Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
   |
Posted - 2011.06.17 23:08:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Alice Katsuko on 17/06/2011 23:08:54
 Originally by: CCP Zulu
There are a lot of very valid points raised here. What's interesting is that most, if not all, of the issues that are being raised are because of confusing wording, terminology or misunderstandings in the draft document.
There's nothing confusing about the devblog.
Quote:
Will services for in-game currency require a commercial license?
Yes, if you require any sort of payment for your services you will need a commercial license.
Will website ads require a commercial license?
Yes, for ad-supported websites you will require a commercial license.
Will donations require a commercial license?
Yes, for donation supported websites you will require a commercial license.
You've stated here quite explicitly that you intend to charge nonprofit sites $99 even if any ad-based or donation revenue doesn't pay for even a fraction of hosting and development costs. That would include virtually every free EVE application which has a little "donate" button, as well as virtually every alliance forum and website which has an API-based verification system. If that's not what CCP as a company intended to say, then perhaps you need to proofread dev-blogs more thoroughly.
Originally by: CCP Zulu
It is in no way the purpose of the program to deter or make money off 3rd party development. The core purpose is simply to have control our IP and brand and have a contract in place so we can have some form of regulation on apps and services that use the EVE name and EVE resources (API).
Because charging folk, who pay out of pocket to provide services which make this game much more playable and which provide functions which any competent developer would have incorporated into the game years ago, clearly encourages third-party development. As has been pointed out repeatedly, if you simply want to control your IP, charging a nominal $1 fee unless the application developer commercializes their program [like the old Capsuleer] would have been enough. This idea could only have been dreamed up by some idiot MBA who has never touched EVE in his life and who wants to make it look like he contributed to the bottom line.
Originally by: CCP Zulu
Itæs obvious we have to review and iterate on the contract and program as presented in the devblog since most of the points mentioned in the comments are not in line with its core purpose.
CCP hasn't had a very good track record of reviewing or iterating. Half the game resembles abandonware. Most of us have seen plenty of empty promises to iterate on this or that broken or incomplete feature. In all honesty, I expect little more than to find that entire failure of an attempt to squeeze a profit from app developers to be shoved down our throats within the next few months.
Originally by: CCP Zulu
Unfortunately that will take some time and weære kind of swamped for the next couple of weeks.
If you're too busy to properly review ideas before making them public, then don't make them public.
In short, requiring for-profit developers who charge for their EVE apps to pay a $99 fee makes sense. Charging nonprofit developers who get small donations $99 makes absolutely no sense, especially if you really don't intend to profit from this.
|