open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked An example of "We have no plans ..."
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Vandrion
Gallente
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2011.07.13 13:51:00 - [31]
 

What ccp actually said in their statement was:

"It is CCP‘s plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only. There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store."

The CSM said this:

"Game-affecting Virtual Goods: We are convinced that CCP has no plans to introduce any game-affecting virtual goods, only pure vanity items such as clothing and ship skins. We have been repeatedly assured that there are no plans for ‘gold ammo', ships which have different statistics from existing common hulls, or any other feared ‘game destroying' virtual goods or services. We have expressed our deep concern about potential grey areas that the introduction of virtual goods permits, and CCP has made a commitment to discuss any proposals that might fall into these grey areas in detail with CSM at the earliest possible stage."

I have bolded the important differences.... CCP doesn't plan on game breakers but my opinion is that they plan introducing things that in their narrow minds that will allow $$ for advantage that won't "break" the game. Such things could be buying standings or remaps.

The CSM on the flip side seems to think that CCP has said no game affecting MT. There is a HUGE difference in these two statements.

Based on this statement from CSM Meissa Anunthiel here:
"There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win"." , you can see that the CSM knows a fair amount more about what the future of MT in Eve is going to be. They just can't or won't talk about it...

You add all these little things up and judge CCP's past statements of no plans for MT (here, the full Fearless newsletter along with Hilmar's email(which contradicts what they have said about Fearless being a forum for discussion) and you get a pretty good picture of where Eve is going......


Oh-- Don't forget that MT for advantage based Dust is going to have an impact on sov mechanics so we will be getting game altering MT by proxy at release for that game. How long do you think it will be before CCP exploits that to make it an "even" playing field for both platforms?
"We do it in Dust. Why not do it in Eve? It only makes sense as they One Universe//One war..."





Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.07.13 13:55:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Velicitia on 13/07/2011 13:56:47
Originally by: Jessica Shape
we dont matter to ccp. 1000 vets who wont buy items in the nex store are worthless next to 1 new player who will buy everything then unsub after a week.



[sarcasm]on the upside... nullsec will be empty, and the bots will leave and mining will become relevant to compete with the nex "gold stuff" ... [/sarcasm]

TBH, it was weird seeing '07/'08 numbers online at primetime yesterday...


edit -- just in case it wasn't clear

Khamelean
Posted - 2011.07.13 13:58:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: RAW23
Edited by: RAW23 on 13/07/2011 12:50:09
Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: RAW23
...



Every choice involves risk. When you get in a car you take the risk that you could be in a car accident. When you play a more traditional MMO, you take the risk that your class might get nerfed.

What it ultimately comes down to then is whether or not your willing to take the risk. There are no guarantees about the future of eve or the direction it will take. The best you can do is make a judgment call based on the game as it is now.


Your statement about willingness to take a risk is a trivial and irrelevant platitude. The question at issue is how to assess the risk involved. The suggestion that one make a judgement call on the basis of how the game is now is also more or less empty as the state of the game now is no indicator of its future state precisely because of the unwillingness to offer any guarantees. Your position amounts to suggesting that players should flip a coin whereas, in fact, a considerable number of players will be unwilling to commit their time and energy, not to mention money, on such a basis. In addition, I should note that your answer here more or less provides a response to my previous question to you, which you sidestepped. If you accept that CCP's communications do not provide a viable source of evidence for the future evolution of the game then you accept that they are valueless beyond an undefined short-term period covered by the period it takes to switch from having no plans to having plans. This also answers my question about whether such an undefined response would have satisfied those players who were satisfied if it had been made explicit that this is what the communications amounted to. And given the effective emptiness of such communications combined with the fact that CCP chose to put out non-explicit versions we can probably assume that they were deliberately miseleading, contra your previous assertion.


Firstly, paragraphs are fun.

Secondly, if you've already come to the conclusion that CCP is trying to mislead you and is basically a deceitful company. Then why would you have believed them even if they said exactly what you wanted them to say?

I believe there are plenty of indicators based on the games current state and it's history for you to make a value judgment from. But if you are starting from the assumption that the company your are dealing with is dishonest, I can't think of a single reason why you be giving them money.

If you requires absolute certainties before you can make any decisions, how on earth do you make it through the day?

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.07.13 14:25:00 - [34]
 

You children really need to grow up.

Is this really your first exposure to the world of "things can change and I'm not going to lie and tell you otherwise"? REALLY?!?

Start to worry when a company starts swearing to you that they will absolutely never change how they do things.

I have no doubt that they currently have no plans to introduce non-vanity items that turn the game into pay-to-win. It's a horrible fit for EVE, and they know it.

In your zeal to protect "the sanctity" of current EVE game play, yet again you forget that literally everything about this game that you are going to comically over the top lengths to protect would not exist if CCP hadn't lovingly created it.

CCP is not your enemy kids. It's just easier to look like a hero/martyr when you make the other guy out to be the bad guy now isn't it...

If in the future CCP changes thier game or business model to something you don't like, THEN start complaining... or leave.

Until then get your attention fix elsewhere and stop beating the long dead horse.

Important Person
Posted - 2011.07.13 14:29:00 - [35]
 

"We look at what the players do, not what they say".

Forums : wahhhh, wahhhh, wahhhh.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.07.13 14:31:00 - [36]
 

Learn to read and to reason. Both help when engaging in discussion.

Originally by: Khamelean


Firstly, paragraphs are fun.


Pointless comment, adds nothing to the discussion. It does pad your argument out to make it look like you have more to say than you really do, though. It also constitutes a minor ad hominem attack but don't worry, I forgive you (I've noticed your penchant for correcting grammar in other posts – it's a slightly unpleasant habit, especially when your own posts are not free from typos/formatting issues and when you only apply such comments to those you disagree with).

Quote:

Secondly, if you've already come to the conclusion that CCP is trying to mislead you and is basically a deceitful company. Then why would you have believed them even if they said exactly what you wanted them to say?

Your reasoning is (deeply) faulty here. If you pay attention to the elements of the argument I laid out above I sought to show that this was a conclusion that appears to arise from your position as stated so far. This could obviously change with clarification.

Quote:

I believe there are plenty of indicators based on the games current state and it's history for you to make a value judgment from.


This misses the point and more or less repeats your previous post. The issue is that communications from CCP are determinative of whether or not historical and current indicators will have any bearing on the future. If they are unwilling or unable to offer reasons for expecting eve to evolve in line with past trends then there is no reason to expect it to do so. Now, such past trends might be very useful predictors for a discipline such as physics but the use of these trends is predicated on the assumption that things will remain the same whereas here that is precisely the point that is being contended over. You cannot legitimately use the assumption that past trends will continue in order to ground the evidence for your claim that past trends will continue. Technically, this argument conforms to the logical fallacy known as 'begging the question' as it assumes that which is to be demonstrated in order to make the demonstration.

Quote:

But if you are starting from the assumption that the company your are dealing with is dishonest, I can't think of a single reason why you be giving them money.


You mistake a premise that is started from with a conclusion that is reasoned to. I have not started with any such assumption but have come to this conclusion (although my own views are not really relevant to the argument above). I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, though. You could start by showing me some places where CCP has corrected people who have misinterpreted their statements to be genuine guarantees such as the following from the CSM/CCP summit thread in the Information forum. Post 14 of that thread:

Originally by: adriaans
How hard was it to state vanity items only so long ago!?! Why did it have to take ALL this trouble!?




There are a large number of such uncorrected statements in that thread, which also tells against your earlier claim that:

Quote:

They never implied or tried to imply that they would never do non-vanity items for micro transactions.

This satisfied most of the player base. This does not mean that CCP tricked them. It means that most people are able to understand the realities of life and that things can change.



As to your final 'point', it really doesn't say anything besides providing a bit of rhetorical noise and another whiff of an ad hominem attack.

Quote:

If you requires absolute certainties before you can make any decisions, how on earth do you make it through the day?

Obviously, nowhere have I said I require any such thing. Indeed, I stated that your point that risk is involved in decisions is so trivial (i.e. so obviously true) that it is hardly worth setting it out.

Want to try again?

Phelan Votronski
Posted - 2011.07.13 14:36:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1

I have no doubt that they currently have no plans to introduce non-vanity items that turn the game into pay-to-win. It's a horrible fit for EVE, and they know it.



Given that what exactly may change about the game in the future that suddenly makes it a good fit? And why would that not be a reason for players to wonder what will happen to the game?

Kazini Jax
Gallente
Starlight Operations
Starlight Network
Posted - 2011.07.13 14:45:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: RAW23

My question to you: did CCP say anything at all that did legitimately address the concerns of those players who worry that the game is no longer worth investing time in because it may change to an anti-emergent model within the next few years?


My understanding of the primary contention of whole vanity item issues was that players were worried that CCP was planning to introduce non-vanity items for micro transactions. Turns out they weren't and aren't. They never implied or tried to imply that they would never do non-vanity items for micro transactions.

This satisfied most of the player base. This does not mean that CCP tricked them. It means that most people are able to understand the realities of life and that things can change. Who knows what the game market will look like in 10 years time, or even 50 years time.



So what you're saying is, CCP is not a groundbreaking game company, they are just like any other game company. Oh, and I know what it will be like. Just like I knew 30 years ago what it would be like today, generally. Not really hard to do.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.07.13 14:47:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Velicitia on 13/07/2011 14:49:01
Originally by: Khamelean

If you requires absolute certainties before you can make any decisions, how on earth do you make it through the day?


I think the point RAW is trying to make is that if CCP renegs on the "no current plans for non-vanity items", they (you?) will see something they (you?) have no control over, and will (most likely) never be able to fix.

It's not so much that RAW (and others) need absolutes in their lives -- but that by jerking the playerbase around, CCP is walking on very thin ice. If the people who are "on the fence" decide that "game changing MT" is the last straw, no amount of PR will get the players back...

CCP has til the winter expansion for me... if their actions don't match their words, guess I can go out for pizza/beer more often Cool

edit-- damn raw beat me to it.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:03:00 - [40]
 

@Khamelean - I should apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone of my post above. I get annoyed when it feels like people are deflecting and avoiding key points whilst indulging in rhetorical flourishes but this kind of tone is not conducive to civilised debate. I'll try harder to be nicer when you reply Wink.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:11:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: RAW23
@Khamelean - I should apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone of my post above. I get annoyed when it feels like people are deflecting and avoiding key points whilst indulging in rhetorical flourishes but this kind of tone is not conducive to civilised debate. I'll try harder to be nicer when you reply Wink.


Shocked

OK, who stole RAW's account?Laughing

Poetic Stanziel
Gallente
Macbeth Transport and Freight LLC
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:12:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Kazini Jax
So what you're saying is, CCP is not a groundbreaking game company, they are just like any other game company.

This.

Seems most of what I read out of CCP goes along the lines of "All the other game companies are doing MTs, and some are doing play-to-win MTs, so we have to look at doing it too."

If CCP is so different from all the other game companies, as they also like to espouse, it seems they should be doing differently from the EAs and Activisions and such. Not trying to follow behind them.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:24:00 - [43]
 

I want all of you guys who obviously never had a real job to tell me when you find an employer who does not change their business plans.

Because the bankruptcy court will be liquidating their assets sooner than later and I want to pick up some sweet auctions. Thanks.


Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:26:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Cipher Jones
I want all of you guys who obviously never had a real job to tell me when you find an employer who does not change their business plans.
With or without any reason to do so?

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:30:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Phelan Votronski
Originally by: Ranger 1

I have no doubt that they currently have no plans to introduce non-vanity items that turn the game into pay-to-win. It's a horrible fit for EVE, and they know it.



Given that what exactly may change about the game in the future that suddenly makes it a good fit? And why would that not be a reason for players to wonder what will happen to the game?


1: I have no idea what will work well, what technology and new techniques, will be developed for the gaming industry over the next few years. Neither does CCP or anyone else. That's rather the whole point.

2: Wondering what will happen is fine. Going on a crusade of forum spam, half baked theory crafting, demands for accurate prognostication where there can be none, demands for long term restrictions on how the company may or may be "allowed" to modify thier business model, and outright accusations of dishonesty are childish and naďve. They accomplish nothing other than to reduce the validity of these forums as a feedback mechanism.

Kirkland Langue
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:31:00 - [46]
 

It's nonsense to even try to pretend that CCP "had no plans" to introduce MT's a year ago, when they said they had no plans. Look at how long it takes for CCP to make any changes to the game. To think that the major content addition for an expansion well underway was not even planned at the time? It's ludicrous.

CCP just puts out the "we have no plans" purely for plausible deniability reasons when they know that telling the truth, that they do have such plans, would cause an uproar. It's not hard to understand such reasoning, as most of us probably do some of this in our daily lives - but it doesn't exactly add to the credibility of the company that repeatedly pulls the "we have no plans" card out for every issue.

Or, you idiotic sheep, can go ahead and continue believing that CCP has no plans for the future of EVE - if that actually makes you feel better.

Phelan Votronski
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:32:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Cipher Jones
I want all of you guys who obviously never had a real job to tell me when you find an employer who does not change their business plans.



How is this relevant? I take it nobody here is working for ccp so that's completely immaterial bull****.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:32:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Cipher Jones
I want all of you guys who obviously never had a real job to tell me when you find an employer who does not change their business plans.
With or without any reason to do so?


Would that be "without any reason" or "without explaining to the unwashed masses exactly what their reasons are"?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:35:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 13/07/2011 15:37:01
Originally by: Kirkland Langue
It's nonsense to even try to pretend that CCP "had no plans" to introduce MT's a year ago, when they said they had no plans. Look at how long it takes for CCP to make any changes to the game. To think that the major content addition for an expansion well underway was not even planned at the time? It's ludicrous.
Pretty much this.

It has almost come to the point where you can make Apple-style predictions based on that statement. If Jobs says "no-one wants X", you know Apple will release a product that does X in a year or so. Likewise, if CCP says they have no plans to do Y…
Originally by: Ranger 1
Would that be "without any reason" or "without explaining to the unwashed masses exactly what their reasons are"?
Seeing as how said unwashed masses are the ones who will in the end have to support the reason, and who would maybe even accept the change if it was explained to them, but who will become quite antagonistic if changes happen without explanation…

…it has to be the former, because the latter is not an intelligent option.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:38:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Phelan Votronski
Originally by: Cipher Jones
I want all of you guys who obviously never had a real job to tell me when you find an employer who does not change their business plans.



How is this relevant? I take it nobody here is working for ccp so that's completely immaterial bull****.


Its relevant because CCP is a company and the global economy is both ****ed and changing daily.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:41:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Kirkland Langue
It's nonsense to even try to pretend that CCP "had no plans" to introduce MT's a year ago, when they said they had no plans. Look at how long it takes for CCP to make any changes to the game. To think that the major content addition for an expansion well underway was not even planned at the time? It's ludicrous.

CCP just puts out the "we have no plans" purely for plausible deniability reasons when they know that telling the truth, that they do have such plans, would cause an uproar. It's not hard to understand such reasoning, as most of us probably do some of this in our daily lives - but it doesn't exactly add to the credibility of the company that repeatedly pulls the "we have no plans" card out for every issue.

Or, you idiotic sheep, can go ahead and continue believing that CCP has no plans for the future of EVE - if that actually makes you feel better.


Indeed.

It is much preferable to accept as gospel a load of unsubstantiated crap some random guy on an internet forum vomited up.

If the doom that has been forecast nonstop since the forum trolls really got rolling ever does come to be, deal with it then. Protest, shoot a statue, or simply move on.

Accept that a very public statement has been made concerning the issue, and if plans do change in that direction they will have to deal with the fallout. Worst case scenario, you move on and find something else to play.

It's not even remotely close to warranting the ridiculous amount of forum drama that has been generated.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:48:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 13/07/2011 15:50:10
Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 13/07/2011 15:37:01
Originally by: Kirkland Langue
It's nonsense to even try to pretend that CCP "had no plans" to introduce MT's a year ago, when they said they had no plans. Look at how long it takes for CCP to make any changes to the game. To think that the major content addition for an expansion well underway was not even planned at the time? It's ludicrous.
Pretty much this.

It has almost come to the point where you can make Apple-style predictions based on that statement. If Jobs says "no-one wants X", you know Apple will release a product that does X in a year or so. Likewise, if CCP says they have no plans to do Y…
Originally by: Ranger 1
Would that be "without any reason" or "without explaining to the unwashed masses exactly what their reasons are"?
Seeing as how said unwashed masses are the ones who will in the end have to support the reason, and who would maybe even accept the change if it was explained to them, but who will become quite antagonistic if changes happen without explanation…

…it has to be the former, because the latter is not an intelligent option.


Unfortunately Tippia, in the real world the reasons why changes are made to a companies method of operation quite often deal with sensitive material that is quite frankly nobody else's business.

It would be nice if any company I did business with ran all decisions that might possibly affect me past me first for my approval and acceptance. Unfortunately that is neither practical, nor rational.

The company has to take into account what the public reaction is likely to be, especially if it may be view in a negative light, and judge who to proceed based on that information. It's their call, and they know they will have to accept the consequences.

Most people out of their teens recognize that these decisions happen behind the scenes every day, as they must. The EVE forum community seems to have difficulty with the concept.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:48:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1


It doesn't seem to me on the subjective basis of my personal value system to be even remotely close to warranting the ridiculous amount of forum drama that has been generated. But I of course respect the fact that others may value different things to different degrees.



Fixed that for you.

Phelan Votronski
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:51:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Cipher Jones

Its relevant because CCP is a company and the global economy is both ****ed and changing daily.


No. Economic changes or pressure may be grounds for ccp to change their business model - that much is true.
However you used this as an argument for the players to accept those changes. That is ludicrous because ccp's viability as a business is not their responsibility.

If your local grocery store is starting to charge $5 for a bit of milk because they're in financial trouble you're not going to accept it. Instead you buy your milk elsewhere(at least I hope so for you). Your implication (contained in the post I originally quoted) that 'people with a job' would blindly accept any and all changes to business models without at least consideration of alternatives is quite frankly laughable. Especially people with a job will not take **** like that because they know what their money is worth.

You're a known troll though so you're forgiven. I'm merely elaborating for the hundreds of gullible idiots that actually believe what you just said.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:53:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Ranger 1


It doesn't seem to me on the subjective basis of my personal value system to be even remotely close to warranting the ridiculous amount of forum drama that has been generated. But I of course respect the fact that others may value different things to different degrees.



Fixed that for you.


Very articulate refutation of the various points I made. It fits right in with your posts made earlier criticizing how other people debated the points you made.

... or not.


RAW23
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:58:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Ranger 1


It doesn't seem to me on the subjective basis of my personal value system to be even remotely close to warranting the ridiculous amount of forum drama that has been generated. But I of course respect the fact that others may value different things to different degrees.



Fixed that for you.


Very articulate refutation of the various points I made. It fits right in with your posts made earlier criticizing how other people debated the points you made.

... or not.




Actually, I wasn't attempting to engage with all your points since I agree with a lot of them. The value judgement that you tacked onto the end, which was grounded on the assumption that your personal values are objectively correct, was all I was taking issue with (at this time). No need to be so defensive.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:59:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1
Unfortunately Tippia, in the real world the reasons why changes are made to a companies method of operation quite often deal with sensitive material that is quite frankly nobody else's business.
Fortunately, in this case, it is our business.

"Hey guys, you've been hoarding PLEX, and we need to get rid of some of those, but we don't want to upset the PLEX market too much, so here's how we'll do it…"

See? Very simple.

No, the problem is, as always, that CCP cannot communicate their way out of a noise-triggered airlock and prefer to take the chance that they just might not suffocate…

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.13 16:03:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Phelan Votronski
Originally by: Cipher Jones

Its relevant because CCP is a company and the global economy is both ****ed and changing daily.


No. Economic changes or pressure may be grounds for ccp to change their business model - that much is true.
However you used this as an argument for the players to accept those changes. That is ludicrous because ccp's viability as a business is not their responsibility.

If your local grocery store is starting to charge $5 for a bit of milk because they're in financial trouble you're not going to accept it. Instead you buy your milk elsewhere(at least I hope so for you). Your implication (contained in the post I originally quoted) that 'people with a job' would blindly accept any and all changes to business models without at least consideration of alternatives is quite frankly laughable. Especially people with a job will not take **** like that because they know what their money is worth.

You're a known troll though so you're forgiven. I'm merely elaborating for the hundreds of gullible idiots that actually believe what you just said.


You are not elaborating, you are inferring. Did you really not know that or are you trolling me? Dead serious question, as there is a big difference.

I did not say or imply that one should accept any changes a company puts forth. I said and implied that all companies must change their business plans to stay afloat.

To use logic without fallacy leads you to the conclusion that CCP simply cannot promise that they will not change their business plans.

On a personal level, I feel that it is unethical to lead the player base in one direction if you are planning on going in the other direction. I have stated that many times, elaborately, and I feel its a shame you see me as a "known troll" yet fail to read and understand what I say. Regardless of personal feelings, its borderline fraudulent but doesn't cross the line. Just because everyone is doing it does not make it right, so I'll give you this opportunity to name one game developer that is 100% open and honest to their playerbase, and releases their business plan to the public.

Thanks.

Khamelean
Posted - 2011.07.13 16:26:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Khamelean on 13/07/2011 16:36:44
Ok, I feel i have not communicated my self well, so I'll try and do my best to break down what i am trying to say.

I hope we can both agree there there is some level of risk in a players choice to invest themselves in a game with the immense magnitude of eve. The point we seem to be differing on is the factors involved with making that choice.

My first and primary point is that there are no absolute guarantees in this situation, and CCP is wise to not attempt to make promisis that may not be able to deliver on. I used the examples of the changing game industry over long periods time. I chose this example because it is relatively easy to think of and to convey in a forum post. I agree it's a rather cheap shot. The real trouble comes from issues that CCP can't predict, that could happen in the short term. I can't think of any examples, but that is pretty much the point.

As to points in their favour that would mitigate risk for a players investment I present the following.

CCP development history - This game would not exist at all if CCP had not built it and built it well. Yes there are bugs, features that have been left behind and a lot of things that could generally be improved. I don't think this implies incompetence, I think it implies a complexity. All it takes is a glance around the game/MMo industry to see that CCP performs better than most. They have definitely not reached their goal of "Excellence" but I think they are making moves in that direction.

The game as it currently stands - The best parts of eve that we all love, the "emergent, dynamic, player controlled environment and market " are they way they are because CCP built them that way. Clearly that had some intention of doing so, they are aware that these are the things that make eve popular. I agree that past behaviour is no guarantee of future behaviour, but as I said, there are no guarantees. There are any number of things CCP could do to make eve more profitable without resorting to micro-transactions, they could take ideas from "other" successful MMO's like aiming for a more casual audience, making scamming against the rules, no pvp in high sec, more theme park style content. That have chosen not to go down that path, but rather to appeal to a niche market. I think this shows that they truly value the unique qualities of eve and have no desire to destroy it.

CCP Statements - Let's put aside the "no plans" but for a moment.
Quote:
The investment of money in EVE should not give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time.

Here we have a principle without time limitations. This is something that CCP wants to remain true for eve.

But CCP doesn't always see an "unfair advantage" the way we do. That is why the next statements are so important.
Quote:
CCP has committed to sharing their plans with the CSM on this front on an ongoing basis.

and
Quote:
We have expressed our deep concern about potential grey areas that the introduction of virtual goods permits, and CCP has made a commitment to discuss any proposals that might fall into these grey areas in detail with CSM at the earliest possible stage.


This tells me that if things are going to change, I will have as much warning as possible for me to voice my concerns and/or change my decision.

And mot Imporantly

The Players - Everyone saw last week the response from players when there was indication that the integrity of the game was at risk. Even after that "indicator" was confirmed as not indicative of the direction of eve, players were still angry as hell.

Just imagine the outrage that would erupt if CCP was to publish a dev blog announcing actual PLANS to implement a feature that would destroy the integrity of Eve. CCP almost lost over 5000 subscriptions over what was effectively a rumour. Eve will not reach the stage that so many seem to fear, they players would kill it first. CCP knows this, now more than ever.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.07.13 16:39:00 - [60]
 

@Ranger

Ok, a response to some of your other points.

Originally by: Ranger 1

Unfortunately Tippia, in the real world the reasons why changes are made to a companies method of operation quite often deal with sensitive material that is quite frankly nobody else's business.

It would be nice if any company I did business with ran all decisions that might possibly affect me past me first for my approval and acceptance. Unfortunately that is neither practical, nor rational.

The company has to take into account what the public reaction is likely to be, especially if it may be view in a negative light, and judge who to proceed based on that information. It's their call, and they know they will have to accept the consequences.

Most people out of their teens recognize that these decisions happen behind the scenes every day, as they must. The EVE forum community seems to have difficulty with the concept.



As far as what you say goes there is not a lot here that I disagree with. However, you only really deal with one side of the issue, which is to say the perspective of the company. You uphold the right of the company to make decisions via its own processes (which is fine) and you note that it would be unrealistic to expect a company to share all its data with its customers (which I would agree with with some minor reservations). However, you use these points to draw conclusions about how customers should act and this is where your line of reasoning falls down, in my opinion. Just as a company has no obligation to pay any attention whatsoever to its customers, so its customers have no obligation to take whatever the company offers.

BUT nor do the customers have an obligation to quit if they are unwilling to accept the possible future plans of a company. Quit or stfu is a false choice. The third option is to protest loudly and annoyingly, to try to pin the company down on its future plans so as to secure as many commitments as possible, and generally to campaign for the things that they want whilst using their complete withdrawal as a negotiating position. Consumers can be passive or active in trying to shape the products they make use of. Passivity, in consumption as in politics, is not the only option for those who are not in individual positions of power. Sometimes change can be effected from the bottom up, sometimes it doesn't work. But if you are sufficiently committed to the thing that you want the attempt is normally worth the candle.

This stuff about most people out of their teens behaving differently may well be true and they receive the level of service they deserve if they are willing to bend over and take whatever is given to them. EvE, however, for better or worse is filled with people who have rather more persistence and are rather more pro-active about getting what they want. It seems unrealistic to expect them not to fight for their goals if you think about the efforts people put in in-game to achieve their objectives. There are some stubborn, single-minded bastards round these parts and that is a virtue of the player base, annoying as it may be when one is on the other side of the fence on a given position (as I have often been).


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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