategy of micro-sales throughout the EVE experience.


Both of those came from a feature written by Eve's Director of Content Design explaining how their new strategy will (not "might", not "could", but "will") unfold in Incarna.

But they never had plans for game-affecting MT.

None.

Honest.

Gwenywell Shumuku
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:53:00 - [13]
 

Sry, Mr. "i know better". The WHOLE ISSUE says "greed is good and thats why we will do MT in all our games".

And yes, HALF A PAGE has 1 articel with 1 opposing opinion. ALL OTHER sentences in this newsletter argue how GOOD MT is.

Now, go away or learn to read.

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:54:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Takseen
Originally by: Tsadkiel

It is obvious that the newsletter is an internal editorial! In fact, there is an ENTIRE ARTICLE that features the opposing opinions of two CCPers on the subject of virtual goods sales. One PRO and one CON (funny how everyone seems to quote the CON feature and not the PRO...hmmm...)


Yes. And the Pro MT dev is the lead game designer, the No MT dev is someone from the back office we've never heard of before. And the rest of the article comes down firmly in the pro MT camp, with no real discussion of the negative side effects, as far as I can remember.


And *cough*foxnews*cough*eve news 24 conveniently left the first 2 pages out of the newsletter that states that's it a debate, and the opinions expressed within are not actual company policy or even the viewpoints of the writers of a particular section. Did you notice the page numbering starts at 5? It's missing page 2 and 3...I'm not sure why they put a password on it initially (not ccp, the password was added by eve news24)...so essentially eve news duped the player base into rioting for no real good reason...

Muchos Besitos
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:54:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Tsadkiel
We want to offer convenience for a price.


Where are the pros and cons of that in the newsletter? Seems like a strict statement of their future intentions.

ThatDudeThere
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:55:00 - [16]
 

Wasn't that leak only like half of the bulletin anyway? For all we know the other half could go on about the negatives of MT's.

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:56:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: ThatDudeThere
Wasn't that leak only like half of the bulletin anyway? For all we know the other half could go on about the negatives of MT's.


Exactly, it was a publicity stunt for en24.

Krotius
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:56:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Ezra Vouland
Originally by: Krotius
And what don't you understand about people standing up and saying they don't want it? EVER. The whole point of all this rage and bellowing and riots etc, is to make certain CCP know exactly where we, the players, stand on this issue.


What you and the mob fail to see is, you are a minority. The larger portion doesn't care or do want it.


And that give me less of a right to voice my opinion? While we are at it, could you please provide some metrics to prove I am the minority? Or are you just making baseless assumptions?

Gwenywell Shumuku
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:57:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Gwenywell Shumuku on 29/06/2011 21:57:32
Originally by: ThatDudeThere
Wasn't that leak only like half of the bulletin anyway? For all we know the other half could go on about the negatives of MT's.


the full one leaked too (shortly after)...there is no other opinion in there, and it only comes up because of EVE anyways. DUST and WoD are NEVER argued about against MT, there its just SET IN STONE, and the question is: how do we align EVE accordignly, to get ALL our products on the same business model.

Obsidian Cobra
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:57:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Tsadkiel
I totally understand people standing up and voicing their opinions about it and I absolutely support that. What I DON't support is people voicing their opinions on the nature of CCP and their stance on this article when many of them CLEARLY haven't ever read it.


Im against Paying to win Period.. and evrything leaked from CCP show they think PAYING TO WIN might not be such a bad Idea after all... And yes you can pay to win ingame now kinda... But that is so stupid people Give money to ccp Instead of giving it to CHINA farmers... Its Necessary EVIL because SOME R-tards just arnt happy with earning stuff ingame and want the Easy way...

Mister Smithington
Posted - 2011.06.29 21:58:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Mister Smithington on 29/06/2011 22:01:15
Originally by: Barakkus
Originally by: ThatDudeThere
Wasn't that leak only like half of the bulletin anyway? For all we know the other half could go on about the negatives of MT's.


Exactly, it was a publicity stunt for en24.

Not at all. The full version was posted. I'll see if I can dig up a link.

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

That's the full version. I recommend everyone read it for themselves and form their own opinion.

Kaethe Kollwitz
Posted - 2011.06.29 22:01:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Tsadkiel
Kudos to CCP for monitoring and sharing the opinions of their members internally. I think they are doing a great job given their limited resources and the **** they have to deal with.

Tsadkiel


hi,

which member of staff are you then? Smile

could you pass a message on to the guys to say hi, and we hope you are able to answer our concerns soon.

cheers.

Painpill
Posted - 2011.06.29 22:02:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Barakkus
Originally by: Takseen
Originally by: Tsadkiel

It is obvious that the newsletter is an internal editorial! In fact, there is an ENTIRE ARTICLE that features the opposing opinions of two CCPers on the subject of virtual goods sales. One PRO and one CON (funny how everyone seems to quote the CON feature and not the PRO...hmmm...)


Yes. And the Pro MT dev is the lead game designer, the No MT dev is someone from the back office we've never heard of before. And the rest of the article comes down firmly in the pro MT camp, with no real discussion of the negative side effects, as far as I can remember.


And *cough*foxnews*cough*eve news 24 conveniently left the first 2 pages out of the newsletter that states that's it a debate, and the opinions expressed within are not actual company policy or even the viewpoints of the writers of a particular section. Did you notice the page numbering starts at 5? It's missing page 2 and 3...I'm not sure why they put a password on it initially (not ccp, the password was added by eve news24)...so essentially eve news duped the player base into rioting for no real good reason...


There is a reason for that, its called the former NC they lost their RMT empire and are mad as hell, also "trusting" Riverini with a leaked e-mail is just LOL, i wouldnt trust him with my morning pooh LaughingLaughing

Also evenews 24 tried to smear UAxdetath by posting a "convo" between UAx and one other guy, and nevermind that the convo itself just SCREAMED IM A FAKE!!!11!!ONE! Laughing

My personal opinion of this **** storm, is NC alts creating alt after alt with the leftovers of their RMT empire, just to sink CCP cause they are mad

Tsadkiel
Posted - 2011.06.29 22:03:00 - [24]
 

NOWHERE in my original post did I ever claim to know better than anyone else, nor do I see how I am lying about any of the articles contents. The article is clearly editorial in nature and I made this thread to point that out and HOPEFULLY get some of you to read it...

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.06.29 22:04:00 - [25]
 

The Page by Scot Holedn, "Feature Virtual Sales" did not read as a debate but as an announcment:

lead in:

CCP is in the process of adopting a virtual sales
model for its game products. While this model has
always been intended for World of Darkness and
DUST 514, you may be wondering how this will
work in EVE Online. Specifically, how will this new
strategy unfold in Incarna?


snippet from concluding paragraph

Regarding the notion of “virtual
sales in Incarna,” though, I’d
like to elucidate one point before
closing: Incarna cannot be considered
a product distinct from other
parts of EVE. Incarna and “flyinginspace”
(and in due course DUST
514) are merely aspects of the EVE
Online experience; in virtual sales,
as in development as a whole, we
must all adopt this way of thinking.
Thus, we will not and cannot focus
on virtual sales only within the Incarna
environment, nor build that
environment around such sales;
rather, we will effect a universal
strategy of microsales
throughout
the EVE experience.

Juno Valchelza
Posted - 2011.06.29 22:04:00 - [26]
 

Stuff that was ignored:

From the Table of Contents:
Quote:

DISCLAIMER:
The views put forward in
this magazine do not reflect
general CCP company policies
or decisions and are strictly
individual opinions, written by
CCPers or about CCPers who
feel strongly about these issues.
This is confidential internal
information. Please respect that
every company has its trade
secrets and that you are privy to
those at CCP.




Barakkus
Posted - 2011.06.29 22:07:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso
The Page by Scot Holedn, "Feature Virtual Sales" did not read as a debate but as an announcment:

lead in:

CCP is in the process of adopting a virtual sales
model for its game products. While this model has
always been intended for World of Darkness and
DUST 514, you may be wondering how this will
work in EVE Online. Specifically, how will this new
strategy unfold in Incarna?


snippet from concluding paragraph

Regarding the notion of “virtual
sales in Incarna,” though, I’d
like to elucidate one point before
closing: Incarna cannot be considered
a product distinct from other
parts of EVE. Incarna and “flyinginspace”
(and in due course DUST
514) are merely aspects of the EVE
Online experience; in virtual sales,
as in development as a whole, we
must all adopt this way of thinking.
Thus, we will not and cannot focus
on virtual sales only within the Incarna
environment, nor build that
environment around such sales;
rather, we will effect a universal
strategy of microsales
throughout
the EVE experience.



They've said for a while that they're adding MTs, last I heard on the subject before this was vanity only type garbage...which I have yet to see anything to the contrary.

The thing that blew everyone up was the debate over non-vanity items in the newsletter, and en24 left out the important part of the newseletter to try and stir up some ****...but whatever, sheeple will be sheeple...

Mister Smithington
Posted - 2011.06.29 22:08:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Juno Valchelza
Stuff that was ignored:

From the Table of Contents:
Quote:

DISCLAIMER:
The views put forward in
this magazine do not reflect
general CCP company policies
or decisions and are strictly
individual opinions, written by
CCPers or about CCPers who
feel strongly about these issues.
This is confidential internal
information. Please respect that
every company has its trade
secrets and that you are privy to
those at CCP.





Yes, that's the point.

The opinions that scare us the most are those of CCP soundwave, newly promoted to lead game designer of the Flying in Space portion of Eve, and Scott Holden, director of content design for Eve.

It's just the opinions of some of the people who have the most influence over the future of eve. No biggie.

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.06.29 22:13:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Diomedes Calypso on 29/06/2011 22:15:24
lead developer's OPINION of where he'd like the game to go (yes, it is only his opinion, and yes he stated it while arguing the Yes side... his words are about a specific that he's considered, not some hypothetical broad good vs evil of the practice in general)


I’ll give you an example of
something I think provides value
to our customer, which I’d like to
sell. Right now, you can store 50
personal fittings on our servers.
That’s more than enough for the
average EVE player, but for a
subset of our users, it’s too small
a number. Why not be able to add
more storage space for a small
amount of money?

(my editorial opinion... we can make the game more convenient for players based on their feedback and often have tried to in the past.. but now .. WE can Charge for it! give basic convenience and charge for more!)



 

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