Slashdot Mirror


EVE Online Players Rage, Protest Over Microtransactions

Several readers have written with news of a controversy that's been slowly building in space-based MMO EVE Online. "It all began with the Incarna update, which added an item shop to the long-running sci-fi sandbox. Players began to voice their concerns over the bizarrely high prices of items in the shop, with one particular item reaching an insane $68 US. Before this hullabaloo had the chance to so much as come to a simmer, an internal newsletter from CCP was leaked to the internet. The document outlined the introduction of microtransactions into EVE and mentioned that at some point, ships, ammunition, and so forth may be available for purchase with real-world currency. This naturally sent players into even more of a frenzy." Reader Ogre332 points out additional coverage, but notes that many publications are missing the punchline: "Players are angry that CCP has blatantly lied about their intentions and have responded to these customers concerns by basically telling us they know what we want better than we do. The purported e-mail from CCP CEO Hilmar Pétursson was like gas on a fire, and a response to some concerns in the form of a dev blog was not well received at all. Players are protesting, and many claim to be canceling their accounts left and right."

212 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. You mean companies want to make profits? by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Companies always want to milk the cow. Has it ever been any different in the history of man?

    1. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, like anything else it takes cash to run an enterprise. Games are no exception. Although $68 virtual items are a joke. Hardly what I would call a micro transaction.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by wulfbyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a difference between milking the cow with sensible management and long term milk production and butchering the cow for a quick feast and assuming there will always be another cow.

    3. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Sniper98G · · Score: 1

      Companies always want to milk the cow. Has it ever been any different in the history of man?

      True, and companies have the right and motivation to try and make money anyway they can. However, when you are providing a service and you do not listen to the input of those people who subscribe to your service you will end up "drying the cow up" as the people who have been giving you their money suddenly stop.

    4. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Elbart · · Score: 2

      In EvE, they players are part of the economy, making stuff and selling it. CCP wants to compete with the own subscribers over the "revenue" and, by selling gameplay-related items, rendering most ingame-efforts of the dedicated players worthless.

    5. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      Cash they're already getting through the fact that players pay a monthly subscription already.

    6. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to milk the cow.

      It's another to slaughter the goose that lays the golden eggs.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      and fools chasing away their loyal customers will lose money instead

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    8. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Nationless · · Score: 1

      Do you know what it's for?

      It's for a monocle. That your character wears. In a space Sim.

      Call me crazy, but who cares? People who want to support the game can buy them and people who don't want to can ignore the whole thing. It's not like it gives them any stat boosts or advantages other than looking snazzy in their character portraits. Something which I can only imagine matters very little when trying to keep your hull integrity intact and/or mining resources.

    9. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Interesting

      that is NOT what people are protesting about - cosmetic items are not what the protests are about at all.

      The protests stem from the leaked company memo saying that game-changing items will be for sale eventually.

    10. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      ooch, that sounds like greed. If you pay for something, you don;t expect to be milked for more. What next? in-game adverts?

      If the game was free, then there might be a case for in-game purchases.

    11. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      EVE has a monthly fee. When it started out, there was just the fee. Everyone paid the same. Doesn't matter if you're an employed student or a Fortune 500 CEO - in the game, everyone is equal.
      Then PLEX game along. A rather transparent ploy by CCP to suck a bit more money out of people. Actually, PLEX doesn't suck money if used in the obvious way, to redeem for play time - but it became their currency for administrative services like character redesigns and transfers. The players were upset, because it did make it possible for someone with real money to get an advantage ingame. They could spent a little real money and buy a battleship, something a poor player might spent weeks hauling ore to afford - and they'd have more fun with it too. A player who spent weeks hauling ore is going to be very careful with their ship and not take any risks, while the player who can buy a new one for the cost of a somewhat expensive pizza can go happily running around in lowsec.
      The new system just avoids the pretence that made PLEX rather awkward. It's refreshing in it's honesty: "Pay us, we'll give you good toys to beat other players with."

    12. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Not about the monocle, it's just a silly overpriced bit of pixels. You know as well as I that the primary anger is about the leaked plans.

      Also, Eve's a lot more than a space sim - it's more of a humanity sim.

    13. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I guess I don't know enough about the game. It doesn't really sound like they are being milked. It sounds like people who wish to buy extras can do so for cash. It would be different if certain goods are only available for real cash and they require a subscription. Is that the case?

    14. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Well, PLEX was put in to legitimize the existing trade in GTC, and make the representation of game time an in-game item that was owned by CCP.

    15. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Potential revenue from cash in has exceeded projected forecast revenue from the game as it is.

    16. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Whereas EVE has had an official market for that.

      How does that make any difference to the point in question?

    17. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      You're right. Their great experiment is in progress. The players that have been devoted to Eve for years are in the process of leaving now.

      If they succeed, Eve/DUST may gain many casual players. Farmville has a huge number of players, and Zynga's making plenty of money. It won't be the Eve that mattered anymore, though.

      Even if the experiment fails, the game will still be around. SWG was around for 6 years after the NGE. In fact, it was just announced a couple of days ago that it was finally having the plug pulled. Did you know it was still running?

    18. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      That's their prediction, yes. I'm sure that Joseph Gallo, fresh from 14 years at Citigroup, has all sorts of Powerpoint presentations that show exactly that when the VCs meet to discuss the RoI.

      The question here is twofold:

      1. Will the switch from devoted Eve players to casual gamers and ingame transactions actually provide this return, or will it actually be much less? Casual gamers may well be driven away by Eve before CCP can simplify it enough to hold them. CCP has repeatedly failed to execute on their big plans in the past.

      2. Can Eve still be the "golden goose" that will fund the development of DUST and the WoD MMO as the subscriber base drops? They need to carry enough Eve subscribers for revenue through the upcoming hard times, or CCP Atlanta, Newcastle, and Shanghai are done for.

    19. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Can't do F2P and still have offline training, though.
      Eve will have to be subscription +pay for items to still exist as Eve without a complete change in structure.

      Perhaps this is why they're running off the older players now? Not so ideal to have a 100M+ SP character "modified" to fit into a new character skill design.

    20. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 2

      Eve already has a subscription. Some items are now available for RL cash in a way that bypasses the (extraordinarily deep and complex) player economy. Currently, those are vanity and decorative items only, though their one ship type for sale so far is now expected to be deployed into the game without requiring player-manufactured components. CCP has something of a history of putting half-finished features into place, then not fixing major issues for years.

      The information that has the serious players raging is the leaked internal plan (voiced by the Lead Designer, no less) to expand the real-money transactions to items that *do* affect gameplay while bypassing the player economy, on top of the subscription cost.

    21. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there's a WoW black market where gold and/or items are farmed and sold for RL currency.

      You can sell gold and whole accounts. (And if you get caught by Blizzard, they will suspend your account. But anyway ...)

      Gold is only marginally useful, since almost all powerful items drop in instances and are 'soulbound'. Which means they are chained to the character that picked them up and can not be traded.

      The same is true for bought characters/accounts. You may be able to buy a character - but you won't be able to transfer the items it holds to some other character(s).

      So there's not much to sell in WoW that is worth real money.

    22. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Yes, Eve is full PvP, and items (except for the character items from the new cash shop and rigs/implants) have a chance to drop when a player's ship is destroyed.
      Even the rigs and implants that don't drop are destroyed when the ship is destroyed and the player is podkilled.
      This destruction is part of what drives Eve's huge economy.

    23. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Okay. That's what I thought. Definitely not milking anyone. Effect on game dynamics is a different issue, but definitely not milking anyone.

    24. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Casuals are a fickle crowd. They don't really form any kind of attachment to a game, doubly so if the learning curve is steep, as is the case with EvE, coupled with a heavy impact from setbacks, which can easily cripple you in EvE if you didn't prepare for the possibility to actually lose your ship. This all coupled with rampart griefing doesn't really lend itself well for casuals. Maybe casuals with a high masochism threshold.

      Casual gamers usually don't stick around when frustration sets in, which can easily happen within the first month when they reach the level where they could fly cruisers but cannot handle them well enough to actually make them work well. Add the needed investment of time to find out what things to fit where, when and for what purpose and you'll notice why EvE isn't really a game where the casuals stick around for long.

      EvE's success is mostly due to its uniqueness, where players have the illusion that they have an influence of the way things are run, how the universe evolves and the hope that one day you might be one of those "big players" that make "history". That's what most players (at least most I know) are in for. If that can be bought with money, the illusion that "hard work pays off" is gone.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      They hired someone from Citigroup? WTF?

      The fucking suits aren't satisfied with ruining our economy and making us work 60 hour weeks until our seventies at wages low enough so we can compete with robots ... they have to make sure our experience in games is just as dreary and unfair as in real life? CRPGs where you can only play as a peasant with a hoe unless you pay 100$ extra for the Aristocrat DLC?

    26. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      They are protesting about the memo that states that game will change from pay to accessorize to pay to win.

      These are two distinctly different gameplay models.

    27. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      $68 is not a lot for a certain really, really insane subset of EVE players.

      I used to play EVE and would still play if it weren't for the fact that the group I ran with fell apart.

      Firstly, an important example. EVE has a legitimate backdoor to Real Money Trading. You can buy "PLEXes" (Pilot's License EXtension) with real money. You get 2 PLEXes for $30 or so, and each PLEX extends game time by 30 days. It's not all that different from the regular subscription, with the exception that the PLEXes are in-game items that you can sell for in-game currency. Therefore, you can, say, buy 2 game time cards, use one for yourself, and sell the other for in-game money (and the prices have stayed relatively stable). Conversely, once you have reached a certain level of skill, you can use in-game money to buy PLEXes and never have to spend real money on game time. With moderate skill you can earn enough in-game money in about 30 hours, and anything you play after that equates to profit.

      Secondly, a Russian man named SirLodex spent $100,000 on PLEXes and used the ISK (in-game money) to bankroll an entire player alliance called RED.Overlord a couple years ago. If you look at the automatic territory control map, you can see that they still exist today. (As the map changes daily, here's the archive version of the map for the day this post was made.) Granted, SirLodex is a wealthy man who seems to enjoy playing EVE like a RTS but with real people, but it's not uncommon for people to buy a few PLEXes and sell the spares for a quick infusion of ISK.

      Lastly, there are more than a few people who have multiple accounts that they run at the same time. I've known people who ran 2-5 accounts simultaneously - which equates to $30-75 a month - and some people have reportedly ran 10 accounts at once. These are people paying the same amount in subscription fees every month as most people do in a year. They can command a small fleet by themselves through ingenious use of macros, multiple monitors, etc.

      In short, there is a small subset of players that will see $68 as no huge deal.

    28. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 2

      Well, there's some milking involved, assuming that the internal plans for game-changing items for real money come to fruition.

      Eve is full PvP in a way that is different from almost every other MMO out there, and if an item or ship is better at its job than another, it will be used nearly to the exclusion of all others, and destroyed in great amounts as well.

      Either the cash store ships/modules are better than the player-produced ones, and they'll be used instead of them, or they're equal or worse, and they won't be used in any noticeable amounts, no matter the size of the additional RL cost, because winning is what matters. CCP will see no return on their development cost, and they will be forced to improve the items until they are used.
      Carebears in hi-sec may buy one of the items, but they won't be destroyed, and thus there won't be any continuing demand.

    29. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Casual players are going to be cannon fodder at best and constant targets at worst. EVE is not really what one could call a newbie friendly game. The basic tutorials to get a grasp on the game will take the average player 1-4 hours just for them to get a handle on piloting and using your equipment. Then there's other factors (transversal, optimal range, ammo type, etc.) that take several more hours just to learn. The combat in EVE is in-depth but also very unforgiving, and the game is very, very PvP heavy. You can technically be blown up by anyone, anywhere. Although in-game NPC police will attempt to save your ass in the higher security zones, there are ship builds that are designed to destroy a ship in the 4-20 seconds it will take for the cops to show up. (Usually, this scenario is a profit motivation - you might lose a 10 million ISK ship, but the enemy loses a 20 million ISK ship and therefore it's a net gain.) And, of course, sometimes wealthy in-game players do it just to be a dick.

    30. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Pretty much par for the course. What I've never understood is why, once they introduce real world monetary value to the items in online games they don't fall afoul of gambling laws? If ingame items are purchased for real money and can be won from you in game by other players or by "the house" (item is destroyed, thereby "returning" to the game company much like casino chips when you lose). There's practically no online game that's a game of pure skill, they all have some random element that you're gambling on (at least as random as casino slot machines are "random"). So when video game items become markers for real money, why don't the video games become a form of gambling?

    31. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Medevilae · · Score: 1

      Yeah, $80 monocle is hardly 'micro.'

    32. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And of course if no one pays that price then the price will drop. The upset players are essentially long term players upset that someone might get an advantage without playing for 5 years first. EVE has locked out new players essentially because it takes too long to get your skills up.

    33. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Dainsanefh · · Score: 2

      Companies always want to milk the cow. Has it ever been any different in the history of man?

      APB has guns that cost $40 each.

      There is the world's first MMO called Football Superstars, they recently converted from subscription to microtransactions. Player complained about this being pay-2-win, but the item cost only pennies.

      Whenever there are games that start charging people, there will be people complaining.

      --
      Twitter: @dainsanefh
    34. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by BlackBloq · · Score: 1

      To call this lame response insightful is truly moronic.

    35. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Infamous+Tim · · Score: 1

      EVE has locked out new players essentially because it takes too long to get your skills up.

      I hear this quoted often by people without the patience to give EVE a try. It's flat wrong and demonstrates your ignorance of how EVE is implemented. You don't need five years to succeed in your chosen profession; heck, you don't even need 6 months. The largest part of being successful is gaining experience through playtime and having a certain amount of fearlessness. I wager that this is true of most every MMORPG. Past a certain point, your training just adds versatility anyhow.

      --
      checking for libvirus... no
      ERROR, libvirus.so not found, terminating
    36. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Casual players are going to be cannon fodder at best and constant targets at worst. EVE is not really what one could call a newbie friendly game. The basic tutorials to get a grasp on the game will take the average player 1-4 hours just for them to get a handle on piloting and using your equipment.

      Insert quarter to instant-kill opponent. Opponent has raised invulnerable shields; Insert quarter to transmit Ship Prefix Code and lower enemy shields. Enemy is firing; Insert quarter to raise invulnerable shields.
      Insert quarter
      Insert quarter
      Insert quarter
      Congratulations! You have inserted quarters faster than your opponent, or they attempted to win via skill alone. You are victorious!

    37. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      There have been so many scandals with Eve over the years, why shouldn't CCP expect players to forgive them and continue on, history has taught them they will be forgiven regardless of how they abuse their customers.

    38. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by fwarren · · Score: 1

      There have always been those in business that gouge the customer. Customers pay up. However, if they realize they are being gouged, they hate the business and will switch to using some other business as soon as they can find another business that offers a better value.

      I have worked for several millionaires in my lifetime. I have seen reverse Reagnomics work. That is where the the state mandate that businesses have to spend money on something, opposed to where Reaganomics eliminates that kind of behavior. When the costs go up, compared to the risk the millionaires think it is better to stop hiring, close businesses down and just park their money in a bank, or out of the country till things are more favorable.

      What bothers me far more than Reagonomics is small businesses selling out to larger businesses. These in turn sell out to mega corporations. Once you move from the level of someone who has built the business and actually cares about the business itself, the employees, the quality of product or service produced and are willing to make less money short or long term due to these factors. You end up with a business that answers to "stockholders", at which point stock holders can sue if you don't maximize profits for them right now, no matter who it hurts in the process.

      Which brings us back to EVE. If the short term profit from selling items in game and going around the in-game economy screws up the gameplay and player economy. In the long term, CPP may be shooting themselves in the foot.

      --
      vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
    39. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Something players at the time (And some still) as CCP legitimising a trade they should have been trying to stamp out.

    40. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by sjwest · · Score: 1

      Considering that eve users pony up a sub for 'gaming' Buying stuff in game with real money notes the difference between doers (say miners/traders) and the pew pew (shooter types/greifers) Both have different aims and the meaning of the word 'fun'.

      Gamers can be a funny lot - start playing in the wrong less popular timezone and many of the hardcore will think you less for it even say you not based in 'right' zone and dont live in a chinese prison farming game objects for sale by chairman mao.

      The game you thought it was is often not the game others perceive it as. Never played Eve (i dont run windoze) but something like it once in a blue moon and im sure that what i have observed is equally true in all games and mmo's.

    41. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      But too often they end up killing the golden goose.

    42. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by quanticle · · Score: 1

      CCP is already getting paid with its players' monthly subscriptions. This is rent-seeking, plain and simple.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    43. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > game-changing items

      What does that even mean?

      A knob? A hand dolly? A TV remote? 5, my ass. *sigh*

    44. Re:You mean companies want to make profits? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I saw this same argument above and I don't understand it. What does offline training have to do with whether it can be free to play or not?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's a stupid, boring-ass game anyways.

    1. Re:Who cares? by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1

      Sounds like SOMEONE has lost a few ships...

  3. Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Rage? They are raging? Would you say this is "epic" rage over some sort of "fail"? Perhaps there are some "lols" involved in said epic fail rage?

    1. Re:Journalism by AdamHaun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Er... rage is a legitimate verb.

      --
      Visit the
    2. Re:Journalism by bsharp8256 · · Score: 2

      OP confirmed for over 38 years old.

    3. Re:Journalism by headLITE · · Score: 1

      If you put it in numbers, about a year ago or so CCP announced that they'd probably not spend a lot of time for the following 18 months. Around one hundred cancelled subscriptions were counted on the official forums. The number of subs EVE actually lost at that time, according to mmodata: 40.000.

      This time the forum count is above 2000.

    4. Re:Journalism by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Jesus. If even half as many cancel this time, that's likely to be a huge fucking blow to the game. About the only one that can stand to lose 20k subscribers at a shot is WoW, and since the uproar is higher than last time, 20k would be conservative. I've never played EVE, but I'd hate to see it go. It proves that a game can be different from WoW and still work. Well, had worked.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    5. Re:Journalism by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      The uproar isn't even in the same ballpark as last time. This is far bigger than t20, and more people that normally disagree with one another are united against this. Mittens says Goons are done if it happens, *and* PL is banning recruiting of Aurum users. Ex-BoB/IT players are against it, and even the Russians are upset.

      This is bad for everyone but the casual player - the Farmville/F2P player that stays for an average of 7 months.

      Eve is not a casual game. This change is trying to make it a casual game, and there are better casual games out there already. It's moving Eve from a niche where it has no competition (except possibly Perpetuum, and that has a way to go) into direct competition with the giants of the industry.

      CCP is cool and all, and it's fun to laugh at Oveur's drunken antics and remember when the devs still played their game in 0.0. The basic idea of Eve is incredible . However, they're not actually that good at what they do or at executing those ideas, to be brutally honest. They will fail badly when put up against the big guys.

    6. Re:Journalism by hldn · · Score: 1

      actually OP confirmed for under 18 as he's never heard the word 'rage' outside of internet lulspeak.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  4. Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The monacle being 68$ doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is talk about selling ships, items, and/or faction standings for real life money. Those are game changing items, and should be earned as part of the game.

  5. They're probably right by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Players are angry that CCP has blatantly lied about their intentions and have responded to these customers concerns by basically telling us they know what we want better than we do.

    Players aren't a hivemind. Odds are the company that makes the game has a pretty good idea what the community as a whole wants, while a vocal minority is convinced that everyone else feels as they do.

    1. Re:They're probably right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Normally I'd agree with you but remember EVE isn't like many MMO's; there's only one 'server' and everyone who plays EVE plays in the same 'shard' that everyone else plays, except for a few thousand in China.

      You'd be surprised how likeminded they are.

      When it comes down to it however, the feeling - the rage if you will isn't because of CCP wanted to make Money; hell if CCP asked most people would probably agree to pay extra subs; the thing is the betrayal, the reversal of a lot of promises and the complete lack of respect afforded to the player by the company.

    2. Re:They're probably right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's hard to believe those who want the option to pay more money for in-game advantages are the majority.

      It also does not correspond to the discussions on the forums. Very, very few players are OK with pay-to-win in Eve. I haven't even heard of a single players who WANTS this, only players who will tolerate it. You'd think if players wanted pay-to-win, they'd be saying so in the forums in order to oppose the players who are trying to make it not happen.

    3. Re:They're probably right by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      eve players are a hive. anyways, eve's gameplay environment gets pretty shattered if you can just buy a fleet if you had a nice bailout fund from your company.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:They're probably right by luther349 · · Score: 1

      yea not in this game with a small but highly drivin communty.if people start quiting in mass the games done for. adding a item shop it eve was just fuking retarted. i for one will not be coming back to the game now.this is the same game that laughed out the isk for money sellers in favor of there own system that extanged gamestime.

    5. Re:They're probably right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not that simple in the EVE universe. There are a couple of camps in the EVE player base. Mainly, they fall into 1) Just want to play the damn game and don't give a fuck about the larger issues. These people only yell when something they use daily changes. 2) Want to play the game, meta game, uber-meta game and think it all really really matters. 3) Want to play the game as 2, but don't have the time, so they want to pay cash to replace months of grinding.

      2 and 3 do not get along well at all. They make up the majority of the games players.

      The reason this matters at all, and what makes EVE unique is that there are no shards. The entire games economy, and the entire fictional universe (it's very big) are on ONE server. So when players replace months of "work" in game with $$ instead, it whacks the economy in game really hard. Which disrupts alliances, which disrupts the local economy, which disrupts the individual corps, which means that support and security break down and pretty soon entire regions of space are changing hands, which whacks the economy even harder. All because Corp B's CEO was able to replace a lost Titan instantly with his bonus check from work. (fictionalized)

      Another issue is the elite problem. I'm not sure CCP/EVE has ever come out and said it, but one of their biggest problems is how to balance the day 1 players against the guys that joined last week. Given the mechanics of the game, it's not possible, at all. But they have so far managed to make it competitive, to a degree. In that newbies can become specialized very quickly, and can match an older player (in that specialization) within a few months.

      But without micro-transactions, that newbie can't afford to fly with or against the older players. My day 1 character can make more money being logged off and idle, than any newbie could make playing 8 hours a day. In fact, my day 1 character(s) (oh you bet I have more than one) are all currently idle, because I'm taking a break from eve right now (see why?) and guess what? They are still making millions of isk per hour, EACH.

      I personally fall into the 1) player type. So I don't care if they bring in micro-transactions... just so long as they don't break the fucking economy in the process.

    6. Re:They're probably right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      6 Months ago CCP said they had no intentions of Micro Transactions AT ALL.

      In 6 months they have gone from no MT's, to poorly planed MT's with idea's to screw people out money to improve gameplay that they took away in the last few months. Wouldn't you be a little upset?

    7. Re:They're probably right by BeanBagKing · · Score: 1

      Players that are upset about something are usually vocal, however, a minority doesn't usually make front page of slashdot, get on PC gamer, etc, no matter how vocal.

    8. Re:They're probably right by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you have the right to be entertained for free! Fight for it by whining anonymously on the Internet, that'll show 'em!

    9. Re:They're probably right by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      eve players are a hive. anyways, eve's gameplay environment gets pretty shattered if you can just buy a fleet if you had a nice bailout fund from your company.

      New bulletin: This has been true ever since they started selling PLEX. If what you say is also true, then the gameplay environment has been shattered for a long time now. If, on the other hand, the game is playable today, then you're obviously wrong.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    10. Re:They're probably right by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Well, there have been a couple of trolls saying so, but they're pretty obvious trolls. Even then, 5 people can't sustain a business model.

    11. Re:They're probably right by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Group 2 drives the whole story around the EvE universe, though. They "shape" the universe. Unlike other MMOs that are pretty much entirely driven by what the company making it wants, EvE and it's "politics" are largely at the hands of the players. And while the alliances that crash shards with the sheer amount of ships they bring into the battle probably do not represent the majority of players, they are the ones that make the game interesting. More, they are what many new players aspire to, and want to climb to.

      Also, a good deal of EvE's popularity stems from losses being nontrivial. Dying in pretty much any MMO out there means jack. Death in EvE, even if it's "only" your ship that is gone, is a setback that you first have to recover from. The stakes are quite a bit higher than in most MMOs out there (provided you take the game "serious", as many Group 2 players do). If this is trivialized because you can easily just buy another Titan with a few bucks, a lot of Group 2 players will lose interest in the game.

      Also, you may rest assured that this will have some impact in the economy of the game. The current economy is a careful balance of supply and demand, from raw ores up to ships. Tinkering with any of those will have some impact, good or bad is to be decided.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:They're probably right by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, this isn't about paying for playing. This is about paying for in-game items with real money. That is, the money you put in affects your in-game success. That makes the game unfair.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:They're probably right by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      How PLEX works with the economy has also been explained repeatedly.
      I can do so again if you really don't understand, and are not being intentionally obtuse to try to make your point.

      Assuming that you really do know about how PLEX work, now contrast that with a system where items are sold for Aurum with no interaction with the player-run economy.

    14. Re:They're probably right by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      More to the point, if the forum goers are right, and most players of the game are exactly like them, then the solution is obvious: don't buy any of the items. If you don't buy them, CCP gains nothing, and they'll eventually stop offering them. Free market.

    15. Re:They're probably right by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

      The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

    16. Re:They're probably right by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2

      More to the point, if the forum goers are right, and most players of the game are exactly like them, then the solution is obvious: don't buy any of the items. If you don't buy them, CCP gains nothing, and they'll eventually stop offering them. Free market.

      More to the point, if the environmentalists are right, and most people are exactly like them, then the solution is obvious: don't buy any of the right-to-dump-sludge-in-the-river credits. If you don't buy them, the government gains nothing, and they'll eventually stop offering them. Free market.

      Because, you know, it's not like the whole complaint is precisely that most but not all people are like them, and it's those few that aren't who are more than willing to fuck over the environment, be it through toxic sludge that kills rivers and makes people sick or real world money transactions that'll fuck over the extant in-game economy and radically change the power balance in the game; and in the long term, that might well change the norm that most people will dump sludge into the river (look at NYC) or buy their way to success. Perhaps you're simply unaware of the concept of externalities?

      PS - Yes, those forum ragers and those environmentalists might be wrong. But it'd probably be best to discredit their actual arguments and not simply pretend that the free market term or concept thrown into a discussion is a magic resolution.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    17. Re:They're probably right by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I'm getting tremendous entertainment out of this, for no additional charge :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:They're probably right by KermodeBear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The best overview of the players' concerns that I have seen.

      Briefly:

              The high cost of goods in the Noble Market.
              Captain’s Quarters.
              Performance issues with Incarna.
              “Greed is good”
              Communication issues

      --
      Love sees no species.
    19. Re:They're probably right by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Well, sometimes they are, heh.

      However, when there is not a voice on the "pro" side of the equation that is part of the real game, be it serious PvP alliances or heavy-duty industrialists, it's pretty clear that there's a problem.
      The casual players often don't understand what's going on, but the serious ones really do. They often understand the implications better than CCP - note the tech moon changes, etc. The serious players are the ones that are canceling their subscriptions.

    20. Re:They're probably right by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Honestly, most players would grumble, but be okay with, an increase in the subscription fee, as long as it came along with more focus on Eve instead of WoD and DUST.

    21. Re:They're probably right by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that happens. But that companies have completely failed to understand their customers and gone face first in the dirt has definitively happened too. Particularly when the way they think the customers want it would also make them plenty profits.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    22. Re:They're probably right by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      That's the irony - Eve has always been all about the externalities and unintended consequences, though still within the game.

      As a sandbox where people can do some very bad things, it shows quite well what people will do given free rein. They'll do the same thing here. The long-term players can see it, and this particular change breaks the sandbox.

    23. Re:They're probably right by X.25 · · Score: 1

      New bulletin: This has been true ever since they started selling PLEX. If what you say is also true, then the gameplay environment has been shattered for a long time now. If, on the other hand, the game is playable today, then you're obviously wrong

      Oh dear, how can people be this blind?

      Main objection is to CCP's plan to allow player to buy 'special' things (things that will affect balance, and things that are created from thin air) for cash.

      Noone has any objections to PLEXes.

      It seems that you don't understand how EVE economy works.

    24. Re:They're probably right by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      Here is the issue though:
      You can already buy another titan "with just a few bucks" in EvE.
      Start up a load of accounts, sub them with PLEX either bought directly, or by ISK, use bots to let them farm 23/7 in your alliance's space, use isk farmed by bots to buy those titans.
      There... successfully converted PLEX into titans.

    25. Re:They're probably right by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, but still someone, even if it's a bot, someone has to farm those resources. Of course, botting is a completely different issue, but the point is still that this bot would mine anyway, why shouldn't the bot herder not send his bot out to farm just because that Titan gets created from thin air? So instead of minerals being converted to a Titan, we now have minerals AND a Titan.

      See the difference?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by Gutboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Come on, once they started selling PLEX, you've been able to trade real life money for ships, items, etc. This will just make the relationship more obvious.

  7. They Should Make an OSS Play-Alike! by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    It wouldn't be hard. Just take the spreadsheet from Openoffice and you're already halfway there! Build some cheesy flash graphics on top of it and chances are it'll come out looking better than Eve does!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:They Should Make an OSS Play-Alike! by cratermoon · · Score: 1
      Seriously. EvE Online is just Trade Wars with pretty graphics, and I quote,

      The players seek to gain control of resources: usually fuel, ore, food, and technology, and travel through sectors of the galaxy trading them for money or undervalued resources. Players use their wealth to upgrade their spaceship with better weapons and defenses, and fight for control of planets and starbases.

    2. Re:They Should Make an OSS Play-Alike! by alva_edison · · Score: 1

      Yes, but does the Level 4 Citadel allow you to warp the planet in order to do massive amounts of trading without using turns, all for the price of some fuel?

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
    3. Re:They Should Make an OSS Play-Alike! by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Seriously. EvE Online is just Trade Wars with pretty graphics, and I quote, ...

      Yes, there are similarities. However, there are many, many more similarities between you and a cow than you quoted as between Trade Wars and EVE Online. Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:They Should Make an OSS Play-Alike! by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      ... Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard.

      I think I may want this quote for my signature. It could also double as the signature in several of my emails :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    5. Re:They Should Make an OSS Play-Alike! by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      I played Trade Wars 2002, religiously.

      You are correct in stating there aren't many similarities. However, the underlying principle is absolutely identical.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeWars_2002

      Without the Graphics, alliance mechanics, and a handful of other minor things This is Trade Wars 2002. With pretty spreadsheets...

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    6. Re:They Should Make an OSS Play-Alike! by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Without the Graphics, alliance mechanics, and a handful of other minor things This is Trade Wars 2002. With pretty spreadsheets...

      In other words, without the engine, chassis, suspension and handful of other minor things, Ferrary 599 GTO is basically a Honda Civic.

      With pretty color and a horse, right?

    7. Re:They Should Make an OSS Play-Alike! by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be hard. Just take the spreadsheet from Openoffice and you're already halfway there! Build some cheesy flash graphics on top of it and chances are it'll come out looking better than Eve does!

      You should read some of their technology posts on the blog. Eve online is the largest MMO in the world, in terms of amount of players simultaneously connected to a single shared universe. To make that work half decently, they had to build lots of custom tech, from the low-level messaging across their server farm to the high level application code written in stackless python. And a lot of optimization on the client side to try to display big battles on your machine without lag (not sure how successful that effort is as it was just started when I stopped playing). Anyhow, it's not quite like running a MUD for a couple dozen friends.

    8. Re:They Should Make an OSS Play-Alike! by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Without the Graphics, alliance mechanics, and a handful of other minor things This is Trade Wars 2002. With pretty spreadsheets...

      In other words, without the engine, chassis, suspension and handful of other minor things, Ferrary 599 GTO is basically a Honda Civic.

      With pretty color and a horse, right?

      Dammit , Car analogy *Gasp for air*

      Defeated again!

      aaarggg. nargle,nargle,nargle...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  8. Re:Not News for Nerds nor Stuff That Matters by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 3, Funny
  9. You can already do this! by zero0ne · · Score: 1

    It is called PLEX.

    I can go spend real $$ on PLEX on CCPs website. I then get a item in game that is called PLEX.

    I can take said PLEX and sell it on the eve online market for ISK.

    I can then take ISK and buy SHIPS, AMMO, etc.

    ** Nothing significant has changed **

    1. Re:You can already do this! by ridley4 · · Score: 1

      You've actually played EVE, right?

      It's entirely different from how it works in direct RMT, because there is a market for PLEX, between individual players/characters/whatever. The PLEX is bought and then sold on the in-game. There is no currency created, just an exchange of goods.

      That means it follows the following flow: REAL MONEY -> PLEX -> Naturally gained ISK->in-game goods produced by players

      The big thing about the whole Aurum debacle and the (ig)Nobel Exchange is that all goods are poofed in from nothing. That fancy monocle that I could actually pay a bill with? It came from nothing, and the money came from nothing. The awesome ammo that's horribly OP, so as to promote Pay-to-Win? Nobody produced it. From nothing.

      The Aurum/Nobel Exchange economy thus follows this flow: REAL MONEY-> MAGIC -> MAGIC -> MAGIC -> MONOCLES

      Now, how is that similar, again?

    2. Re:You can already do this! by abhorevil · · Score: 1

      You're missing what is going on. Currently, PLEX is converted into in-game currency which is then used to by player assets. The new model will side-step the player-run economy which is the cornerstone of what makes Eve Online so special and fun for so many of their gamers.

    3. Re:You can already do this! by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Now, how is that similar, again?

      I can spend real money to acquire in-game items. Handwave all you like, this is the truth.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:You can already do this! by munky99999 · · Score: 1

      Yes but where does that isk come from? Where does the ships and ammo come from? It comes from the players. If they sell ships and ammo for $$. Which just gets spawned... this breaks the game.

    5. Re:You can already do this! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      (cough) in-game currency can also be converted into PLEX. Where is the player run economy being side-stepped? You're just bitching because someone else can swipe a credit card and instantly get what it would take you a week of playing to get? How is that different than today swiping a credit card and buying PLEX and using that to buy a supercarrier, or swiping a credit card and buying a toon with all the skills you ever wanted (both of which are entirely "legal" according to CCP)?

      Learn to play the game and earn enough to get what you want, and quit whining for a handout which is pretty much what you and everyone else is doing. No one is forcing you to buy these items. And if you can't stand the thought of someone with a stupid, overpriced monocle, what do you do with your neighbor and his overpriced MacBook, or your boss with his overpriced car, etc? Reality check. It's just a fucking game.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:You can already do this! by abhorevil · · Score: 1

      Re-read my comment and understand the situation. PLEX can buy off the market. Their new model will not take the item they want to buy off the market, but rather create it ex nihilo and side-step the market completely.

    7. Re:You can already do this! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Only by buying them from players who created them. That makes the PLEX exchange much less detrimental to the economy than direct buying.

    8. Re:You can already do this! by sheetsda · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article is wrong. The protests are *NOT* in reaction to buying in game items. They are in reaction to buying skill points and faction standings (which is currently NOT possible) and the absurd prices of all the vanity items (lowest end items are around $20). Currently the rate at which you gain skill points is currently determined by your characters ability scores and the absolute best gear you can buy only increases this rate by around 20%. It takes several months worth of skill points to fly the best ships. This is the ONLY factor currently keeping day-1 players out of the game's best ships (money is not a factor because of PLEX as you noted). The WoW/other MMO equivalent would be buying completely leveled and elite geared character directly from Blizzard.

      Amusing tidbit: several alliances have declared players wearing the $68 item to be Kill On Sight. Spending that $68 is currently tantamount to putting a bounty on yourself, and the only place in EVE you cannot be attacked is while docked in a station.

    9. Re:You can already do this! by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      If you buy PLEX you still need that PLEX to buy something that was playercreated, so you are transferring money from player to player.

      With the new AUR you transfer money to something that is created at a moments notice, out of an infinite supply of bits, owned by EVE and not a player. Suddenly, the value of new ships is going to be exactly what EVE says it is, because if you price your ship higher they can always undercut you. This basically kills the entire cornerstone of the game, which is the market. With all its flaws it was still the driving force in the game, but this threatens that.

      For other examples: suppose that in WOW you can buy every epic and craftable item there is for money direct from Blizzard, no questions asked. That would have an impact, and not a good one.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    10. Re:You can already do this! by X.25 · · Score: 1

      It is called PLEX.

      I can go spend real $$ on PLEX on CCPs website. I then get a item in game that is called PLEX.

      I can take said PLEX and sell it on the eve online market for ISK.

      I can then take ISK and buy SHIPS, AMMO, etc.

      ** Nothing significant has changed **

      No, it's not he same.

      If you don't understand why, you are really really pathetic.

    11. Re:You can already do this! by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      But you can currently buy PLEX.
      With those you can buy a character that already has all the skillpoints and faction standing you need. It's common praxis and it's approved by CCP.

  10. Re:Not News for Nerds nor Stuff That Matters by Dachannien · · Score: 2

    How is CCP killing their game with their own little NGE not "news for nerds"?

  11. Re:Not News for Nerds nor Stuff That Matters by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

    Every MMO has overly broad TOS that entitles the GMs to do what they want, it dosn't exempt it from falling into gaming news when they chose to abuse it. For instance pretty much every subscription based MMO usually say something along the lines of "these are the rules, if you break them you will be banned and if you are banned we will not refund any subscription fees you have paid up till now (IE if you paid 6 months ahead, tough luck). Also we reserve the right to ban you for reasons not listed in the TOS, in the case of WoW their clause is listed as "(iii) Anything that Blizzard considers contrary to the "essence" of the Game.". So more or less just about every MMO has a TOS clause that allows them to say, oh you paid 6 months in advance, thanks for the money, umm I don't like your shirt, you can't play. The fact that they have these rules isn't news, but were they to actually use the rights they gave themselves in the EULA, it would be newsworthy.

  12. Re:casual vs hard core by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

    In general from what I have seen, quite a few quit games because of models that make what they do in game seem insignificant. In general all forms of MMORPGs are more or less the feeling that what you do is making your character stronger, and you get the constant feel of power rising. In general when you do all that work, play the game and work your character up for several months, then you find out that new players just tossed in $200 and instantly rose above your level, you lose that thrill, on top of that the new players, once the characters that they have surpassed quit, they lose the thrill themselves, there's no point working in game when they already bought everything they need, and thus have nothing to work towards. Basically some models like that turn a multi-year game into 1 month blast through type game. The effect goes double for PVP games, generally in games with PVP, the new wealthy players buy the expensive CS items to stomp all over the players who don't have them, but then get bored once the non cash players get fed up and quit.

  13. Meritocracy by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only thing online games offer over real life is the opportunity to be someone you are not. WoW is successful because people can be rich and famous without actually being rich or famous. Once you allow people with more money to have cooler items in-game, you are destroying the reason people play it.

    That doesn't mean it won't be profitable, but I think it will certainly turn many people off.

    1. Re:Meritocracy by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      The only thing online games offer over real life is the opportunity to be someone you are not. WoW is successful because people can be rich and famous without actually being rich or famous. Once you allow people with more money to have cooler items in-game, you are destroying the reason people play it.

      This is obviously, blatantly false. Most people enjoy these games regardless of whether they become rich or famous. Indeed, people have been playing games like this for the opportunity to kill monsters, do quests, overcome challenges, just plain toss fireballs around because it's cool, and all sorts of other reasons for years, often in games where there are no significant opportunity for accumulating riches or fame. To assert any one thing as the "only thing" is utter stupidity...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:Meritocracy by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 1

      WoW is successful because people can be rich and famous

      Would you like to explain to me, how I can get famous in WoW? I have been playing for years and I never met a player who is famous ...

      And about rich - you *do* know there is a gold cap? I myself have more or less stopped actively acquiring gold - because it is rather useless and you get enough to continue playing without actually trying.

      So, no, I do not think, "getting rich and famous" is the reason WoW is successful.

    3. Re:Meritocracy by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      I can think of a couple of things that online RPGs offer in addition to the opportunity to be someone you're not, though that would probably be at the top of the list.

      Rich and famous? In EVE Online, the premise is that you are rich and famous on day one -- you should be able to fill your cargo hold with expensive clothing with your starting cash and have most of it left over.

      Another thing that an online RPG allows is for people to create a collaborative narrative, with the game designers offering a grounding that's not under the players' control. As any GM can tell you, getting the balance right between meeting players' expectations and surprising them, between giving them what they want and frustrating them, is a real challenge.

      I gave up on EVE Online when it became clear that CCP's approach was to steamroll their plans through, while flipping the middle finger at roleplayers, or at any sense of continuity.

  14. LOTRO by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Lord of the Rings Online already have such a system? It became big and kind of died a little, but is still going strong. How is this different than EVE? People still play LOTRO. It seems that game though it is less built in gear than say WOW where it is everything. Is Eve more WOW like or did most people really leave LOTRO when it went free with pay for items?

    1. Re:LOTRO by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Eve has a monthly fee. LOTRO does not.

    2. Re:LOTRO by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Lord of the Rings Online already have such a system? It became big and kind of died a little, but is still going strong. How is this different than EVE?

      EVE is a sandbox. LOTRO and WoW are theme parks. Everything in EVE is created by players. Be it items from outposts ("space stations") and titans (biggest ship) down to that one bullet you shoot at another player or NPC.

      But there's more. Even EVE's main content is created by players. The whole universe is on one server, where each player in this world plays on (ignoring cEVE for a moment). Things that happen on the other side of the galaxy - mighty alliances crashing and losing their own territory, for example - can influence me. That's the stuff EVE's attraction is made of.

      EVE's PvE content OTOH is not very appealing. You do it to grind for ISK (ingame currency), which you need to fuel your other activities.

      This year EVE's slogan is 'EVE is real'. With the upcoming FPS DUST514 (for PS3), which will be tied into the EVE universe, EVE finally sets its feet on the ground of all those planets we bypassed all the years. Add to that WiS (Walking in Stations)/CQ (Captian's Quarter) - bits of which have just been added with this expansion - EVE is really becoming a 'world simulation'. In theory. The vision is a great one. The execution, well, not so much lately.

      As of now, CCP has acted more like nature's law. They set the boundaries within which the player's could form and shape their own world. With the introduction of MT - be it vanity items or 'power items' - CCP has shape-shifted from being Nature's Law to Deity of the World. Items magically appear out of thin air, whereas the previous expansion even took away more NPC provided items and let player manufacture those, too.

      Introducing MT - even for vanity itmes - seems like a neglectible minor addition. But it changes the whole premise of the game.

    3. Re:LOTRO by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Eve has a monthly fee. LOTRO does not.

      Yes, it does. Its a hybrid system, not pure F2P.

  15. Can't play both sides of the field by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    Playing two sides of the field = nono.

    You either make players pay every month - which means they expect balance.
    Or you give players the ability to '1-up' their opponent by paying their way through it.

    Doing both is silly, it just means that players will pay to win, and the others won't want to pay their monthly fee and enjoy the game less than the guy who bought his way in.

    Doing it with just micropayments works, because if the players get tired of the heavy-users that's fine, they're not paying anything.

  16. Micro-transactions by Emetophobe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think companies are taking advantage of the fact that some people have a tendency to hoard and collect trinkets/items. Micro-transactions are just a way for these companies to cash in on human behaviour. I think it's unethical.

    I have one friend for example that only plays Team Fortress 2 on idle servers. He barely even plays the game, he just idles 24/7 to collect more and more items. I ask him why he even bothers to idle since he doesnt actually play the game, and he can't come up with an answer. He constantly tells me how much he hates the game and all the changes Valve has made by constantly adding more and more items, yet he continues to idle and collect more items. Is that even sane? That sounds like an addiction.

    These companies know exactly what they're doing, and they're making insane profits, so they'll continue to do it.

    1. Re:Micro-transactions by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "yet he continues to idle and collect more items."

      Human reasoning/activity is not conscious.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

    2. Re:Micro-transactions by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>These companies know exactly what they're doing, and they're making insane profits, so they'll continue to do it.

      Didn't TF2 just move to a free to play model?

    3. Re:Micro-transactions by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      I think because they are making so much money from microtransactions- that they made the game itself free. You still have to pay for the items.

  17. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Cash->PLEX->isk->items feeds the economy twice.

    Cash->PLEX->AUR->items feeds nothing but CCP.

  18. Re:Hmmm by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    They're being sneaky about it because of the expectation of this very reaction.

  19. Re:Not News for Nerds nor Stuff That Matters by osu-neko · · Score: 1

    This is not "Not News for Nerds" nor "Stuff That Matters"...

    If this were true, no one would have bothered to click the link on the main page to read the article, much less post comments on it. The more comments posted here, the more proof you have that it's news that matters to /. readers. BTW, you've just upvoted this topic to /.'s editors by contributing to the discussion. Expect more such articles in the future...

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  20. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

    ...you've been able to trade real life money for ships, items, ...

    But you've been able to trade it for things other players made. Other players made those ships and items (or ran the missions or complexes to get the items). In effect, you were buying game time for someone else in exchange for their in-game efforts.

    Even when you did buy these things from other players, they didn't make it an "I win by credit card" situation. I say this as someone who has bought Plex and sold them for ISK.

  21. Not surprised by goodmanj · · Score: 1, Insightful

    EVE is the most cut-throatedly capitalist MMO I've come across. The philosophy of most games is focused around fair play, balance, and looking out for the little guy, but EVE has always been about "may the richest man win" and "money equals power".

    At first, this philosophy was just confined to the game world, but I've found that game designers build their personal values into their games. Nobody should be surprised that EVE's developers turn out to be just as mercenary in real life as they expect their players to be in game.

  22. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by Lazareth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is an enormous difference, for many reasons.

    The EVE economy is based on items being built by the players, for the players, using materials gathered by the players. PLEX is a sort of trade commodity, it is like diamonds - people want them because they are desirable, not because they are useful (in game at least). It has no effect on gameplay and is basically just a trade good on the market. Trading a PLEX has no other immediate ingame effect other than redistributing ISK among players, which is completely balanced in cost by the players themselves.

    "Gold Spaceships" and AUR is completely different from this mechanic. Ships are seeded and directly tied to real money. Sure, you can buy a PLEX with ISK, but that is superficial - you are, in effect, just having somebody else pay real money for your spaceship. Sure you can fund a CNR (a special battleship) using ISK gained from a PLEX, but it is completely optional for that PLEX to be involved - with Gold Spaceships it would become MANDATORY to involve a PLEX. Also, since the ship is seeded, no tangible effort has been made to build or acquire the ship by anybody - not through missioning, grinding, building, whatever - the ship entirely come into being depending on real money.

    Basically the entire EVE economy, which is the pride and I daresay center of the soul of EVE, can become entirely unhinged by AUR and Gold Stuff, since it is impossible for an industrial body in EVE to compete with people simply swiping their credit card for special premium superstuff.

    More issues can be touched upon. Think for example the Alliance Tournament (a yearly competition with spaceships), what happens to the game if a team wins because they brought Gold Spaceships? Should all invest real money to be able to compete then?

    P2W and microtransactions are reasonable depending on the gaming model. EVE is simply not built for it.

  23. Re:Not News for Nerds nor Stuff That Matters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Yes. So?

    There's something similar in the contract with my ISP. Should I be not angry if they change the terms to my disadvantage? And consider canceling the contract?

    Just because someone agreed to a license contract doesn't mean that you can screw him over. Unless, of course, that's part of the license agreement. They have no recourse. No. Except of course terminating the contract, which is, if you reread the original posting, pretty much what they plan to do.

    So what again was your point?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Re:Not News for Nerds nor Stuff That Matters by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    : I've played the original EverQuest for over 11 years now

    so you are kind of like a battered wife when it comes to taking abuse from game companies

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  25. Re:Not News for Nerds nor Stuff That Matters by Fulminata · · Score: 1

    That's kind of a bad example given that WoW's subscription numbers continued to steadily rise after the release of Burning Crusade. If "nearly everyone" was upset with the changes made back then, it certainly wasn't affecting Blizzard's bottom line.

  26. Reeks of Desperation on CCP's part by random+coward · · Score: 1

    The real issue is that this reeks of depseration for money on CCP's(the developer) part, as well as stupidity on how to get that money.

    The expansion is bug ridden. They literally showed the players the door if you don't want the new features.

    1. Re:Reeks of Desperation on CCP's part by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 2

      Yes, it looks like the VCs are running the place. The new CFO, Joseph Gallo, is a 14-year veteran and former managing director from Citicorp who left about the time of the global financial collapse. His LinkedIn profile claims that he's responsible for the strategic direction of the company.

  27. Protesting by munky99999 · · Score: 1

    Basically there's a long list of problems. Everyone understood that the latest changes and expansion were pretty damn crap and there was bugs which came with an expansion like any expansion for any game. Everyone was grumbly/sad but didnt care. The main new addition to the game however was these vanity items like clothes and hats which they sell for $$. The players were concerned but didnt care too much.

    Then an internal document leaked which showed they wanted to sell non-vanity things, which basically breaks the game. Nobody really knew for sure if the "internal document" was real or not. After a day or so of anger a mod let loose a vague comment which basically confirmed it as real by calling it a "newsletter" which caused a real shitstorm but they just continued to ignore the situation.

    Finally they make an apology but basically say nothing and while they mention issues... they dont address the biggest issue at all. Which made the players that much more angry. Then they have a senior person write a dev blog quickly because the amount of rage and he basically said nothing at all... if not added fuel to the fire.

    Rage goes on and then someone leaks CEO internal letter which basically says, ignore the customers. Customers rage more and they demand to know if they want to sell non-vanity items. Which they confirm so Mass unsubscribing and protests. Afterall you still have a month of gameplay at least after unsubscribing so there's protesting.

  28. Hah, EVE players... like their non-RMT illusions by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1
    EVE has been plagued by rampant RMT for many years, it's full of botters and rich fools investing thousands of dollars in ingame items. It's not a big surprise that CCP wanted to make it more official, but apparently this was too much for the players who wanted their illusion of fair play on equal terms (hah!).

    Needless to say, the threat to cancel one's account as a sign of disapproval for CCP's ideas has been a running gag for years as well ...

    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
  29. so uhm.... by BulletMagnet · · Score: 4, Funny

    CCP is moving to become Zynga? Are they going to rename the game to EVEville or EVEwars too?

    1. Re:so uhm.... by talon · · Score: 1

      I think it's called Dust 514 or something.

      --

      --
      talon - Oh no, more Slashdotters!
  30. True by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    I could understand the screaming if it wasn't one old monopoly alliance screaming about possible new T2 BPOs.

    As it is, it's just EVE selling overpriced skirts. Big deal.

  31. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because ships and faction/officer items are not being sold for real money right now.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  32. Re:Water is wet. by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Eh, it's a little different this time. The angry people aren't the usual forum warriors, they're people like Ombey that have been major but quiet parts of the game.

  33. Re:Not News for Nerds nor Stuff That Matters by djlowe · · Score: 1

    I'm glad you are so much better than the rest of the "entitled generation." I appreciate you for not being arrogant at all.

    Hey, way to stand up for your convictions by posting AC!

    For a real world example of how blizzard made nearly everyone except new players unhappy with wow, look at the first expansion when people (new players) were griping about how hard it was to get to level 60 and have upper tier weapons. They release a package upgrade that allows you to level to 70, faster than it took to go to level 60. Plus, it made the top tier weapons at level 60 useless to new basic weapons you would get at 70. People had to work hours and hours to get some of those weapons and they put out an update where you can just buy them, or get them easily. Same thing happened with gunbound

    And how, exactly, does that counter my "entitled generation" comment? You imply that the changes that Blizzard made to WoW are not only wrong, but that the people that "had to work hours and hours to get some of these weapons" were cheated... they weren't available for sale when you earned them, so the time spent was worth it to you at that point, right? The fact that they are easily available now doesn't change the past. If you disagree with the changes, you can simply quit: After all, you already earned those weapons BEFORE the change...

    But, you prove my point - you believe that, since you earned those weapons in the past, you're entitled to recompense now, after Blizzard made changes that are completely permitted under their TOS.

    This is the exact definition of "entitlement".

    However, in the interest of fairness and rational discourse, let's consider a hypothetical quesition:Suppose Blizzard did the reverse, and decided "Wow, that gear is 'way too easy to earn for its capabilities. Let's increase the difficulty, but those that have already earned it can keep it."

    Would you, as a recipient of that gear before that change, think that you haven't earned it because all of the other people that want to get it now have a more difficult time? If one of those people said "Man, you had it too easy, I can't believe you got it so easily - that's not right.", would you agree, and remove it as a protest against Blizzard's unfairness?

    Regards,

    dj

  34. Re:I'm confused... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    There was already some low-level uproar about PLEX. It's the standard objection you see in all MMORPGs: Any system by which a person can use their real-world wealth to in-game advantage becomes unfair. With PLEX, the system was indirect and it's effectiveness was hindered, but even that was enough to upset some players. With the new system, there is no effort to hide what is going on: "Do you want to be able to win fights against other players? Pay us, we'll give you some super-ammo that should give you a decisive advantage. Unless they buy it too, of course. You'd better buy it, because they will."

  35. CPP is developing 4 games, EVE is their income by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No wonder they are trying to get more money out of it. As for real money letting you buy stuff, that has of course been possible already via PLEX. What's interesting and is probably the major motivation for this store is that it lets people use PLEX for something that doesn't renew someone's subscription. Without it PLEX are just early payments for subscriptions.

    The newsletter has been taken a little out of context though, it was basically just one employee's opinion in a newsletter that was specifically meant for controversial topics (the disclaimer apparently said so, but was removed in the initial leak). Next there's the leaked e-mail. I've heard people mention it was editted (actual lines inserted) but I'm not sure if that is actually the case, given that multiple people had already confirmed its authenticity.

    The real worry that players seem to have though, is that CCP has for days now not been willing to answer the simple question "Will MTs also be used for non-vanity items", that fact that they dodged that question even in their devblog has a lot of people worried that they did in fact plan to intoduce non-vanity items in the NeX.

    The raging is pretty hilarious by the way. I was in Jita on an alt and it was fun to see 328492384 lasers shooting at the monument, local chat going crazy and there actually being a livestream of the whole thing with EVE-Radio on. EVE really has a 'special' community :D

  36. Another one lost by Therilith · · Score: 1

    ...and there goes any excitement I had about renewing my sub once the expansion went live.
    I suppose with the PLEX (and that damn "strategy guide") people were already able to buy stuff in-game for real life money, but this is just so damn... blatant. I don't know what else to say about it.

    One by one I see games and series I love succumb to the lure of microtransactions and pay-to-win while I stand by telling myself that there will always be another game to take it's place.
    I suppose I should just stop being so damn melodramatic and just accept that the hobby I fell in love with years ago just isn't the same anymore.
    Maybe once I finish reveling in nostalgia I'll go read a book or something instead...

  37. Re:I'm confused... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The difference, as has been pointed out before, is that the PLEXes you can sell for ISK have to be bought by other players who, in turn, generated those ISK by playing.

    In other words, nothing is created or destroyed. It's only ISK changing hands, but neither coming from somewhere in the game nor going into some money sink.

    That's what many people don't see in the MMO economics, that there is a HUGE difference between player/player and player/NPC trade. When players trade with each other, it does not affect the general MMO economy, or rather, nothing gets created. Both players somehow have to have acquired the goods and moneys in some way beforehand, the money and the goods just change position, but both stay within the system and neither vanish nor get generated.

    In player/NPC trade (which the new system would constitute), either money is destroyed and some item gets generated (if the player buys something), or an item is destroyed while money gets generated (if he is selling). The NPC never "earned" the money he is spending, nor did he "produce" the goods he is selling. They get created the moment the player buys or sells something, out of nothing. This is actually what drives the inflation through the roof in most MMOs.

    Most MMOs inflation stems from the loop of "Mob spawns, player kills mob, player loots item from mob, player sells item to NPC". What happens here is that the moment the mob drops an item, the potential for money generation is happening. Or, let's make it easier, let's say the mob drops money. In this case, the moment the mob spawns, the potential for inflation is born. The moment it gets killed, money is pouring into the system. Nobody ever spent that money to have it end up on that mob the player killed. It's generation from nothing. Likewise, if the player goes and repairs his tools or buys ammunition or whatever, this removes money from the system. It's destruction into nothing.

    The inherent danger is that every time something gets created out of nothing, be it money or items, the threat of inflation lingers in the air. If I can get something for nothing (at least in-game nothing, since it's paid for with RL cash, which doesn't exist in the game), an item is created without in-game money changing hands.

    An example:

    P/P trade
    Player A has 3000 moneys. Player B has an item he wishes to sell for 1500. They trade, and after the trade they both have 1500 moneys, and player A has one item more, Player B has one item less. Game-wise, nothing changed. The item is still in the game and together they have 3000 moneys, just like it was before.

    P/NPC trade
    Player A has 3000 moneys. Player B has an item he wishes to sell for 1500. Player A buys that item, but not from Player B, but from the in-game store for 5 USD. What happened now is that they still have 3000 moneys together, just that they now BOTH have that item. The item also just lost value since Player B will have to find another customer and probably has to sell it cheaper, cheap enough that people will rather buy for in game moneys than for the 5 USD. Worse, Player A could dump the item into an NPC (if available) and get, say, 1000 moneys for it, which would mean that now 4000 moneys are between the two players, we just created money out of nothing.

    To spin the whole deal further, the economy of EvE depends highly on player/player trade, because many things of everyday use are player made. To make something, players will first of all have to mine ore, refine it, collect it to one place (no fed-ex mail system akin to other games in this one), build the components, assemble the components... All these people will now have to compete with the in-game RL money store. Hence prices will have to drop to the point where it becomes more interesting for someone to pay ISK instead of USD for their goods.

    PLEXes didn't have this kind of impact because all they did was to exchange game time for real money, both things that do not affect in game economy (whether someone pays for his game time with credit card or buys a PLEX for USD doesn't matter, does it?). Since every other trade past this was player/player (trading PLEX for ISK was a player/player only transaction), the in-game economy didn't suffer from it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  38. Re:Hmmm by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Confirming that you aren't able to grasp how the Eve economy works.

    Discuss the difference between a cash->PLEX->isk->items transaction and a cash->PLEX->Aurum->items transaction, with particular emphasis on the player economy. Extra credit: What happens if the system ends up being like the first deployment of the Ishukone Scorpion (originally planned to require a player-built Scorpion in trade, but changed to just ship-for-Aurum after it was "too hard" to implement)

    Also, discuss the impact of paying for faction standings on T2 production. Show your work.

  39. Re:Rant, Rave and blah blah blah blah.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Player/Player deals do not affect the game economy on a global scale, no money or items get generated or destroyed.

    You have a point with the other examples, though.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  40. Re:No..... Re:No by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    PLEX are only created for real money.

  41. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    If you mean RMT, sure, there's some, and they fight it when possible. There's some RMT in every MMO.

    If you mean PLEX, you've completely missed the point.

  42. People tried to destroy space stations.... by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 1

    You can only find virtual riots on EVE.... I will miss that game...

  43. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Okay, so you really seem to not understand where things come from in Eve.

    Basic lesson:
    Just like the food you eat doesn't magically appear in the grocery store, items in Eve are made by players, commonly referred to as "industrialists".
    The ship that you fly was built by another player, using minerals mined from asteroids or by reprocessing drops, and salvage gathered by yet another player, be it a new player salvaging where they can find ships or a mission runner salvaging in bulk. Depending on the tech level of the ship, there were also datacores from research agents, likely gained by yet another player who ground standings with a corporation to get access to those research agents, plus other salvage gained by other player corporations that operate in wormholes that they explored to find.
    The people flying and blowing up ships are only the tip of the wedge. Logistics wins wars, in RL and in Eve.

  44. Old Player Not Surprised by oakwine · · Score: 1

    Years ago, played EVE for about 7 months. Still get invites to activate my account for a few days and see all the great changes. Not likely. On the one hand like WoW, on the other hand like a spreadsheet. But overall like a million scam jobs all after you at once. EVE players were always up in arms about something.This sounds a bit more serious though. I think in the end micro transactions will mark the final decline of the MMO. Playing online with "friends" was once a novelty. Now it is more of a pain than anything else. Offline games have a lot more to offer me, I know that. Except for forums filled with outrage ... think I'll nip over and watch the lynch mobs.

  45. EVE players staging in-game protests by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course they're spamming chat, but they're doing more than that. They're currently bombarding a major trade station at Amarr VIII (Emperor Family Academy). It's at 0% armor and 0% structure, but still standing - the structure is invulnerable. In Jita, they're bombarding a statue near the major trade station at Jita IV - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant. It's kinda silly but the screenshots are impressive; so IMO is the thought that these guys are throwing billions of ISK in ships away in protest (as CONCORD takes them out one by one).

    1. Re:EVE players staging in-game protests by Exitar · · Score: 1

      And CCP should be scared by a bunch of nerdraging players or just laugh at them if they don't talk with their wallet?
      Especially since, as you wrote, they "are throwing billions of ISK in ships away in protest" and if they don't quit they may be forced to buy more PLEX to recover from their losses?

    2. Re:EVE players staging in-game protests by feedayeen · · Score: 2

      And CCP should be scared by a bunch of nerdraging players or just laugh at them if they don't talk with their wallet?
      Especially since, as you wrote, they "are throwing billions of ISK in ships away in protest" and if they don't quit they may be forced to buy more PLEX to recover from their losses?

      I think that the reasoning of this is along the lines of:

      Player: "I'll quit if you don't acknowledge the flaw in the direction you're heading"
      CCP: "You can't quit, you've spent years building your virtual empire"
      Player: "Fine, I've paid you till next month, I'll destroy my empire before I leave so I never have an incentive to come back"

      Given the types of ships involved in this protest, it works out that the amount of virtual currency being lost is on the order of a billion ISK a minute being destroyed. This is roughly the networth of 2 or 3 accounts in game. If these players leave permanently, that works out to a potential user base of 2000 or more being lost a day. Given that Eve has only a quarter million active players, this is a sizable chuck of their player base that is being removed. As for them voting with their wallets, that's $30,000 a month gone each day that this continues versus the roughly $5,000 that they've made since the week began from their new RMT system.

  46. Re:Hmmm by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Okay, you, as an ice miner that grinds for isk, are benefiting from one side of the trade.
    However, the isk that you spent to buy the PLEX doesn't vanish. It goes into another player's wallet. That player now spends it on ships and items built by the main driving force of Eve, the industrialists.

    When buying items directly for Aurum, the industrialists are removed from the equation. They then quit the game - (margins are already mighty tight for production) and CCP is forced to provide more ships directly for cash. At a certain point, you *are* forced to use the microtransactions, because the industrialists have left.
    Admittedly, as a player funding your playtime by ice mining, you'll likely quit then, thus further proving my point.

  47. Carebear Tears *mmmmmmm* by joelleo · · Score: 1

    I've been playing continuously since August of 2003. I earn enough doing very little to pay for 3 accounts with ISK and I have a ton of experience in the game - market manipulation, industrial stuff, sciency stuff, sov warfare, solo hunting, massive capital fleet warfare etc etc.

    My take on this is twofold:

    1) Carebear tears will become a LOT more succulent
    o/ --- this is Jim, a well-skilled player from 2005. Well, not REALLY. The real Jim sold the account on ebay to the new owner who has only played a trial account with a friend of his who has been in the game for about a year.

    Jim just bought a Nyx (supercarrier hull costs roughly 15 billion ISK) with real money from CCP's Noble Exchange. He's kitted it out with some officer mods, lots of deadspace stuff and has a clone with expensive Slave implants - His friend told him that this setup is ungankable - he's close to invulnerable - can't even be warpscrambled amirite? All save the hull were bought with ISK from selling PLEX in the game. In total lets say he's got 24 BILLION between the ship and mods - . Lets say he bought 84 PLEX at $1469.58US (3 packs of 28 PLEX for $489.86 each pack) plus lets say conservatively (based on the Monacle price) $1000 for the hull. $2469.58 US Dollars for Jim's shiny supertoy.

    Wanting to try out his new supertoy, Jim goes hunting belt rats in a .4 system. He kills a few cruiser rats, some battlecruiser rats and lots of frigate rats, all of whom die to his unending fleets of tech 2 drones. A few people pass through the system and time passes with the wrecks of the rats piling up.

    o7 --- this is me. I pass through his system and check the directional scanner. I see a Nyx on scan with no POS. Only wrecks are bog-standard belt rats, not the deadspace variants, so he's not in an anomaly or mission. I zip through the belts in my Broadsword and quickly locate him. Landing within the range of my infinite point, I immediately engage, set my orbit and yell on teamspeak about the Nyx I just tackled.

    Jim doesn't really know whats happening so he tries to warp away - the Nyx is invulnerable to warp jamming right? Not for the heavy interdictor's infinite point. He goes nowhere. Thinking he can quickly dispatch me he launches a bunch of fighter bombers. The fighter bombers impotently orbit my broadsword, missing each shot because my ship is so small - the fbs can't hit it and when they DO hit they do very little damage. I pop my cyno.

    The system quickly fills with bad men in big ships. Jim's Nyx dies in about a minute and a half. Being the hero tackler I get a bunch of expensive mods for my trouble and go home a richer man.

    Imagine how Jim feels. Oh, the sweet, sweet tears of the Carebear.

    2) Shipbuilders just got screwed
    o7 -- me again, this time on an industrial alt. I've spent a year in this alliance building my trust in them and theirs in me. Months of effort has gotten me a system with sov 5 and I've put up a well protected large pos. Weeks have passed while my Nyx was just a baby in the CSAA

    I finally completed my first Nyx build in my system. This has rolled out and is now in a travel fit, but noone is buying. All my time and effort were wasted by CCP, who just *poof*ed a Nyx for Jim, as detailed above. My tears are not so succulent to my taste :(

    --
    "In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way." - tnk1
  48. CCP stated they only care about player actions by Wizardling · · Score: 1

    CCP have stated they only care about player actions, and could care less about what we have to say or feel. That leaves only one possible response on my part - unsubscribe and protest hard as my remaining time counts down. I'll then be taking a holiday from Eve lasting six months or so to play other games. Then I'll check back on Eve, and if I see what I expect, I'll never ever return. The hell with you CCP! I won't stick around as you destroy the sandbox and shit all over your customers!

    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
  49. Not so much about expensive MT any more by Jupix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The rage has continued for a few days now and it's no longer just about the unbelievable initial MT lineup that they put in. The focus has shifted almost completely to how CCP seems unable to handle the PR disaster, and how there appears to be a force as of yet unknown at the higher levels of the company that puts emphasis on maximizing revenue and screwing the playerbase over in the process. The senior producer is widely acknowledged as a nice guy and having a similar mindset to veteran players, but the devblog he posted reeks of committee writing and of the CEO in particular, according to some CSM members. This kind of strange behavior and obvious businesstype meddling, in addition to widely known inhouse problems like a serious lack of professionalism and poor quality of workmanship, has the players worried that CCP as a company is turning into a catastrophic trainwreck and the future and wellbeing of their beloved hobby is in danger.

  50. Re:Rant, Rave and blah blah blah blah.... by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

    Try blueprints for example. The avatar blueprint costs 67.5 billion (with a B) isk. That's about $169 and it goes directly to an NPC. Where's the outrage for that? Is that not high enough?

    Add a 0 to the end of your $169 figure and you'll be closer to the truth

  51. Next Microtransactions by Seumas · · Score: 1

    It's just a matter of time before they straight out sell skill points or a boost to skill point training speed.

    As for the rage over this. Most people may not quite understand the culture of EVE. Though it has extremes in all directions, it has always been a great exception to every other MMO out there. Hell, even every other developer out there. If ever there was a company and an MMO with ambition, dedication, and respect for players, it was EVE. Regardless of what the reality of their changes are or will be, it is very easy to see how any changes toward the dark side can be perceived as a very real and very upsetting backstab. Especially for people who have spent many of the last eight years of EVE playing it, building corporations, building alliances, building communities. Like they began saying awhile ago "EVE IS REAL". And so are the feelings of betrayal and frustration.

  52. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    It is not possible for a PLEX to exist in the game without a player plunking down ~$15.

    Wrong. CCP can make all the PLEX it wants out of thin air, offer it for sale, and flood the market. And CCP can buy all the PLEX it wants and take it off the market with its magical ISK printing press. That's the fun of being a "Central Bank". One of the points of PLEX is providing a way to fiddle with the "money supply" without engaging in direct ISK transactions. Think of PLEX as a sort of Treasury Note, except it doesn't pay interest.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  53. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Yes, and the moment something is better in a PvP game, it will become the standard.

  54. Re:Not News for Nerds nor Stuff That Matters by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    In fact, it's pretty much a canonical example of "News for Nerds".
    "Stuff That Matters" is debatable, of course.

  55. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Yes, CCP could do that, at the cost of exactly this kind of uproar.

    You may have noticed that the economist's reports have been fact-checked by the players each time they come out, often with a deeper understanding than those that have database access have?

    How long did it take the players to figure out that technetium was going to be the bottleneck, and start strategic moves for tech moons?

  56. THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 4, Informative

    The rage stems from the fact that CCP, which has historically been one of the most open and honest game developers on the planet, has been caught in what looks like a boldfaced lie. It started with the Aurum store opening with Incarna's release, then the last volume of Fearless, their internal newsletter, was leaked, then they did a crappy job at putting out that fire by making an empty apology and then making a long-awaited announcement that essentially told the playerbase nothing, and then Hilmar's email surfaced and we have yet to hear anything. CCP has stated that the Aurum store will be kept to vanity items only, but these leaked documents seem to directly contradict that. CCP has told us that Fearless was looking at the argument from an exaggerated point of view and didn't detail any actual specific plans, but they have yet since its leak actually definitively stated that the Aurum store will be kept to vanity items only.

    There are three general models for reasonably-profitable MMO's out there: pay-to-play, pay-to-win, and pay-to-accessorize. Pay-to-play (P2P) means the players must explicitly give money to the game developer every month in order to maintain active account status, and is employed by most successful MMO's including World of Warcraft and EVE. Pay-to-win (P2W) means the players have the option to give the game developer extra money in exchange for in-game items that offer an advantage over other players, or at the very least they cause it to be a fast track to the same items that everybody can gain by playing the game themselves, and is employed by most free-to-play games such as Battlefield Heroes and APB. Pay-to-accessorize (P2A) means the players have the option to give the game developer extra money in exchange for in-game accessories and vanity items that don't actually offer an advantage in gameplay.

    Free-to-play (F2P) usually comes about when a game does not have the appeal or simply isn't good enough to sustain enough monthly subscriptions to be profitable. APB was a good example of that. Their developer went out of business and the game was sold to a company that owns and maintains several F2P online games, and it is now sustained by a P2W model. Team Fortress 2, on the other hand, has been wildly successful in the P2P market. So successful, in fact, that it had probably tapped out the market and sales were dwindling because everybody owned it already, and it was a one-time purchase with no monthly fees. It has been converted to F2P and follows the P2A model with a microtransaction store that sells hats and other crap like that, and now Valve is making ridiculous amounts of money off it again.

    The F2P model works for many games as there's not much difference between playing the game to earn items or paying real money to gain them more quickly. Don't write me off as some stupid fanboy when I say this, but EVE is different. Half of what makes EVE such an intriguing game is the market which is almost entirely player-driven. Every item you buy on the market -- be it a ship, a gun, ammunition, drones, whatever -- was built by a player from blueprints that were obtained by a player and minerals that were refined by a player from ore that was mined by a player. And that's not including the countless possibilities for traders to make money at every point along the way as they play the market and buy and sell these things before they actually become a final product, and even after. It's also not including the fact that most mining and production is done by groups of people with their own specializations that all help work towards the final product: miners mine in groups and drop their ore to a pilot in an industrial ship who transports it to a station and transfers it to a person with maxed refinery skills who then refines it and transfers them to people with good production skill who own copies of a blueprint owned by somebody with good blueprint research skills who then transfer the finally-finished product back to the industrial pilots to transfer them to a market where

    1. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      Excellent writeup. Worth the read. Let's hope CCP is reading.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    2. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pretty much exactly this, though I'd not have said it quite so exhaustively in one post.

      Additional bits:
      CCP has claimed that the Ishukone Scorpion (the first of the for-pay ships) is identical to the standard player-built Scorpion, and will require a player-built Scorpion as part of the exchange.
      That really wouldn't be such a big deal in itself. It's a pretty ship. I might even buy something similar, though I don't fly Caldari.

      However, what CCP actually have implemented, because the exchange of ship+AUR for custom ship was "too hard", is: Player pays AUR (real money) for a custom ship, no player economy interaction required. That's economy-breaking, and the industrialists are the real core of Eve.

      CCP also has something of a long track record of leaving features half-completed and chasing off after others. There's little expectation that the ship store will actually be retrofitted to do what they claimed it would in the first place, and even less after the revelation of CCP's lies by the Fearless newsletter and leak of the CEO's "ignore what the players say, we've sold 52 monocles" email.

      There are also a number of another annoyances, of which the prices of the store items are a minor one. There are a number of bugs, and some pretty serious performance hits. The character creator is now required for login, which further annoys the spaceships-only crowd. The virtual "Captains Quarters" causes problems with multi-client usage and even some single-client use, and disabling it leaves a still picture of the door to the quarters behind, not-so-subtly suggesting "here's the door" to those already disgruntled.

      As The Mittani said, this is something of a perfect storm, where everyone has something to be angry about about these changes.

    3. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      CCP has claimed that the Ishukone Scorpion (the first of the for-pay ships) is identical to the standard player-built Scorpion, and will require a player-built Scorpion as part of the exchange.

      Care to link that? That is something I could accept... essentially buying a fancy paint job for your ship. But it must be identical stat-wise and must require an existing Scorpion.

    4. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by Dainsanefh · · Score: 2

      Waiting for a P2P (peer-2-peer) MMO then all that is irrelevant. There is no need for purchase because there will be free hax.

      --
      Twitter: @dainsanefh
    5. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      That claim was by Zinfandel on the ATIX stream.

      However, they're not delivering that. They're delivering "pay Aurum, receive Ishukone Scorpion".

    6. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      That claim was by Zinfandel on the ATIX stream.

      However, they're not delivering that. They're delivering "pay Aurum, receive Ishukone Scorpion".

      That's not ACTUALLY available yet, is it? I heard they were discussing it with the CSM as being a possibility but everybody was all "no fuck you that's stupid" and they decided to at least postpone it. So for now, it's just vanity items... unless I'm missing something.

    7. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      It's not available yet, but as far as I understand, the discussion with the CSM ended with "that's stupid, but I suppose if it's just for a little bit because you aren't ready yet everything won't melt down". The feedback from the CSM members seems to be that most of their issues raised were either ignored, their questions weren't even answered, or they were heavily pushed to take other positions.

      According to TeaDaze, Hilmar even flew the CSM back to Iceland, wined and dined them, then tried to get them to support selling remaps for PLEX.

    8. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by rainmouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      (F2P) usually comes about when a game does not have the appeal or simply isn't good enough to sustain enough monthly subscriptions to be profitable.

      Great post but I feel the need to correct you on this issue about free to play game models. Huge numbers free to play games from the start, for example RuneScape, love it or hate it, has always been a free game where you can subscribe on a month by month basis to unlock extra content and is funded by ads, has almost double the player base of Eve and earns considerably more cash, yes it's not an ideal measurement of success but the game works for the target audience who are typically cash strapped kids and young teenagers. The success of this and similar titles is whats driving business execs to push most MMO's in this direction (though RS has no micro transactions).

      The problem with Eve switching to this model is the player demographics are completely different and contain typically the oldest playerbase of any other MMO, perhaps due to the games mature content, slow play style and extreme difficulty but its certainly not a cash strapped community.

    9. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      There is a fourth model, buy the game and ISP's run free server's for their customers. The cost of the server is abated by keeping all traffic on network and thus reducing network traffic costs. Also those servers provide an effective marketing to draw additional customers.

      When it comes to competitive MMOG what gamers dislike is the winner is not who plays the best but who spends the most and of course admin's with bottomless accounts who hope to scam players into spending by wiping them out (have to pay to catch up).

      This is of course what kills most free web games, why make the effort when you know you are going to lose unless you spend money ie. you are just there as a target dummy to make the big spenders feel good when their credit card defeats you.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Free-to-play (F2P) usually comes about when a game does not have the appeal or simply isn't good enough to sustain enough monthly subscriptions to be profitable.

      Sometimes but not always. Free Realms was F2P from the beginning and arguably the likes of Guild Wars are crude F2P games too (i.e. buy expansions for content but free once you do). There is probably a ton of Korean games in the same ilk.

      Anyway my experience of LOTRO is that F2P has completely reinvigorated the game (and apparently tripled profits) so it's not always bad for the game or players. The dynamics definitely do change in F2P since the aim is to keep people progressing so you can't make the grind too bad or people are grinding when they should be buying. That too should be seen as a good thing.

      I realise if you play an MMO enough to justify a sub then F2P looks pointless, however if you're casual then F2P is definitely the way to go. Play 1 hour a week if you want it doesn't matter. Go on holiday it doesn't matter. It's not like you're wasting money (unless you bought some time limited perk) so you can set your own pace. But LOTRO does offer a monthly sub "VIP" version albeit over the top of the F2P game, so if you want to pay a fixed amount you can.

    11. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      I would consider RuneScape to be, for all intents and purposes, a pay-to-play game. It follows a different tactic, but to open up most of the world you have to pay a subscription. It's like the 14-day trials that most pay-to-play games have except that you're significantly limited by play area rather than time. I can't imagine the money they make from ads even compares to what they make from subscriptions.

    12. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      I would consider RuneScape to be, for all intents and purposes, a pay-to-play game. It follows a different tactic, but to open up most of the world you have to pay a subscription. It's like the 14-day trials that most pay-to-play games have except that you're significantly limited by play area rather than time. I can't imagine the money they make from ads even compares to what they make from subscriptions.

      It's rather different from most of pay to play games as most users are on the free to play model and occasionally use their mobile phones or buy in store credit every now and again as opposed to regular monthly fee's. With 5 million users in a 4 week period of which 4 million are free to play, I imagine that's actually a reasonable advertisement revenue considering heavy forum usage as well as in-game ads.

    13. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by Artemis3 · · Score: 2

      No, not everything is made by other players. Don't forget:
      1) The pre-seeded stuff (with fixed prices).
      2) Item dropped by NPCs (including the most expensive ones).

      f2p could work with Eve. Certain things could be unlocked with single payments, including skills, and regions, not just items. Of course monthly payers have access to all already. Purchasing things should also be doable with game money, but the farming required would take lots of real time.

      A new f2p player could, for example be only allowed to roam the high secs of its starting race, needing to unlock both the other regions and lower secs, and the better skills and better ship items (and the ships themselves).

      The idea behind this is providing a constant flow of player base, don't forget older games like Eve need this to remain relevant. It also allows for casual gaming, with monthly subscriptions it feels more an obligation, and you know this game is horribly time consuming.

      I know its possible to purchase game time with game money, perhaps that should also remain, but you know that also is time limited and constrained, and forces you to farm or be kicked.

      I in fact would go back if this model gets adopted. So in the end they have more to gain than to lose. People have had much worse things to complain in this game before anyway (metagaming drama comes to mind).

      --
      Artix
      Your Linux, your init.
    14. Re:THE RAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT MICROTRANSACTIONS by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2

      No, not everything is made by other players. Don't forget: 1) The pre-seeded stuff (with fixed prices). 2) Item dropped by NPCs (including the most expensive ones).

      Pre-seeded stuff is skillbooks and low-level BPOs, which act as an ISK sink to counter the many ISK faucets that exist in the game. I forgot about item drops, but even still they contribute to the economy because they must be bought from other players who, in order to obtain such things, had to purchase ships, modules, and ammunition created by other players.

  57. the players are all talk (again) by Ryunosuke · · Score: 1

    D20, etc? Reember all the t3 stuff going on behind the scenes? Cheating by devs? etc a few years ago? People we soo angrrrry and then got over it. They all said they'd quit and didn't. Same thing. 2 or 3 people will quit, and everyone will continue to play on and forget. Eq2 players did it, WOW players did it. In fact the only time players actually manned up and quit was the NGE in Galaxies. in a month, no one will be talking about EVA again until the next crisis that won't really do anything.

    1. Re:the players are all talk (again) by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      I really don't think so this time. There is a thread on the eve forums where everyone is posting their cancel subscriptions. I cancelled both of my accounts. While they don't actually expire for another few months, unless the major questions are answered, that will be it for me an EVE.

      To recap for those that don't know, the major questions are as follows:

      1) Will there be microtransactions for in-game items or services which affect actual game play or offer advantages (basically anything but cosmetic changes)?

      1a) If so, how are you going to keep the market in check when you have 2 main currency items which will have different trade rates depending on how you purchase (i.e. currently people can buy a (G)ame (T)ime (C)ard (GTC) and convert that into a (P)ilot's (L)icense (Ex)tension (PLEX) which can be traded sold or traded to other characters on the market. This current trade is well established with supply/demand with the going game price of a PLEX fluctuating between 300-400million. Now if you add microtransations, which are based on a new currency based on PLEX (1 PLEX = 2500 AUR), are you going to fluctuate the AUR price of items as the in game market conversion rate on PLEX to ISK and the current market prices (ISK to item) change on a minute-by-minute basis?

      Basically what everyone is protesting is the how this will break EVE's market system as you can not have 2 conversion rates for the same item, with CCP setting hard rates on an item via their store, how can in-game players compete with that market when CCP can simply change a number in a database and suddenly have 1 million of the item? The market is the driving force of the game, and by manipulating it like this, they will destroy every segment of the market by either pricing the items out of the range that in-game players can compete with (i.e. you have to pay the miners who mine the ores, the security forces who keep the miners safe, the haulers who move the ore to processing stations, the protection details on the haulers, the people who refine the ore to minerals, the researchers who research the blueprints/purchase blueprints for the items, the manufacturers who provide the manufacturing lines to produce the items, the haulers who move the items from the manufacturers to the trade hubs, the protection details who fly security for the haulers, and finally the traders who put and manage the items on the market.... That is a lot of effort that occurs in the game right now to make anything from ammo, to ships, to space stations. And the prices in the market fluctuate depending on how much effort was needed, how efficiently they could make the item, the raw material costs/value, etc.. Anything that circumvents that process, will cause the market prices to change possibly to the point that in-game players can not compete against the store, which means they need to figure out something else to do to make money in the game, and their possible 2-3 years of investment in skills required to do what they were currently doing was completely wasted and pointless. And in EVE, the skills are the investment. You can't simply remap your existing trained skill points to switch from being a miner to a combat pilot, or a researcher to an explorer, or a hauler to a manufacturer. It takes years in some cases to learn the skills required for a particular job (last check it was 177 days just to fly a titan, but that is without any equipment, approximately 3 years to fly and fit it properly).

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    2. Re:the players are all talk (again) by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the flaw in virtual skinner boxes.

      It's a real eye opener when the game you've been pouring time into for virtual stuff disappears one day.

      You realize that it's all nothing, that the items you've spent time and effort creating, "CCP can simply change a number in a database and suddenly have 1 million of the item"

      Casual gamers won't care. But EVE online isn't a casual game. You can't just hop in your spaceship and advance, you have to put some serious effort into it.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  58. Betting the farm .. by Linux-Fiend · · Score: 1

    CCP currently has over six hundred employees spread across three international offices who are developing three videos games. They made commitments to strategic partners. That all amounts to many deep promises to keep. The subscriptions from EVE Online pays for the development of all three games.

    Incarna was designed to introduce the EVE to a new generation of potential EVE players. A bold new universe that would appeal to gamer whom want to see their character avatars and apparently would put real dollars to purchase pixel apparel for the prices that are greater than the tangible goods located in the in online merchandise shop. CCP upper management sought the professional opinions of game industry consultants outside of the player community and company.

    So with the advice of such esteemed outsiders it seems that pixel Monocles for $68 dollars would sell and it understandable that the playerbase emo rages and mass cancel subscriptions now. Let them blew off some steam. No need to communicate. Eventually everyone will drink the cool aid and buy the designer pants that CCP owns on their servers

    Betting the farms on pixel Monocles and pants like this ...
    It's just crazy.

    --
    -Fiend-
  59. Vendetta Online is good and w/ Linux client by TwineLogic · · Score: 1

    http://www.vendetta-online.com/

    I like the game world. There are surprising twists that are not obvious during the demo, including mission trees opened to you based on your in-game behavior. The game is developed by a four-person team who have made this their full-time gig. Cost is $10/month, after the free demo.

  60. Not a bargain by cvtan · · Score: 2

    Personally, I wouldn't pay more than $50 for an imaginary monocle.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  61. This has happened before and it's happening again by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Even if they lose half their players, if they remaining half are spending 4x the money on the game it's a net win for the company. Just ask SOE. They can keep a game running with 100 subscribers left if those subscribers are willing to pay enough.

  62. CCP should sell EVE by no1nose · · Score: 1

    They are essentially using EVE to fund their other projects. I have unchecked "load station environment" and will not participate in the $68 "micro" transactions. I came to space to fly my Internet Spaceship, show off my epeen and blow shit up. Not ambulate my fat ass off and wear fancy clothes. I am a POD pilot in EVE. I do not plan on ever leaving my pod.

  63. That does it! by CyberDong · · Score: 2

    I'm quitting Eve. The first one who gives me 1 Tritanium can have all my stuff. I've set up a contract in-game -- search for "Tritanium".

  64. Re:Agreed by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

    The special mounts are cosmetic. There is nothing about them that you couldn't get with an in-game mount.

  65. Some people still don't seem to understand... by Ogre332 · · Score: 1

    I don't hate the Captains Quarters per say, but this expansion has brought nothing new to the game that I couldn't have lived without and the developers continue to ignore flaws and bugs that the community has repeatedly requested be addressed. CCP's apparent intent to start selling standings and skill points for real money micro-transactions will, in my opinion, completely nullify the time and effort that older players have spent playing Eve. For me, it has taken me roughly four years of playing to get my character to his current capabilities. If they continue with their apparent plan of action, CCP will put into place a way for new players to surpass my skills when they create their account simply by paying a few bucks more. In my opinion, that's unacceptable.

    As a result, I canceled the automatic renewal on both of my accounts last evening. I also have enough ISK to buy roughly three to four PLEX cards at current prices, so I could potentially extend my playtime out with that, if I so desire. If CCP decide to make changes that I feel address my concerns, I will be more than willing to re-subscribe. I don't want anyone's head on a platter or to crush the company into the ground. I've just decided they are going in a direction I don't like. I've sent them messages with the account cancelations explaining my position. They are a business first and foremost, and thus have always had the intention of turning a profit and I don't hold that against them. That being said, I don't think alienating a portion of your older and more established customer base in an effort to increase profit margins is a sound business plan.

    --
    Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
  66. Re:But... by Hieronymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    Did you read any of the rest of the discussions here, or just drop in to post in a hurry?

    You can either read the several other discussions here where it's been explained to people that said that how there was a missing part to their understanding, or you can read the thread on the forums where that's very clearly explained.

    The quick tl;dr: What the player buys with real world money is an in-game item called a PLEX, which is then put on the player market, so that other players can buy it with in-game currency. That in-game item is then used by the purchaser to extend their game time, thus removing it from circulation.
    The buyer gets isk, the seller gets game time, and the market stays stable. Items purchased by the PLEX-seller are items that were produced by players, and that isk goes to those players - standard economics.

  67. Micro-Transactions are maybe a necessary evil by rainmouse · · Score: 1

    Problem is you can pay for anything in eve with real money anyway. The difference is that you buy it from game farming companies in China who typically blitz games with 'bot's, employ child labour exploitation or even slavery and are often money laundering fronts for much much worse organisations. If you can buy pretty much anything illegitimately then what's wrong with at least getting it from a clean source and help fund further in-game development?

    1. Re:Micro-Transactions are maybe a necessary evil by YanIsa · · Score: 1

      You can buy 'everything' with legit RL money already using the PLEX mechanism.

      The problem is that CCP, EVE's creators, are unwilling to specify the length they want to go with microtransactions. A year ago their stance was "no gameplay changing MTs!" - now they reneged on that.

      At the moment, even the "your target has paid 10$ to regenerate his shields; do you want to pay 20$ for a special gun effect to remove his shields?" stupidities are not off the table.

      --
      I think this line's only filler
  68. This is the future of online gaming by dexotaku · · Score: 1

    Sidebar: check out any MMO type stuff that EA have their hands in. Anything most of the larger publishers put out is much like this.

    Here's an example using Black Box / EA Canada's "Need For Speed: World" ...

    They inflict largely unfinished software on users who then pay for the privilege of eternal beta testing, but ignore their community almost completely. The game's producers are no better than corporate shills, and the development team[s] operate in a total vacuum with no communication with their player base [and this is in fact their corporate policy].

    They enforce a level cap to enable "demo" play to get users hooked, then they require real money continue playing.

    They then rename the game to "free2play" but keep premium items which can place a brand-new player at the highest level of competition available only for cold, hard cash. Users who paid to get in before this receive no dispensation or thanks for funding the game's introduction [a.k.a. elsewhere in the universe as apha testing].

    They create an in-game currency but then render it useless by making big-ticket items unavailable by that means, going so far as to remove the "free" [in-game cash] items and replace them with real-money only ones. They also insult users' intelligence by providing an "inventory" for performance items, but make the inventory one-way: you can't put things back once they're taken out, so performance items [the good ones of which are exceedingly rare unless you dump hundreds to thousands of dollars of real money in] are all single-use, unless you decide to "sell" them for even more insulting amounts of useless in-game currency.

    There is no in-game economy; there is no trading between users; there isn't even trading for a user with themself.

    While all this is going on, they set their real-cash prices at ridiculous levels [which are ridiculous but not as bad as EVE here], and make the most necessary or desireable items available only by a system of gambling that encourages "hardcore" users to pour up to a few thousand dollars into a game that's not really entered let alone left beta yet, so they can remain competitive with other paying users.

    Performance affecting items have a next-to non-existent drop rate to all payers, paying or not. Free players can't compete beyond the lower levels [which are saturated with continual turnover of brand new players who all ragequit by level 20], and high-level paid players [paid or not] are frustrated by the lack of competition and the frequent saturation of the game by blatant cheaters.

    Real cash items are one-upped every few weeks or a month by a new for-pay item that blows everything else out of the water, ruining all competition completely, over and over again, for all users.

    Meanwhile fundamentally game-breaking bugs and missing basic features [and I mean really basic, like programmable controls or actual graphics options, which all PC games should have, period] are completely ignored by the producers and development team who instead focus on things like adding more useless items that have no more than cosmetic value since they can't be used for actual gaming competition by users.


    This is the future of online gaming, nay, gaming in general, where publishers completely miss the point of things like respecting their community, where the "micro" in "microtransaction" leads to games costing users an order of magnitude or several greater [I know of people who have spent >$2,000 USD on NFSW] than an off-the-shelf single player franchise title that itself would cost several orders of magnitude greater to produce than the online game.

    The publisher puts less effort in, less money in, shafts their userbase, then makes a crapload more money off it than a traditional title would likely make.

    There are few industries other than gaming where customers and fans are so often willing to be bent over to take it up the proverbial backside whil

  69. Re:Selling game changing items vs Selling bragging by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

    Gametime they can use to build up mutiple accounts, because in EvE multi-accounts are legal. Mutiple accounts mean more isk, which means more power in game.
    You can also use them to straightout buy powerful characters.
    So yes you are buying in game power with PLEX.
    Always has been that way, nothing changing here.

  70. Candid CCP response: Bitches be trippin by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Where else you think you get you fix? Why you gots to run you mouths off? Don't you know what happen to a ho who get uppity?

    Y'all remember Busta McCrabbe, and how he got they fancy airs and graces cause he be a "Admiral"? He only be a Admiral cause I say he a Admiral! You know what bein' an Admiral mean? It mean he slap the rest of you bitches around so I don't have to get off this fine mink covered recliner and do it my own self.

    Where he now? Where he at, after he say he want "more respect"? He an ensign now, giving the Vulcan Sex Grip to bumpy-heads over in the Ballsack Nebula.

    You hos want that? You want I cut you off? You think you got a fleet at you back, you think you got friends? I own that fleet! I own those friends! You think you can get by on Gratuitous Space Battles by your own self? You think that keep the shakes away? They ain't even got no backstory!

    Now, why you want to get me riled up like this? Why you have to get me so angry? You know I just wants to takes care of you. You know I loves all my stable, you know I good to you. Just you settle down, pay me what's mine, and I gets you a fine new blouse, purple rayon, nothing but the best for my hos. But you gots to earn it. You gots to earn it.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  71. THE RAGE IS MISPLACED by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 2

    In this case the rage is misplaced. It fails to take into account something we generally call implementation. Let's say I want to buy a Kinetic Armour Hardener. I go to the market and find the cheapest item. I right click the item and select "buy". I enter the number I want to buy and then get to choose between "buy with ISK" and "buy with credit card". If I do the latter, the database gives me the item from the market, credits the producer/seller with ISK and also credits CCP's bank account with real $. The only thing that didn't happen here is a deduction of ISK from the purchasers in-game bank balance.

    So tell me what's the difference between doing that and my buying a PLEX, selling it on the market and then buying the item with the ISK? There is no difference whatsoever. The market hasn't been circumvented at all. Producers still profit from producing. The buyer still gets his item. CCP probably don't make a whole lot of extra $, because they're already making that from PLEX.

    In conclusion I think this is just a huge fuss based on some erroneous assumptions about what CCP are actually going to do.

    1. Re:THE RAGE IS MISPLACED by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      While you are doing essentially the same thing as buying a plex for cash and selling it for credits, both have one major flaw:

      Inflation. Both cause runaway inflation since there is no other way to take money out of the economy.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:THE RAGE IS MISPLACED by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      I enter the number I want to buy and then get to choose between "buy with ISK" and "buy with credit card". If I do the latter, the database gives me the item from the market, credits the producer/seller with ISK and also credits CCP's bank account with real $.

      So you're saying it's a good idea to create ISK out of nowhere when somebody wants to buy something? Are you fucking insane? That's even worse than just creating the item and circumventing the market, because at least that won't cause rapid inflation. Go take an economics class and come back so we can discuss this with some sanity.

    3. Re:THE RAGE IS MISPLACED by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2

      While you are doing essentially the same thing as buying a plex for cash and selling it for credits, both have one major flaw:

      Inflation. Both cause runaway inflation since there is no other way to take money out of the economy.

      Wrong. PLEX don't cause inflation because they don't create more money. When you buy a PLEX and then sell it on the market, the person who buys it from you already has the money that they're giving you for it. That amount of money is transferred to you and you're able to use it as you wish.

    4. Re:THE RAGE IS MISPLACED by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      CCP create ISK out of nothing all the time. It happens whenever you mine an asteroid or farm an NPC. I don't see what the problem is.

    5. Re:THE RAGE IS MISPLACED by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2

      Asteroids create ore which need to be traded for existing ISK. They do not contribute to inflation. Bounties and mission rewards are balanced by ISK sinks including NPC market orders, insurance, sales taxes, and null-sec sovereignty costs, and that balance is quite delicate. A primary reason for the necessity of Dominion's changes to the way sovereignty works is because the faucet:sink ratio was thrown out of balance by an increase in players without an increase in sinks. Now null-sec sinks tens of billions out of the economy daily, and prices really haven't changed much in the last year and a half.

  72. Nothing is actually changing, people are stupid by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    So lets go over how you can buy items in game currently.

    You gain ISK, which are the in game currency doing missions or what have you as you would expect. You think use that ISK to purchase all other items that can be purchased.

    OR

    If you choose to do so, you can buy a PLEX, which is a certificate for 30 days of game time basically. You can legally bring that into the game and sell it on the open market for in game ISK, this isn't new. Its probably about a year old, but its not something people aren't used to at this point.

    So ... what people are complaining about ... they are just too stupid to realize is already a legitimate part of the game. Its already trivial to buy game items for real world cash. I suck at the game, but like dicking around in it so thats how I get my stuff, then of course being a bad player I promptly get ganked by some griefer and lose it all if I don't get out fast enough.

    EVE is about strategy, just having superior equipment doesn't give you even a little advantage against other players. Might help you beat down an NPC, but in my experience, EVE gives so many ways to fight that there is simply no way you can buy yourself into being protected from a better player.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Nothing is actually changing, people are stupid by Golden_Rider · · Score: 1

      So lets go over how you can buy items in game currently.

      You gain ISK, which are the in game currency doing missions or what have you as you would expect. You think use that ISK to purchase all other items that can be purchased.

      OR

      If you choose to do so, you can buy a PLEX, which is a certificate for 30 days of game time basically. You can legally bring that into the game and sell it on the open market for in game ISK, this isn't new. Its probably about a year old, but its not something people aren't used to at this point.

      So ... what people are complaining about ... they are just too stupid to realize is already a legitimate part of the game. Its already trivial to buy game items for real world cash. I suck at the game, but like dicking around in it so thats how I get my stuff, then of course being a bad player I promptly get ganked by some griefer and lose it all if I don't get out fast enough.

      EVE is about strategy, just having superior equipment doesn't give you even a little advantage against other players. Might help you beat down an NPC, but in my experience, EVE gives so many ways to fight that there is simply no way you can buy yourself into being protected from a better player.

      I think the difference is that if you get in-game currency via paying rl money, you can just buy in-game items which other players produced. That is, you go buy that new spaceship, but it is a spaceship built by a player. That other player then has your in-game currency and can go on buying other stuff from other player with the money he earned via his own work. Whereas if you go spend $500 on the new spaceship advertised on the website, that spaceship just poofs into existence from nowhere, and the rl money price on the website also determines the price for all the other spaceships of that type offered in game by other players. So it could be that other players who up to now earned in-game money by selling stuff suddenly have competition (from the game company itself) which can "produce" at a lower cost than they can, and there is also no way anymore of playing the market (if you're the only player who can offer product X, you can set the price - but if there always is competition from the game company, which always sells at the same price, that's not possible anymore).

  73. Eve Pay for Play & Inflation by eudaemon · · Score: 2

    Eve's economy is an interesting beast. They are one of the few companies who employ a full time PhD economist. In fact he publishes a quarterly report much like any publicly traded company does. CCP benefits from the sale of Pilot's License Extension (PLEX) using real-world cash, which are traded for in-game items. These items are sold for in-game currency and eventually exchanged with CCP for a 1 month game play extension. In other words CCP has been in the Real Money Trade (RMT) business for years. And a large part of the EVE universe make enough in-game currency each month (ISK) in order to play for "free", barring the cost of their time. Since the inception of Eve there's been a set hierarchy - the folks who have been playing the longest have the greatest advantage because item use is directly related to Skill Points (SP) invested and player skill. Obviously nobody can purchase skill, but neither could anyone purchase SP to gain an advantage, or more importantly to close the advantage gap with older players. RMT for better ships or SP would change all that. Because the sale of characters is allowed there is a secondary market and many players depend on "baking" a kind of character for many months and selling it for in-game currency as well. RMT for SP would also impact this market. Just as the "old guard" have no interest in CCP allowing the re-release of unique and limited supply items, neither do they wish for the introduction of any other mechanisms that could close economic or skill gaps. This is one of the reasons Goonswarm was so very reviled with their entry into the EVE universe - they tried to play nice and were ignored or mocked by older players, so the Goons invented tactics to counter the older player's play style, resulting in a huge upset in the balance of power and required game play. This is more of the same and although the source is CCP, the reaction is the same. Nobody wants change as long as they have an advantage over everyone else.

  74. MT are a risky move, but probably worth it. by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    Tweaking the supply of high-demand in-game items attacks gold farmers directly *and* adds another revenue stream to the game. Why shouldn't the owner of an MMO take steps to reduce the siphoning of profits from their IP by gold farmers and simultaneoulsy exploit it themselves as a revenue source? It will no doubt alter the game in unfavorable directions for some fraction of their subscribers, and some fraction of these subscribers will be lost, but I'm certain that the addictive nature of the game will limit those kinds of losses. End result is more revenue from their IP, and reduced dissipation of potential profit by gold farmers, at the cost of some fraction of their subscriber base.

  75. It's not really ONLY about those profits... by tibike77 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's much more complicated than this, and right now a lot of players are too enrage over the poor implementation to see the big picture.
    If you're easily bored by explanations, jump right to the last paragraph, if not, read the rest too.

    A bit of a background is needed here to properly understand what's going on.
    I won't bore you with much detail (as incredible as this sounds, this below is the short version).

    Since many years ago, for the majority of the game's life actually, CCP (the game makers) attempted to curtail attempts of RMT ("Real Money Trading") - and mostly succeeded in reducing the frequency of it happening - by allowing players to sell GTC ("Game Time Cards") for ISK ("InterStellar Kredits", the in-game currency).
    This meant some people were getting the ISK they wanted without having to buy from "goldfarmers" (so to speak), while some players could afford to "play for free" (not pay any real-life cash for their subscriptions). It didn't take long for CCP to introduce a secure trading method, which became the only allowed exchange option, with the game time automatically applied to the purchasing account (to prevent RMTers from buying GTCs and selling those for cash).
    This became popular enough that nearly a quarter of the total active accounts were actually subscribed using this particular method. Or, in other words, they were seeing a more than 30% increase in subscription counts because of it.
    About two and a half years ago, CCP decided to introduce a new way to trade GTCs, by allowing players to split a purchased 60-day GTC into two 30-day PLEX ("Pilot License EXtension") in-game items, which could be traded on the in-game free market.
    What CCP didn't expect however was just how popular PLEX would become.
    TOO popular, in fact.
    It didn't take long for the player base to realize that investing ISK into PLEX could be viewed as a hedge against inflation, as a security blanket for the time they might not afford to pay real-life cash for a while, or even just as yet another good to be traded by the ultra-rich (in ISK) players.
    Because of that, the demand to purchase PLEX was outstripping the need for PLEX to be used on the spot, so the price on the open market was a bit higher than what it would have been if it would only have been used as a subscription extension tool - and as such, the supply side (people purchasing it for cash to sell for ISK) obliged them, and increasing numbers of PLEX have been stockpiling in people's hangars.
    The only data regarding this trend is quite old, from mid-August 2009 - a developer blog with some interesting graphs : http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=684
    Players have speculated about just how many PLEX are now stockpiled, the most reserved estimates put a lower count of around 75,000 PLEX (real-life cash equivalent of around 1.3 million USD), with opinions split about the upper bound, but even 300,000 PLEX would not be difficult to believe (roughly 5.25 million USD), and some people claim it might be even higher.

    Now, it should be pretty obvious as to why a company the size of CCP would be worried about "unclaimed" pre-paid subscriptions worth anything between 1 and 5 million dollars floating around inside their own game.
    As they say, within this here lies the rub.
    So they hatched a plan, this microtransaction deal.

    It was by no means the first contingency plan, they tried various other methods first, anything from allowing people to use PLEX for other services that used to require a cash payment (like character transfers, for instance) up to holding donation drives for real-life aid, drives accepting both ISK and PLEX (to be converted by CCP into cash and donated on behalf of the player base to charity, without any tax breaks from it).
    Obviously, that didn't work well enough, and the threat of financial liabilities growing ever larger in these uncertain economic times (and let's not forget, they're an Iceland-based softw

    --
    By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    1. Re:It's not really ONLY about those profits... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Now, it should be pretty obvious as to why a company the size of CCP would be worried about "unclaimed" pre-paid subscriptions worth anything between 1 and 5 million dollars floating around inside their own game.

      Well, I might be missing the point here, but it doesn't seem obvious to me. Could you spell it out please?

      I'd think that having lots of unclaimed PLEX in game would be the best use of PLEX from CCP's point of view, since they got paid for the PLEX, but didn't have to provide a service for it (yet) and any in-game trading just moves resources around between players. The unclaimed PLEXes are probably highly decentralized and a large fraction will never be used to buy service for it.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:It's not really ONLY about those profits... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      I think the issue comes that all of those PLEX count as liabilities against future revenues in some fashion (much like gamecards).

      CCP needs to provide some sort of PLEX sink to take PLEX out of the game without having to provide actual game time in return. Hence, the introduction of the PLEX -> Aurum conversion and using Aurum for the "NEX" (noble exchange) store.

      But, being CCP, they've totally misjudged the market and the playerbase (again) and are charging way too much for a monocle that is barely visible in the character portrait. Then, being CCP, they've totally bungled up the PR response to the question in everyone's mind of "will Aurum-purchased items result in a gameplay advantage?".

      (Keeping in mind that EVE is one of the most cutthroat PvP games out there, where losing in a PvP battle means that you lose the ship you are flying which may have taken you anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks worth of play to earn. If an in-game advantage can be bought via Aurum, people *will* buy it, and it will shift the landscape drastically. The game will become extremely unbalanced unless you have the cash to buy Aurum to buy balance-changing items.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    3. Re:It's not really ONLY about those profits... by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      CCP didn't get paid for most of those PLEX. Players bought them in-game with in-game currency and obligated CCP to provide their service without compensation.

      As an example, with my $14.95 a month subscription price and a generous amount of free time, I could probably generate enough in-game money to purchase 12 PLEX, and parlay my one month's subscription fee in to 13 months of play time.

      Once I've done that, I could easily do it again, and register a second account to help me make more money, which I trade for more PLEX, and now have two accounts paid up for a year, with a single payment of $14.95.

      Since EVE's skill system is based on letting time pass, a very skill character, one able to fly the ships that make the money is an old character. Old, well trained characters can be purchased for in game currency (ISK). I can trade PLEX for in-game currency.

      With three or four months of really poopsocking it, I can afford a new, very well trained character on my free account. I've got just enough spare in-game cash to buy a couple more PLEX, and I use that time wisely with my three characters to make even more money, which I trade for more PLEX.

      This may sound far fetched, but this is a very common method of playing. I know people with six accounts who haven't payed a thing for EVE in over a year.

      If the estimates on the number of stockpiled PLEX are correct (we'll use the 300,000 estimate) and those PLEX were distributed evenly to a base of around 100,000 players, that means the company could face three months without a single bit of revenue.

      That will never happen, but I imagine it keeps their CFO up at night.

    4. Re:It's not really ONLY about those profits... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      The point you're missing is that there is no in-game seed of PLEX. All PLEX that is on the in-game market was purchased by a player for real cash and put on the in-game market by a player.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    5. Re:It's not really ONLY about those profits... by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? I thought the patch that allowed you to split the GTC in to PLEX also marked the start of CCP seeding the PLEX in the trade hubs.

      If you're correct, then there is no liability issue.

  76. Eve thrives on drama by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

    It is the whole point of the sandbox approach of players driving the storyline.

    One player started a protest to sell his stock of surplus missiles. Others did it boost their e-peen, and some just because it was something different to do.