Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 20:09:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Bloodpetal on 26/06/2011 20:32:28 Edited by: Bloodpetal on 26/06/2011 20:29:27
I want to focus on ONE item and one item alone for this.
This is the idea of charging for CONVENIENCE based Micro-Transactions.
Let's start with the ground work.
AUR is here to stay, one way or another and to be iterated on. This is not changing, but we can control what is appropriate to buy for AUR.
I am NOT discussing "Gold Ammo"/"Non-Vanity" items.
That aside.
Convenience based RMT are for charging players to "enhance" their game play by paying for convenience services provided by the game client or server. An explicit example from the "Greed is Good?" newsletter is the charging for more than 50 fittings.
I want to say up front that is a poor and inappropriate item - as well as anything related - for the AUR store. The reason for this is simple. That philosophy builds into the development of the game that inconvenience is a positive design element for the game and that convenience is something you can profit from through AUR.
We all pay a subscription and expect the absolute highest quality client and product. We should all get the same client, and noone should be asked to pay more for being less "burdened" by the software. I was the very first to post a thread about the limited fittings saved, and I would straight up quit if CCP offered me more fitting space for a price. The reason for that would be that is the wrong philosophy to approach the EVE Client Software.
Any premise for charging for such a service as more fitting space would be very poorly attributed.
The only argument that could be provided to charge for more Fitting Space would be "Your fittings cost us more server space."
The counter argument would be very simple:
What about all the items I have stored in hundreds of stations, without limit and without exception; including up to potentially thousands of individually identified ships, shuttles and so forth that I could easily have manufactured or purchased that can be said to consume "unreasoanble storage". What about the infinite amount of bookmarks that we are permitted to store. What about the infinite amount of "residual" data that we produce interacting with the servers every day that are stored for the future. CCP has no issue with unlimited data, with only one exception in "history" where they deleted an abundance of "gate bookmarks" from the age before warp to 0km.
The second argument is the Ship DNA code to store a fitting is documented in the WIKI and is a very simple line of code, and is very much not a large data chunk. Evelopedia Ship DNA Entry
The Third counter-argument is that a method can be implemented for client side storage, as it was done before the server-side storage. Meaning no server side storage issues at all.
---
To summarize, the premise of convenience based RMT is intrinsically to design inconvenience and burden on the player. This is not in the spirit of CCPs promise to its clients to provide excellence. It is also a poor precedence that can lead to finding other opportunities to charge players.
This absolutely must be clarified as an unacceptable form of RMT by the CSM on their visit this weekend.
I will be EVE-mailing this post and communication to the CSM members as well.
Support this thread please.
|