Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
dicen3
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:18:00 -
[1]
I think I finally figured it all out (not just the obvious stupid business decisions). People who multi-box buy PLEX. So they are not actually paying for game time of those extra clients. Someone else is. That means CPP has to support 2x as many clients vs selling directly with MTs. They want to take out the middlemen by stopping people from multi-boxing. The savings is 1/2 as many clients for Micro transactions vs PLEX transactions.
Essentially PLEX doesn't scale as a way to gain more revenue as they have to support 1/2x more clients in their infrastructure. |
Tugrath Akers
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:20:00 -
[2]
Crippling multi-clients is one of my tinfoilhat theories on preparations for free to play.
|
Miilla
Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:20:00 -
[3]
Originally by: dicen3 I think I finally figured it all out (not just the obvious stupid business decisions). People who multi-box buy PLEX. So they are not actually paying for game time of those extra clients. Someone else is. That means CPP has to support 2x as many clients vs selling directly with MTs. They want to take out the middlemen by stopping people from multi-boxing. The savings is 1/2 as many clients for Micro transactions vs PLEX transactions.
Essentially PLEX doesn't scale as a way to gain more revenue as they have to support 1/2x more clients in their infrastructure.
They are also a PLEX sink for CCP which they desperatly need. In order to remove the backlog of PLEXs and thus open paths to new PLEX revenue.
stockpiled PLEX is OLD revenue being consumed, CCP need NEW PLEX REVENUE, until the sink takes hold, multi account idiots need to keep playing to spend those stockpiles.
|
Smoking Blunts
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:21:00 -
[4]
for me its 1/4 as many accounts unless they give the option to actually disembark like they said they would
|
dicen3
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:23:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Miilla
Originally by: dicen3 I think I finally figured it all out (not just the obvious stupid business decisions). People who multi-box buy PLEX. So they are not actually paying for game time of those extra clients. Someone else is. That means CPP has to support 2x as many clients vs selling directly with MTs. They want to take out the middlemen by stopping people from multi-boxing. The savings is 1/2 as many clients for Micro transactions vs PLEX transactions.
Essentially PLEX doesn't scale as a way to gain more revenue as they have to support 1/2x more clients in their infrastructure.
They are also a PLEX sink for CCP which they desperatly need. In order to remove the backlog of PLEXs and thus open paths to new PLEX revenue.
stockpiled PLEX is OLD revenue being consumed, CCP need NEW PLEX REVENUE, until the sink takes hold, multi account idiots need to keep playing to spend those stockpiles.
I am not discounting that. But, still PLEX requires 1/2x more clients then a direct EVE -> Customer MT. If there is no more PLEX things are a lot more efficient for CPP.
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:28:00 -
[6]
Remember there's enough sellers to match the buyers. -
|
Portmanteau
Gallente CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:29:00 -
[7]
Originally by: dicen3
Originally by: Miilla
Originally by: dicen3 I think I finally figured it all out (not just the obvious stupid business decisions). People who multi-box buy PLEX. So they are not actually paying for game time of those extra clients. Someone else is. That means CPP has to support 2x as many clients vs selling directly with MTs. They want to take out the middlemen by stopping people from multi-boxing. The savings is 1/2 as many clients for Micro transactions vs PLEX transactions.
Essentially PLEX doesn't scale as a way to gain more revenue as they have to support 1/2x more clients in their infrastructure.
They are also a PLEX sink for CCP which they desperatly need. In order to remove the backlog of PLEXs and thus open paths to new PLEX revenue.
stockpiled PLEX is OLD revenue being consumed, CCP need NEW PLEX REVENUE, until the sink takes hold, multi account idiots need to keep playing to spend those stockpiles.
I am not discounting that. But, still PLEX requires 1/2x more clients then a direct EVE -> Customer MT. If there is no more PLEX things are a lot more efficient for CPP.
And for isk sellers.
|
Stephanie Rose
Nos Exigo Effercio
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:31:00 -
[8]
I have 4 accounts an never use a PLEX to pay for one of them, damn it all to hell, I knew I was doing something wrong!
|
Alexis Meza
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:32:00 -
[9]
Would this actually be a bad thing gameplay wise though? I think not. It would make people play more socially and help to put some of the "hardcore" back into eve. |
Dylatar
Gallente Ocean Eleven
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:40:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Dylatar on 01/07/2011 14:40:33
Originally by: dicen3 I think I finally figured it all out (not just the obvious stupid business decisions). People who multi-box buy PLEX. So they are not actually paying for game time of those extra clients. Someone else is. That means CPP has to support 2x as many clients vs selling directly with MTs. They want to take out the middlemen by stopping people from multi-boxing. The savings is 1/2 as many clients for Micro transactions vs PLEX transactions.
Essentially PLEX doesn't scale as a way to gain more revenue as they have to support 1/2x more clients in their infrastructure.
Somebody who buys PLEX fpr isk isn't actually paying for the game time. But what you say is wrong. If somebody plays by buying plex for ISK, somebody else paid money for the PLEX, and the game time is paid as well.
So it's totally uninteresting for CCP, who paid it, but it's paid.
|
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:42:00 -
[11]
Game is designed so that multi-accounts are big advantage. Try to guess if CCP wants these people playing or not. Answer begins with "Y". They just went into stupid-mode with their sluggish engine and are trying to force you to love your space dolls.
|
dicen3
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:50:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Dylatar Edited by: Dylatar on 01/07/2011 14:40:33
Originally by: dicen3 I think I finally figured it all out (not just the obvious stupid business decisions). People who multi-box buy PLEX. So they are not actually paying for game time of those extra clients. Someone else is. That means CPP has to support 2x as many clients vs selling directly with MTs. They want to take out the middlemen by stopping people from multi-boxing. The savings is 1/2 as many clients for Micro transactions vs PLEX transactions.
Essentially PLEX doesn't scale as a way to gain more revenue as they have to support 1/2x more clients in their infrastructure.
Somebody who buys PLEX fpr isk isn't actually paying for the game time. But what you say is wrong. If somebody plays by buying plex for ISK, somebody else paid money for the PLEX, and the game time is paid as well.
So it's totally uninteresting for CCP, who paid it, but it's paid.
Yes, the game time is paid for but it requires 2x as many clients. If the goal for the customer is just to purchase ISK, then why have another player tie up infrastructure resources playing the game to gather isk. CPP can just sell it directly to the customer. |
Tanya Fox
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 14:55:00 -
[13]
So OP they want to stop people multi-boxing and yet they've been promoting the idea for people to have more than 1 account.
Do you see your theory does not add up?
|
dicen3
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 15:14:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Tanya Fox So OP they want to stop people multi-boxing and yet they've been promoting the idea for people to have more than 1 account.
Do you see your theory does not add up?
Having multiple accounts does not mean multi-boxing. Of course they want us to buy more accounts. But, they don't want us to run them at the same time. They want them to train skills all the time. Those who multi-box are usually gathering ISK and they usually gather so much of it that they don't pay for the client time themselves. So it increases infrastructure load = more blades, more MSSQL licenses, more networking gear, more power usage, more data center space, more bandwidth, etc...
|
Tanya Fox
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 15:27:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Tanya Fox on 01/07/2011 15:28:02
Originally by: dicen3
Originally by: Tanya Fox So OP they want to stop people multi-boxing and yet they've been promoting the idea for people to have more than 1 account.
Do you see your theory does not add up?
Having multiple accounts does not mean multi-boxing. Of course they want us to buy more accounts. But, they don't want us to run them at the same time. They want them to train skills all the time. Those who multi-box are usually gathering ISK and they usually gather so much of it that they don't pay for the client time themselves. So it increases infrastructure load = more blades, more MSSQL licenses, more networking gear, more power usage, more data center space, more bandwidth, etc...
That's just plain daft, not much point having multi accounts if you're not going to use them at the same time. I have multi accounts, I would have not have had all those accounts if you could not multi-box.
Plus as I remember it, the way they were trying to sell additional accounts suggested multi-boxing.
|
Tanya Fox
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 15:34:00 -
[16]
Plus OP,
I believe the catch phrase they used if I remember correctly was 'the power of two' not the power of 1 + 1.
|
Adrian Idaho
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 15:49:00 -
[17]
Originally by: dicen3 I think I finally figured it all out (not just the obvious stupid business decisions). People who multi-box buy PLEX. So they are not actually paying for game time of those extra clients. Someone else is. That means CPP has to support 2x as many clients vs selling directly with MTs. They want to take out the middlemen by stopping people from multi-boxing. The savings is 1/2 as many clients for Micro transactions vs PLEX transactions.
Essentially PLEX doesn't scale as a way to gain more revenue as they have to support 1/2x more clients in their infrastructure.
You truly embarrased yourself with this post; you should never write or talk about this topic again, since you're talking out of your a**.
|
ScreenWipe
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 15:52:00 -
[18]
Originally by: dicen3 I was born yesterday
I thought as much!
I dualbox, I need 7 PLEX a month, someone already paid for the GTC to convert to PLEX, so tell me, how is CCP losing out?
|
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 15:56:00 -
[19]
You mean multi clienting I think (on one box) .. multy boxing really isn'te impacted.
My issue is that the game , as designed does not take your full attention for long periods
- pos repairs, waiting for scout to scan systems ahead while roaming, gate camp periods in the cat and mouse portion of even more active roams or fleet engagements
- being group focussed by the very factor of human interaction, large groups of people doing logistical things will almost always have a delay between actual start of activity and gather up time do to last minute coodination of responsibilities and rounding up people coming late.. impromtu activites have an even longer delay - you know you'll hang watching tv for a bit before a group of friends finally rallies up to go out to the pubs or movies etc
The eve client needs to be light enough not to impact other programs you're running on the computer while playing the game that only requires focus for a fraction of the time logged in on many many days
|
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 16:00:00 -
[20]
You are a dumbass. Its not going F2P, they will keep both the subscription and whatever MTs they want as well. EVE is a "Premium product" remember?
Even still, explain to me how less accounts, that need less clothing, that need less gold ammo, that generate less subscription fees is a going to make the company more.
Its crippling to run because its an unoptimized game engine for a game that is going to come out in 4 years. Even still, you can always turn it off by removing the permission to read the files responsible for walking in stations, so you can quadbox or whatever in peace.
...Then when you stopped to think about it. All you really said was Lalala. |
|
dicen3
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 16:03:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Adrian Idaho
Originally by: dicen3 I think I finally figured it all out (not just the obvious stupid business decisions). People who multi-box buy PLEX. So they are not actually paying for game time of those extra clients. Someone else is. That means CPP has to support 2x as many clients vs selling directly with MTs. They want to take out the middlemen by stopping people from multi-boxing. The savings is 1/2 as many clients for Micro transactions vs PLEX transactions.
Essentially PLEX doesn't scale as a way to gain more revenue as they have to support 1/2x more clients in their infrastructure.
You truly embarrased yourself with this post; you should never write or talk about this topic again, since you're talking out of your a**.
Does the current system of PLEX not require 2 clients to run game time for a customer ISK purchase? Yes, it does. Did CPP just release a new EVE client that does not work with multi-boxing? Yes, they did. Did CPP just release a new EVE client with MT? Yep.
Customer A buys ISK from CPP for real money. They receive PLEX. Customer B gathers ISK to buy PLEX (game time) and sells it to Customer A.
= Customer A now has ISK but it required Customer B to play the game. Customer B did not pay CPP real money to play the game. Customer A paid for Customer B's game time.
Versus.
Customer A buys ISK/"game items" from CPP with real money. They receive ISK/"game items" directly. There is no game time for Customer B. Infrastructure load is 1/2 above.
|
Steve Thomas
Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 16:24:00 -
[22]
ok lets review
1 plex cost 19.95, 1 month costs $14.95
2 Plex cost 34.99 (or 17.49 per) 3 months $38.85. bascialy for just under $4 usd more you get a third month
6 Plex (there defualt setting by the way) cost 104.97 or 6 months sub is $71.70
12 Plex cost 209.94 12 months = $131.40
CCP makes more from selling plex directly than from selling monthly subs
also, unlike GTCs, CCP also makes money DIRECTLY from plex, and does not pay anyone else to sell a GTC for them.
so if you suddenly find that you cant quadbox anymore due to CCPs extreemly moronic decision to force you to use a high resource need client and you basicaly let thoes accounts laps. . . well CCP deserves the resulting cratering of Plex prices and demand that there moronic decisions have forced its player base to .End of line.
If your too paranoid to play EvE. . . ...then your not paranoid enough to play EvE ----------------
|
Adrian Idaho
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 18:39:00 -
[23]
Originally by: dicen3 Does the current system of PLEX not require 2 clients to run game time for a customer ISK purchase? Yes, it does. Did CPP just release a new EVE client that does not work with multi-boxing? Yes, they did. Did CPP just release a new EVE client with MT? Yep.
In that order: no, no, has nothing to do with dual-boxing.
Originally by: dicen3 Customer A buys ISK from CPP for real money. They receive PLEX. Customer B gathers ISK to buy PLEX (game time) and sells it to Customer A.
= Customer A now has ISK but it required Customer B to play the game. Customer B did not pay CPP real money to play the game. Customer A paid for Customer B's game time.
Versus.
Customer A buys ISK/"game items" from CPP with real money. They receive ISK/"game items" directly. There is no game time for Customer B. Infrastructure load is 1/2 above.
I know you think what you're saying makes sense, but it really doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |