Slashdot Mirror


CCP Deconstructs EVE Online's Microtransaction Missteps

A few months ago we discussed an uproar in the EVE Online community over CCP Games' implementation of microtransactions within the game. Hilmar Pétursson, the company's CEO, recently posted a lengthy apology and an explanation of their thought process, which he admits was "wrong." Now, at GDC Online, CCP has gone into further detail about the lessons they've learned from the fiasco. Quoting: "Of the eight original items, Cockerill said all but one was in the mid- to high-tier price range. Players naturally assumed the lower-tier range would be neglected going forward, which served to push some of them away. The second wave (and the forthcoming fourth wave) featured more lower-tier options, but it wasn't enough. Cockerill said virtual-goods sellers should release a range of goods at all of their price points to start with, or else they'll face the wrath of the user base. What's more, the team should have targeted the desires of its then-current user base, who cared much more about having virtual clothes for their ships instead of their avatars."

68 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. It was actually all by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

    because of falcon.

    1. Re:It was actually all by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Nerfing the falcon was why I quit the damn game.

      Well actually it was the minmitar nerf that broke the camels back (why "lets remove the most ridiculously fun setup in game, the 'comedy scimitar setup' was even a thought process is beyond me).

      Except perhaps in completely ridiculous cases (the insane original titan configuration where you could remotely blow up hundreds of people without leaving the pos, which caused tonnes of people to give up eve in frusturation) it seems the better option to overpowered setups is instead of nerfing which just punishes people for spending time training up the skills, buff countermeasures. ECM too strong? Buff EECM. Vultures too hard to shoot? Give some other ship the tools to provide a staunch opposition. And so on. But having my setups constantly nerfed (burn eden raidens where also shitloads of fun too, Insane slippery T2 cruise ravens coupled with a bubble ruled. And yeah that got killed by the stab nerf, but I kind of understand that particular one) everytime I spent 3-4 months training it up just ended up wearing me out.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:It was actually all by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      nerfing is the correct solution to unbalanced items/content/etc. Increasing the power of other things to match just launches you into a never ending spiral of increasing the power of things. And it makes no difference, other than that players are notoriously stupid and complain about nerfs no matter what, nerfing a ship is exactly the same as making the other ships more powerful - that ship is now less "good", those skill points are "wasted".

      To use your example of "Vultures too hard to shoot". If you "Give some other ship the tools to provide a staunch opposition" then those tools will likely make that ship better against non-Vultures as well, given designers/programmers/whatever are human and don't get it exactly right (as evidenced by the initial problem) they'll very likely end up with that ship being overpowered. Now they have to power up a counter to that as well an the cycle continues. If they just nerf the vultures the problem is solved directly without it causing knock on balance problems. But players hate nerfing.

  2. They still don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They still don't get it.
    It's not about the price or the clothes for characters instead of ships.

    It's about the fact that we pay a subscription each month (an expensive one compared to other MMOs, I might add) and we feel that we deserve anything they develop for free. If they use their employees, time or money to develop something for the game, it should be free or more exactly: it should be granted by the monthly fee.
    Most players do not just feel like they are paying to play a game, they feel like they are also investing money in Eve. They pay CCP in the hopes of seeing the game improve and accomplish it's full potential. When CCP makes us pay a subscription AND for new content, they don't just make us pay twice, they are also telling us "Thanks for your investment. Now pay us some more to get access to the result of that investment".
    It's like renting a car and having to pay extra for a seatbelt. It's like a company taking money from investors and then telling them "your investment allows you to buy the products we make".

    This is the third or fourth official apology from CCP and they still don't get it.

    Oh and by the way - this new path CCP is taking (making players pay for new content) so far has made them lose more players than they have earned. Not only has this caused players to quit Eve, it has also ruined the company's and the game's reputation among potential future players. Personally the only reason I'm still playing is because I haven't given up all hope yet and I can say the same of most players I know.
    Someone fire that incompetent CEO and replace him with somebody who understands the market Eve is in!

    1. Re:They still don't get it... by zergl · · Score: 1

      >It's about the fact that we pay a subscription each month (an expensive one compared to other MMOs, I might add) and we feel that we deserve anything they develop for free.

      Like all of those shiny new expansions they release every 6 months for absolutely nothing?

      Don't get me wrong, a $60 monocle is total bullshit, but demonizing them for not giving you all of those neat vanity items for free is a little overboard.

      Well, there hasn't been an expansion worthy of praise since Apocrypha in 2009...

      Incursions wasn't completely horrible because it added High Sec PVE that doesn't make me want to stab my brain out to escape the boredom, but even that was poorly (read: not at all) followed up (risk/reward is seriously skewed in high sec and easily farmed in the lower tier sites for relatively ridiculous/easy ISK per hour) and most likely done with extremely few development resources as most of the individual bits were already in the game in one form or another while the nose candy enthusiasts in Team :AWESOME: pissed away money on the for now indefinitely postponed full Incarna (Establishments etc.).

    2. Re:They still don't get it... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      MMOs are a popular genre, both for players (who get a broader, more varied, interactive social experience unlike they can get in any 1st person solo game) and for developers (your 1st person game sells 100,000 copies in the 1st year, you make $5 million; your MMO sells 100k copies, you make that $5 mill plus ANOTHER $9mill in subscriptions).

      But as the shine has worn off the apple, customers are getting more sophisticated. More competition means that a successful MMO needs to be a AAA-grade title all the time. Further, and to the point of the OP, players might be starting to look at the $180/year they're spending on that game and wonder if that's not a little high for the rental of some imagination time.

      Many vendors (and I'm certain Blizz is going that way as WoW reaches senescence) have dropped into a micropayment model. I originally thought it was a good idea. Many implementations leave a reasonable amount of game that's playable for free, and the upper reaches (for the hardcore) cost $$.

      I'm no longer convinced that's sustainable. The micropay model is so jarringly destructive of suspension of disbelief, and as a player you constantly run into what amounts to commercials or purchase options it tears you completely out of the game experience.

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:They still don't get it... by julesh · · Score: 2

      So, let me get this straight: you believe it is wrong for a company to offer two different levels of service for two different prices? That because somebody's paying the basic level price, they should automatically have a right to anything that can be provided at the higher level of service?

      That is just crazy, if you ask me. CCP designed the stuff, they have the right to choose what to charge for it. No amount of money you've spent on their *other* products gives you the right to demand access to the rest for free.

      Or do you believe that because you've been paying for EVE for so long, you should automatically have right to receive a copy of Dust when they release it?

    4. Re:They still don't get it... by julesh · · Score: 1

      Agreed. EVE's price is quite reasonable, especially when you consider they're still charging the same non-inflation-adjusted price they were at launch, and there's now something like 10x as much content that you get for your money as you did then. Inflation adjusted, it's as if the subscription had been reduced to about $12.50.

    5. Re:They still don't get it... by Almandine · · Score: 1

      WoW has had a micropayment model for awhile now with its shiny horses and various pets.

    6. Re:They still don't get it... by Almandine · · Score: 1

      For an analogy, I think it's more like renting a car and paying extra for satellite radio. While the seatbelt is a "need" due to various laws, satellite radio is just a "want" as it is for convenience. One can drive the car just fine without satellite radio versus not having seatbelts. While I haven't personally played Eve, it sounds like what people are getting from the micropayments are mostly cosmetic items rather than something game changing.

    7. Re:They still don't get it... by PremiumCarrion · · Score: 2

      Frankly I think the GP is not on the same wavelength as most eve players who are currently unhappy.

      The big issue as I see it relates to the fact Eve Online is a game about spaceships... in space, previously most or all development efforts at CCP have been adding new content in the form of NPC missions, new shiptypes, alterations to PVP mechanics and other things which contribute to the fun you can have being a spaceship. However lately with the addition of monocles and changes to spacestations (the ability to walk around a small room) it feels like their development focus has moved away from spaceships, and now the core of the game is neglected.

      Although the community would be even more up in arms if there was tiered service which gave someone an advantage in regular play.

    8. Re:They still don't get it... by gothzilla · · Score: 1

      I had gained hope that CCP had turned a new corner but the second link in the article just showed me they haven't. You are right. They still don't get why the player base was upset.

      "Cockerill said the team did get some things right. He pointed to the $65 monocle that players can purchase in-game and said that despite the controversy it generated among players, it was the highest-grossing item for the virtual-goods launch. "

      Unbelievable.

    9. Re:They still don't get it... by KermodeBear · · Score: 2

      Eve has, historically, always offered expansions and all of the new content contained at no additional cost above and beyond the monthly subscription fee. You are correct that CCP has every right to change their business and pricing model as they see fit, but players also have the right to criticize and reject the new pricing models if they so choose.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    10. Re:They still don't get it... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I don't see what you're complaining about. You can always farm for isk to buy PLEX and then convert those PLEX into monocles or whatever. You don't need and never needed to buy the new content with real money.

      For me, the real idiocy was not offering content with any significant gameplay. I don't speak of fancy clothing and ship colors for money but rather of walking in stations (or "ambulation" as they called it). They spent a vast amount of effort over many years to provide a whole new aspect to the game and it comes with virtually no gameplaying content. The only effect for me has been having to pay to sit in a internet cafe to download the large client patches and experience client sluggishness (which I can't turn off!) whenever I'm in a station.

      My sole experience with this new expansion is that my client is more sluggish than ever before. That's it. No fancy ships, no new business opportunities. Nothing I'd be interested in. There has never been an expansion with so little new content for people who play the game.

    11. Re:They still don't get it... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      Frankly I think the GP is not on the same wavelength as most eve players who are currently unhappy.

      Most eve players are unhappy? Can they not find something else to do that makes them happy? Why are they spending money to play this unhappy game? Even if they would be unhappy playing nothing they could save money by not playing this game to be unhappy.

    12. Re:They still don't get it... by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      Which is very true, but all other content previously could be found and produced by players. This new content (such as it is) is limited to converting PLEX to Aurum, which requires that extra real money be spent (by someone) in order to access the content.

      Granted, it's vanity only. Nobody really cares. Whatever. What concerns people is the possibility of non-vanity items in the store and a whole host of other issues already covered in the comments here.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    13. Re:They still don't get it... by firewrought · · Score: 1

      So, let me get this straight: you believe it is wrong for a company to offer two different levels of service for two different prices?

      You can't use generalizations to explore the subtleties by which participants in a transaction see that deal as fair or unfair. You've got to look at the specifics. I don't play MMORPG's, but if I did, I suspect I would be more satisfied with a one-price-buys-all model than a nickle-and-dime payment model. I know this is true with amusement parks: I get really irked if a ride/attraction requires an extra fee beyond the price of admission, but I'm okay paying more for food and souvenirs.

      CCP designed the stuff, they have the right to choose what to charge for it. No amount of money you've spent on their *other* products gives you the right to demand access to the rest for free.

      Grandparent isn't suing CCP, he's describing what he felt he deserved for the subscription fee. Presumably, he will take his business to another MMORPG that is more attentive to the mechanics of customer satisfaction. (And actually, you probably will see a lawsuit someday where somebody argues that the purchase/subscription fee implied full access to the game.)

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    14. Re:They still don't get it... by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      One of the details of EVE that slashdot users tend to not know.... very few "hardcore" players actually pay a subscription fee. In 2004, I paid my $15. Since 2005, I haven't paid a dime for any of my 3 accounts. I don't even play anymore, but I still have 3 active accounts. Because it's SO STUPIDLY EASY to make enough ISK to pay for the accounts with it. Eve had RMT long before micro transactions showed up. In the form of PLEX. Which, in short, allows me to pay ISK (ingame money) for game time. Usually from another player who has too much cash and not enough time.

    15. Re:They still don't get it... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      But while upper reaches may mean $$ that $$ may just mean subscribing. Microtransactions do not mean that you're required to spend extra money beyond a subscriptions or that it's pay to win (a stupid term actually, except for EVE and PvP stuff there is no win in a cooperative RPG, or at least there shouldn't be a juvenile concern that someone may be getting something easier than you got it).

      For instance in Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons Online you can play totally for free (even more so in LotRO). That is, without a single dime you can get to max level and enter end game. You may have to grind your butt off to earn in-game points but it is doable. And with this economy a lot of players are doing exactly that. But if you subscribe you get essentially everything. There is nothing that you must have from the store for points, and besides you get plenty of points for subscribing. However there are players so hung up on their anti-microtransation rants that they refuse to even spend their free points. It's a great model: you can play free or you can buy a little and play ala carte or you can subscribe and get the whole enchilada plus you can upgrade/downgrade as you like.

      Other games tend to screw up the free to play stuff; ie, they'll put free players in their own isolated servers (like they have cooties or something) which certainly doesn't encourage more players to show up. Or it's free only to a certain low level and with major disadvantages.

    16. Re:They still don't get it... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      MMOs players tend to get a bit emotionally attached to their games. They sort of forget that it's just a product made by a for-profit company. Sort of like the early iPhone buyers who accepted the high price when it first came out but then felt insulted when the price dropped. Some complaints do feel a bit like entitlement but I don't think that's really the cause. I think it is just the emotional attachment factor; someone may be the most polite person in the world to a stranger on the street but be rude and obnoxious to an ex-spouse.

    17. Re:They still don't get it... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      I already knew that but that's not the point I was trying to make. Even if you don't spend your money you are still spending your time. Why would you spend your time playing something that makes you unhappy? Just because something is free doesn't mean it's good. Now, if you disagree with PremiumCarrion's assertion that most of the game's players are unhappy then you should say so. And, by the way, if you are having fun playing Eve then I'm glad you're having fun playing the game you like!

    18. Re:They still don't get it... by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      Oh hell no, I don't play EVE anymore. I maintain some accounts, that's about 20 minutes a few times a week. I haven't "played" EVE in 2 years. My point was that I maintain my accounts for "free", in hopes that EVE will get back to a game I actually want to play. So... I am one of those unhappy players, in a sense. But I can't save any more money, and neither can most veterans of the game. They either don't give a crap about the cost (it's low), or they just aren't paying anything to begin with.

  3. In the CCCP by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

    In the CCCP, EVE Online Deconstructs You!

  4. Player Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a long time player who's watched this whole thing play out in disbelief. The vast majority of players couldn't care less about the current avatar or virtual goods scheme, or in fact the "ship spinning" that the apology letter talks about. The problem is that the company gets all it's income from one game (EVE) and is spending it developing Dust 514 (a PS3 exclusive that most EVE players will never play) and World Of Darkeness (a vampire and werewolf MMO that most EVE players will never play). As a result, EVE has gone without any new content for what feels like years. The "new" avatar system for EVE is basically a mass beta test for the Dust/WOD character system, and has no new gameplay at all.

    The playerbase thought that the microtransactions launch was frankly insane (players of a hypercapitalistic game understand wanting to make money, but the way it was done made far less than they could have, AND pissed everyone off), and the leaks from inside the company suggest that most of the employees did as well. Many of them were players before the were devs, and they didn't like the way things were heading. As a result there were mass in game protests, which a leaked memo from the CEO acknowledged, but stated that they would be ignored, and that the company would listen to what people did rather than said, predictably precipitating mass unsubscriptions. CCP are dangerously overreaching themselves at the moment, with the speculation being that their finance arrangements are precarious, having overrun their timescales for producing their two new titles. Players and developers who have invested years into the game - far more than the sum total of official development - have written tools and created both fiction and real history in the game's universe, and don't want to see it vanish into the ether because of the incompetence of the company that runs it.

    In short: the players want to play the game they signed up for, and want their subs to go towards new content for the game that they are paying for, not development of new titles they don't play.

    1. Re:Player Perspective by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      As an ex EVE player, all I can say is...

      Mod parent up.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Player Perspective by RogueyWon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not an Eve player and I'm unlikely to ever be - I had a housemate who was big into it once, and while the idea was cool, every time he started talking about the details, it sent me to sleep.

      That said, I am a shooter player. Ok, I'm more singleplayer than multiplayer these days, but I've been keeping an eye on Dust 514. I don't claim perfect prescience, but I do generally have a fairly good instinct for which shooters are going to survive and which aren't. And I would bet quite a lot of money that Dust 514 is going to fail spectacularly.

      The market for "online shooters" is rather more competitive than the market for "online space trading and combat role playing economics simulators". The market for sci-fi themed online shooters is, if anything, particularly vicious. Halo, Killzone and Gears of War have their followings - and there is some really intense brand loyalty out there. Seriously, if you thought vi vs emacs could get heated, it is nothing to Killzone vs Gears.

      Games like Space Marine can achieve reasonable success in this market on the basis of a decent enough singleplayer campaign and multiplayer that's fun for a quick blast. Team Fortress 2 managed to get marketshare because it's Valve, and hence automatically gets attention. But I just cannot imagine that a title like Dust 514, from a developer with no background in the genre, based on an IP that most console shooter players would consider snooze-worthy, with no particularly exciting or different gameplay innovations (Planetside already did the persistent-world thing) will manage to get the kind of self-sustaining player base it needs to succeed on a long term micro-transaction supported basis.

      If CCP have bet the farm on the success of Dust, then I suspect Eve may be in for a troubled future.

    3. Re:Player Perspective by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      with no particularly exciting or different gameplay innovations

      This is the one part that is incorrect. Dust 514 and Eve Online are supposed to tie together and have some sort of interaction, based around Eve's Planetary Interaction feature. I don't know of another MMO that interacts directory, or indirectly, with another MMO.

      Granted, we don't know the details of the interaction or how closely tied the two games will be at that point, but it still interesting and could lead to some fun interactions between player groups.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    4. Re:Player Perspective by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      no particularly exciting or different gameplay innovations

      CCP employs two economists, one to look after economics in Eve and one to develop the economy for Dust 514. You know of any other team based persistent shooters with a deep economy?

    5. Re:Player Perspective by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Wait, did they remove ship-spinning and make CQ mandatory?

  5. Almost entirely, but not completely, bullshit by zergl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The EVE MT experiment did not just fail because of that, it failed because of a multitude of reasons, most of which a sane person would have seen coming from miles away.

    First of all, the NEX Store (the name of this abomination, yes I'm biased against it, deal with it) was released in a vacuum of a completely single player environment. The only place your purchase will be seen in all its glory is in the confines of your own game client in a shabby little hole called the Captain's Quarter (or dismissively, the Captain's Closet). Multiplayer Avatar interaction was indefinitely postponed for now (they finally admitted/realized that they had nothing fun in terms of gameplay value on the drawing board for it, go figure), so the only way your purchase is visible to other players is through the Tiny Avatar portrait (which is one of the reasons why the Monocle was the only item seeing significant sales, the other being trolls buying them to enrage the more easily excited opponents of microtransactions in EVE).

    Second, the concept of a market-less (if you ignore the resale), infinite supply item is diametrically opposed to the core concept of EVE's player run economy and sandbox nature. Everything in EVE has a price defined by supply and demand. The price of the Vanity Items is based solely on the current ISK equivalent value of a month's worth of game time.
    For a more sane approach on that and how it would be at least somewhat acceptable, I made a thread about that on a community forum in the wake of the ingame riots.

    Third, even the low-price tier is still retardedly expensive. Even the cheapest items still cost 1000 AUR which amounts to 1/3 of a PLEX (the Gametime Code token which converts to 3000 AUR, clocking in at around 17 USD from a cheap supplier) and a full set of clothes (boots, pants, shirt/jacket, etc) would set you back over 20 bucks worth of PLEX/Gametime.

    The reason given in TFA, while certainly not wrong as it really was bloody stupid to launch with almost exclusively high-tier items, compounds with all this and resulted in a huge backlash against CCP over it (and other poor decisions and a backlog of frustration over the last two years of neglect towards the core gameplay) but was definitely not the only or even the main reason for it.

    I should probably also point out that the prices of the items in general are also hugely immersion breaking. The ISK equivalent price of a monocle (the highest priced item) is roughly that of a dreadnought. Which is a capital ship. The second largest and expensive tier of ships (after supercapitals).
    And even the cheapest boots cost as much as a battleship.
    Admittedly, you apparently buy a lifetime subscription to your clothes as they don't get destroyed upon player death like implants (another decidedly un-EVE feature of the Vanity Items) but that still seems somewhat extreme...

    1. Re:Almost entirely, but not completely, bullshit by zergl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, and I forgot one other point that was pointed out in another comment:

      I'm already bloody paying a premium subscription price for EVE (well, not any more at the moment) and double dipping (or rather attempting to do so) into a customer's wallet like that also offended quite a lot of players in conjunction with the idiotic price points. A couple of EUR/USD for a full set of high tier clothes might have been acceptable to some in that context, but the way it was rolled out, not a chance.

      Microtransactions have a place in gaming. That place is Free To Play games or to justify further development time on an already aging one time purchase title (like Team Fortress 2 before it became completely F2P and MT based).

    2. Re:Almost entirely, but not completely, bullshit by zergl · · Score: 1

      >Multiplayer Avatar interaction was indefinitely postponed
      That struck me as odd for an mmo... it sounded like it's a single-player experience.
      For those of you who, like me, don't know Eve, normally in Eve you only see each other's ships, but it is multi-player.

      Correct, I probably should have worded that better. You can interact with other player's spaceships (preferably through violence :D), but your virtual flesh and blood Avatar is currently only accessible in said single player environment (or a portrait).

    3. Re:Almost entirely, but not completely, bullshit by dcollins · · Score: 1

      As a non-Eve player, I'd like to say: That's a very nice writeup. Thank you for that.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    4. Re:Almost entirely, but not completely, bullshit by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Yup, agreed. Oh, and did you spot the significant line: "Once Incarna hits its stride, EVE will be more personal, and thus more accessible to general audiences. Visual self-expression in a virtual setting is a core psychological component of gaming; most people need to see their avatars, or something vaguely humanoid, or else they donâ(TM)t connect with the game."

      See, that's why EVE is and always has been failing and so unpopular - no monocles . He's clearly still obsessed with going after the Sims in Space mass audience. Nullsec, more ships, you know space things are just tossed out as incidental issues. It'll be hot tubs and gyms first, mark my words.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Almost entirely, but not completely, bullshit by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Slashduh ate my tags around the "failing and so unpopular" line above, in case it wasn't obvious. :imagine eye roll emoticon here:

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Almost entirely, but not completely, bullshit by bug1 · · Score: 2

      You also left out that the items where not even design to suit Eve gameplay.

      Some of the core professions in eve are Mining, Pirating, Trading, and general PvE/PvP.

      Do they sell a pair of miners overalls for a miner, a simple black eyepatch for a pirate, a rich looking suit, or even a general space helmet, no.

      If they had a pet parrot to perch on your shoulder, guarantee they would sell more of them than monocles (at any price).

      Fact is the clothing was designed for other titles CCP is developing, CCP is "leveraging there assets" to try and get something for nothing.
       

    7. Re:Almost entirely, but not completely, bullshit by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely correct about the double-dipping, and how MT belongs in a free-to-play game rather than a game with an already lofty monthly subscription. My greatest fear is all of the references that Hilmar (the CEO of CCP) makes towards "where the MMO industry is heading". He seems to be very, very interested in this free-to-play, MT-supported business model and I am certain that he wants to push Eve down this path. It won't work; the playerbase will leave in droves should that happen.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    8. Re:Almost entirely, but not completely, bullshit by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But they can only double-dip if you let them. You are not required to buy these items and from what I hear they're just cosmetic. So it shouldn't matter to player A if player B buys them. Game companies have figured out that there are enough players out there willing to buy fluff (or at least sneak into mom's purse and borrow the credit card). Ie, see WoW's $25 glitter mount. There's no way a company can pass this stuff up, they'd have their shareholders threatening to sue if they don't.

  6. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Some people kick a ball around a field, I think they should get a life to.

    It's just a ball damn it! Do something useful.

  7. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You speak as if day to day life itself is any less of a game.

    I can't imagine why people should care about what your view of "life" is, if they're enjoying themselves. No, I have never played Eve or WoW. I probably would have got into Eve if there weren't any stupid RPG skill building elements in there though. I do think that it is unhealthy to not get out and do a bit of exercise every so often, but besides that, who cares if these guys get their kicks from playing computer games vs going out to bars or any of the other boring, meaningless crap that most people do?

    --
    which is totally what she said
  8. He's still still saying Arcana is the future by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Still saying that the reason people got into EVE - spaceships and stuff - is all wrong, and what you all really want to play is The Sims In Space.

    Note those words, little else in his mea culpa is particularly significant. It's not "Arcana was a bad concept" it's "Arcana just didn't go far enough." Get your monocle polish ready.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  9. Nothing wrong with premium content by DrXym · · Score: 1
    As long as it's restricted to purely cosmetic stuff. If someone wants to buy a pimp hat to complete their image, well go knock yourself out, buy that pimp hat. Or if some corp wants their fleet to be fabulous pink, well go ahead and buy it.

    The problem comes for a subscription service when the premium content isn't just cosmetic but puts people who pay extra at an advantage. For example perhaps someone could buy boosters that speed up production, or learning, or reduce overheads. And anyone who chooses not to pay ends up a second class citizen.

    Obviously if Eve were F2P it wouldn't be an issue, after all the entire F2P model is in selling stuff on an a la carte basis. But it's subscription based and the players are so hard core that I doubt F2P would even work without substantial changes, possibly a separate universe to accommodate them. As such, CCP should stop trying to screw their player base over. Sell the cosmetic shit but drawn a line on the ground and do not step over it.

    1. Re:Nothing wrong with premium content by daid303 · · Score: 1

      When I played, we where calling the http://eve.wikia.com/wiki/Apocalypse "The golden banana", pun intended. Quite a few EVE ships look like sex toys...

  10. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Your life is a game. A remarkably easy one.

    I would hasten to probably add - a remarkably boring one.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. Game mechanics, not avatars by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    How about being able to hide - truly hide. Not instantly appear on local, or in an overview.

    Collision damage. Mining laser dual use (should be able to cut a ship in half with a strip miner!), planets should be able to host giant missile batteries, the ability to orbit planets and moons..... jeez the list is endless.

    Hell the ability to warp to the point of your choosing, forget warpables.

    Stuff like that.

    Instead we get captains quarters.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Game mechanics, not avatars by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      That's true... but it should be ubiquitous.

      Local should be something one subscribes to.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  12. Sounds like the CU from SWG by fallen1 · · Score: 1

    ...all over again. Except the CU affected game play and this is just highway robbery on the new digital highway. Hmm, let me explain. No, it would take too long, let me sum up -- based on the posts here from current EVE players about the background of what is happening, this whole event has the _feel_ of the SWG community after the CU and is moving towards the feel of the NGE implosion.

    Sucks for long-term players, regardless of your game of choice. I had three accounts on Star Wars Galaxies at the height of my playing. A LOT of the people I gamed with did. We all, to the last person, left by the time of NGE. Maybe CCP will get its shit together and stop trying to use EVE to beta-test for their other games. Or at least stop trying to get you to pay for their R&D through EVE, other than a subscription.

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

  13. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    You speak as if day to day life itself is any less of a game.

    +100 Insightful

    The only difference is that what we call "real life" is played on a much more powerful gaming rig.

    I like to view computer games as "mini-games" that I play while I'm working my way through the main story, on my way to that final big boss fight known as death.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. Re:What people forget: EVE already had MT by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

    One thing that is more dangerous to EVE than to other MMORPG - most serious players have at least 2 accounts and pay for it. If CCP annoys one serious player, 2 accounts are unsubscribed.

    Spot on. Add to that the fact that these older players are also the ones that add the real content to EVE - all the drama that gets mentioned on gaming web sites and blogs - makes this even worse. Without those, EVE becomes annoying for the "grunts" ... and they well leave the game, too.

  15. A Bigger Problem Was Incarna by szyzyg · · Score: 1

    A lot of the player anger was driven by the fact that this arrived as part of an 'expansion' that managed to take away popular features and forced players to use the Walking In Stations interface even though said interface was incredibly resource intensive and melted GPU's. Also, they screwed up several months previously when at the last minute they dropped support for older CPU's because the library that simulated clothes and hair needed SSE3 extensions. The deployment of the new avatar technology has just been a mess and actual 'flying in space' features have been left unmaintained at the expense.

    It should also be pointed out you didn't need to spend real money for microtransactions, you could buy PLEX from other players (who wanted to convert real money into game money) and then, this being Eve, you could troll other players by flying around with MT items that cost more than a capital ship.

    1. Re:A Bigger Problem Was Incarna by msu320 · · Score: 1

      It's definitely worth noting that micro-transactions were only a lightning rod issue- there are ships that are worth 3500$ flying on the server. Although 68 dollars for a clothing item is hardly considered a micro-transaction.

      The missing spin-ship 'feature' was noticed so severely because spinning the camera around your ship in a station was the only thing you could do when you did not want to lose a ship that cost so much in real-life money or in game time to replace. Ships you could afford to lose are worth little in a real fight besides preventing bigger enemy ships from warping out before the big ships on your side can lock on. In those cases your "tackler" frigate blows up, and you still lose these somewhat expensive cybernetic implants that increase how fast you learn skills. Overall- the cost per death is unbelievably high for a game.

      The biggest reason why EvE has never caught on with a larger population is the spec's required to *really* play are downright exclusionary. It's almost not worth mentioning that most players in the game play with the lowest possible settings for larger battles, and zoom out during those battles so that all that's visible are the UI targeting brackets on the ships. fly in anything less than a capital ship, and you can't zoom out enough to hide the ship models.

      Having not played the game since Incursions,which were a failure in released format, it seems that more players are catching onto the polished turd that EvE is.

      --
      New slashdot layout sucks.
  16. When is the EVE online community NOT pissed off? by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're ALWAYS in an uproar about some shit or another. That's like saying "Linux community upset about changes to kernal" or "Sony being criticized for heavy-handed move" or "Apple fans anxiously awaiting next Apple announcement."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  17. He showed players the door! by random+coward · · Score: 1

    CCP showed their players the door. Literally.
    When you turn off the amazingly resource hungry, badly designed, captains closet, the game literally shows you the door. And those nice Icelandic folk still don't understand that "showing someone the door" is an american idiom for kicking them out. There were so many stupid idiotic mistakes in this release that clearly showed the pure incompetence of CCP. If, as seems likely, they were as incompatent with their money, and with the Iceland/EU and EU monetary issues they're likely to go bankrupt soon.

  18. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by tenco · · Score: 1

    Treating real life as a game is stupid. Why? Because quitting (or being forced to quit) = death.

  19. It gets worse... by random+coward · · Score: 1

    Its even worse than that.
    Its tied to the playstation3. It will be coming out at the end of the PS3 lifecycle.

    Who is going to buy a game that is supposed to be a persistent shooter on a platform that is at end of life? If CCP sticks with PS3 play on their expansions then they loose the new/better factor of the PS4, go to PS4 and people are pissed they can't play the game they just bought last year. Play on both and its crappy for everyone...

    Then the tie in to EVE is very risky. To many dust players vs. eve players and not enough for them to do, not enough dust players and hard to accomplish stuff in eve. Wars slow done in eve dusties get bored. Dusties start leaving eve players have harder time fighting wars.

    Anyone think CCP is smart enough to solve these problems on their first release?

  20. Re:When is the EVE online community NOT pissed off by marcroelofs · · Score: 1

    It's different this time. If it was FOSS there would be a fork right now.

  21. Re:When is the EVE online community NOT pissed off by war4peace · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but this time it looks like the online player numbers are slowly but certainly declining.
    Look at this link: http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
    (the 6-months data seems to not show up for some reason) ...Two of the missing accounts from there are mine; I quit in June for reasons other than MT introduction.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  22. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1

    You mean like Nethack?

  23. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1

    Indeed, I've found most of it to be an endless grind for coin. Character advancement is very slow, if it happens at all.

  24. Re:What people forget: EVE already had MT by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

    At launch? No, those mechanics did not exist at launch. Unless... do you mean the launch of the vanity items? Because then you'd be correct. However, when EVE launched, blueprints were not yet correctly implemented. Arguably, it took 3 years to get that part right.

    Someone else pointed this out, but I think it bears repeating. The vanity items and cloths are NOT designed for EVE. They are assets from WoD or maybe even DUST. CCP decided to do a quick and dirty little trick by introducing them to eve, along with the CQ, which is another asset from WoD.

  25. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Treating real life as a game is stupid. Why? Because quitting (or being forced to quit) = death.

    That's stupid. You die whether or not you "quit" or are "forced to quit". Everybody dies, but there is still a way to win.

    If I have to explain to you how you win the game even though you die then I'm pretty sure you are incapable of understanding the explanation. So now I'll leave you to your narrow view of your own existence.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  26. Re:What people forget: EVE already had MT by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

    2 accounts? AHAHAHAH. Most of the players I know, granted, mostly hardcore, have 3-5 accounts. It is not in any way uncommon for someone to have more than 5. I had 3 "mains" and 6 throwaways over the years. Anyone that is part of a major nullsec alliance generally has at least 2 accounts, and more often, 3. The reason for this is pretty simple economics. In EVE, 2 ships can make a LOT more money than 1 can, and furthermore, you want a main with combat skills, and an Alt with industrial skills, and maybe another Alt with covert skills and maybe another Alt with the ability to fly a freighter... etc etc etc. Furthermore, if you have any idea what you are doing, 3 accounts can make enough ISK in 1 month to pay for all 3 accounts. Depending on how you go about this, you might only need to log in once a month or so, for each account.

    So yeah, CCP is in deep shit when it comes to pissing off their player base. They claim subscriber numbers in the 300k range (last I checked), but as a player in since beta, I know for a fact that number is closer to 1/3 of what they claim. They might have 300k accounts, but only 100k players. You start pissing off large groups of those players and EVE will die in a matter of weeks. Interestingly, EVE has a tipping point that most MMO's don't have. That is, signification portions of the game universe are the direct result of player interactions. The ships, weapons, ammo, space stations, and all the "infrastructure" in Nullsec is entirely provided by players. If enough players leave to depopulate major sections of the map, the game world begins to crumble, FAST.

  27. Re:When is the EVE online community NOT pissed off by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    But it's a very old game that has not had much in the way of updates. EVE has been holding onto players pretty well for a game of that age. Any decline can not be attributed to just one factor, and of all the factors the biggest is probably players getting tired of it and wanting to do something new.

  28. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

    So, you mean to tell me there is no spawn point? This changes everything!

    --
    We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
  29. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by Gripp · · Score: 1

    firstly, for as long as men have been working they've been playing. there are tons of pointless things that have been done in excess throughout society. at the least gaming lends its self to a future. I mean, lots of people got into technology becuase of their gaming experience. tinkering with cars can have a similar effect as gaming - although most in that case end up mechanics rather than engineers.
    yet, no one has ever truly elevated society via shooting the perfect basket. if anything i think they lower it on the whole - people spend more time watching the games than playing them. this usually involves beer and fatty foods. and the ratio of person being active to persons becoming obese on the count of that active person is *huge*. not to mention aspects like (retarded) rivalry that leads to fights, murders and even full blown riots.

    you may want to think that since in the gaming and watching sports case they both are staring at a screen that they are somehow the same, but this is simply not true. there is no interaction with watching sports. there is no chance to get in and think your way through how the game works to tweek/hack something - or research how to perform said hack. people don't figure out how to build custom TV's from scratch to better their sports-watching experience. rather, the typical sports fan simply sits and watches mindlessly, occasionally making one noise or another from their gut.

    and PS not everyone is "genetically programmed to run around and play."

  30. Re:This is the least of their problems. by Gripp · · Score: 1

    that is why i stopped playing. not any of the reasons they think. RMT from the dev is stupid and immoral. it takes the challenge out of games like Eve. this coming from someone who can afford it even.

  31. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Sure there is, it lies about a foot above where a woman's legs come together.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  32. Re:It's a game, for crying out loud !! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    What this AC says is incredibly correct. Two of the ship types in the game (Super Carrier and Titan) are worth over $1000 real money. When you are fielding this kind of money which can be lost in as little as 15 minutes, perhaps you tend to care more about the game. People hated the noble store because it was stuff you had to pay real money for, which currently has no benefit. No one but you can see these items, they are clothes your character wears inside stations, which currently don't include interacting with other characters. The whole thing seemed to be a money grab from a company that had always appeared to care about their customer base.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?