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."

13 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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?

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

  2. 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 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. 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 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.
       

  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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.