Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zifrian
Deep Space Innovations
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 21:25:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Zifrian on 16/06/2011 21:26:27 I'm reading over all the comments to this change to 3rd party development and the ability to charge for products and noticed that many people seem to be assuming CCP is doing this for greed or perhaps some other reason. However, reading the blog again shows that they are trying to provide a "feature" to the game that now does not exist - the ability to charge for your development work.
From the blog:
Quote: At this year's Fanfest CCP hosted the first Dev Track in what we hope will be a regular event. To kick off the event I gave an exciting announcement about monetization, which has up to this point been a sore point for EVE Online 3rd party software development, since it has been against the ToS to charge for applications or services which use the EVE Online Intellectual Property.
So who is really at fault here? CCP or those at the Fanfest that requested this in the Dev Track? Where does this "sore point" lie? I understand that there are some out there frustrated that they cannot charge but there is a pretty big response from 3rd party devs that they DO NOT want to charge for their programs. The only people I saw bring up this complaint is the developers of Capsuleer for the iPhone in another thread although I'm sure there are more.
As someone who is in the process of developing a program, I know how much work goes into it but considering the large amount of 3rd party programs in the community, is there really a huge request to be able to charge? Would programs like EVE Mon, and EFT simply stop working on them if this change isn't implemented? (some perspective from this Dev Track event would be nice to have for those that didn't go)
It seems to me that maybe CCP read this request wrong and of course some fault for this kerfuffle lies with them, but it doesn't seem like greed is motivating them. Is it motivating the 3rd party developers? Should we be angry at them instead?
======================================================== "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do." - Dale Carnegie
|
Fractal Muse
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 21:42:00 -
[2]
Free apps can still be developed for free.
The issues that I see with the announcement:
$99 / year for any in game service bought via any in-game mechanism.
This means all mercenaries corps will have to pay $99 / year to be able to advertise their services on a website. I wonder if each -member- of a merc corp would need to do this as well. Anyone else who provides an in-game service for ISK would also have to pay. That leads me to wonder if the people who sell characters would also have to pay the $99 / month.
$99 / year for any website that is making money off of ads.
To me this is neither here nor there - I don't mind it since the site owner is making money off of EVE. If they don't want to pay the 99 they can stop having ads. Or, if their site is successful, then they can use the ad revenue to pay for the 99.
I realize there are a few sites that do not make any significant amount of money from their ad revenue but it still helps pay for hosting but.. it'd just be as easy for the owner to remove the ads or just pay the $99. I can understand their point of view though.
For the rest: I think $99 / year is a great deal for a developer who is going to monetize their development in regards to EVE. If EVEMON started charging $5 / year they would make a significant amount of money all for only $99 as an expense (and, of course, time invested for coding). That's a great deal.
If they change the structure of the agreement to allow for in-game services to be handled as they are currently and maybe revisit the website ad revenue thing, I think this will be of great benefit to any and all third-party developers of EVE.
But, I suppose for players, a lot of people don't want to have to -pay- for their third party apps. Their rage really isn't at CCP but at any developer who would charge them to use their apps when they used to get them for free. It's just easier to be upset at CCP.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 21:44:00 -
[3]
CCP makes the decision so the get the derision.
Although I would have say if you ever go read the ideas players present to the CSMs at least half leave you unsure if you should cringe or laugh owning to their extreme and short sighted selfish stupidity.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Mella Elcus
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 21:46:00 -
[4]
It's not just an added feature, and that's why people are angry. With this change you'll need to pay CCP 99Ç annually if you want to accept ISK donations.
Other people are angry since with this change they would need a commercial license for running adds on their site. Even though that sucks it's kinda reasonable since they are technically making real life money by using EVE's API and brand. (That it doesn't even cover hosting costs might be true, but it wouldn't be easy to prove)
|
Madcow
Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 22:04:00 -
[5]
Though the thing is with isk donations is about the same as real money because of the plex system. ______________________ I am just a crazy cow |
Zifrian
Deep Space Innovations
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 22:12:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Zifrian on 16/06/2011 22:12:35 I guess I read the ISK donations differently and they really should clarify. If I donate ISK to a website or developer, that is my choice - I don't have to do it. The change makes it so that you could charge them, which is removing my choice to do so. Completely different.
But it seems like some read "donation" it was not a donation, but where you pay isk to use the service.
So is CCP's definition of "Donation" = "Fee"? Clarity would be good. If it's just "Hey, donate so we can keep the site up!" Then, how/why should this matter? Why do they have to pay the $99 bucks to offer the same service?
======================================================== "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do." - Dale Carnegie
|
Miilla
Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 22:13:00 -
[7]
WHAT IF....
A website ISOLATES the EVE component from the rest of the site, which would have ad revenue. But the EVE part IS FREE?
How does that stand?
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 22:22:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 16/06/2011 22:22:49
Originally by: Fractal Muse Free apps can still be developed for free.
So can free malware.
Here's the thing; this allows CCP to track and hold developers accountable for the "products" they release. It allows CCP for be able to say with more confidence that, "we know these people and their work; we trust them to take your security as seriously as we do."
Most companys with high visability products sell their API and developemnt kits for sometimes a great deal more than 99 dollars. Some game developers disallow compensation of any kind for your third party development effort, claiming 100% ownership of your product release.
I am not discouraged at all by CCP announcement.
|
Miilla
Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 22:24:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Miilla on 16/06/2011 22:25:57
Originally by: Barbara Nichole
Originally by: Fractal Muse Free apps can still be developed for free.
So can free malware.
Here's the thing; this allows CCP to track and hold developers accountable for the "products" they release. It allows CCP for be able to say with more confidence that, "we know these people and their work; we trust them to take your security as seriously as we do."
Most companys with high visability products sell their API and developemnt kits for sometimes a great deal more than 99 dollars. Some game developers disallow compensation of any kind for your third party development effort' claiming 100% ownership of your product release.
I am not discouraged at all by CCP announcement.
Yes but CCP is not selling a SDK.
They are just charging for , well, same as was free, as is, shoddy support, shoddy documentation, no plumbing.
It is unclear now to me what if a website that has ad-revenue, but has a FREE eve api componenent (killboard / stats).
Where does CCP stand on that? The EVE API consumption is not charged for.
The rest of the site is. 2 seperate things, now will CCP charge for the free componenet that is not DIRECTLY being charged for?
That scenario is unclear.
CCP make MSDN look great.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 22:34:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Barbara Nichole Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 16/06/2011 22:22:49
Originally by: Fractal Muse Free apps can still be developed for free.
So can free malware.
Here's the thing; this allows CCP to track and hold developers accountable for the "products" they release. It allows CCP for be able to say with more confidence that, "we know these people and their work; we trust them to take your security as seriously as we do."
Most companys with high visability products sell their API and developemnt kits for sometimes a great deal more than 99 dollars. Some game developers disallow compensation of any kind for your third party development effort, claiming 100% ownership of your product release.
I am not discouraged at all by CCP announcement.
Here's the catch: I actually developed software since 1981, I develop EvE apps and websites.
I had to pay a lot just to access to PLC and other proprietary interfaces, in the order of the thousands.
Was it bad?
No!
Because I knew (in advance!) I'd make 5+ times as much in revenue.
What do I get in EvE:
Millions of Apple fat wallet customers ready to shell those $0.99 in addition to the several hundreds they already paid? NO! I get maybe 100k of unique *potential* customers, most are students paying with mined PLEX. Plus the EvE sub is low enough that asking for any amount is a visible percentage of a sub price.
How do I even get to 100k potential customers? In the only way: spamming ultra-generalistic apps like EvE Mon. NO WAY I could make an Alchemy app or a T3 spreadsheet and ever hope to break even.
Also Apple gives the SDK and docs.
What CCP gives is nothing and the API has so long cooldowns that people will scream at me. Plus EvE API is ridden with downtimes, bugs and who WILL get the blame? Still me.
Basically their revenue model sucks and is not viable for any except 3-4 top general apps.
Finally, many app stores will give you the web space, bandwidth, payment processors (long and costly to make). What does CCP give us? Yes, you guessed it, zero.
Before they charge for something, they should implement it.
Auditing | Research | 3rd Party | Collateral Holding | EvE RL Charity |
|
Miilla
Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 22:35:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Miilla on 16/06/2011 22:36:43
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Originally by: Barbara Nichole Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 16/06/2011 22:22:49
Originally by: Fractal Muse Free apps can still be developed for free.
So can free malware.
Here's the thing; this allows CCP to track and hold developers accountable for the "products" they release. It allows CCP for be able to say with more confidence that, "we know these people and their work; we trust them to take your security as seriously as we do."
Most companys with high visability products sell their API and developemnt kits for sometimes a great deal more than 99 dollars. Some game developers disallow compensation of any kind for your third party development effort, claiming 100% ownership of your product release.
I am not discouraged at all by CCP announcement.
Here's the catch: I actually developed software since 1981, I develop EvE apps and websites.
I had to pay a lot just to access to PLC and other proprietary interfaces, in the order of the thousands.
Was it bad?
No!
Because I knew (in advance!) I'd make 5+ times as much in revenue.
What do I get in EvE:
Millions of Apple fat wallet customers ready to shell those $0.99 in addition to the several hundreds they already paid? NO! I get maybe 100k of unique *potential* customers, most are students paying with mined PLEX. Plus the EvE sub is low enough that asking for any amount is a visible percentage of a sub price.
How do I even get to 100k potential customers? In the only way: spamming ultra-generalistic apps like EvE Mon. NO WAY I could make an Alchemy app or a T3 spreadsheet and ever hope to break even.
Also Apple gives the SDK and docs.
What CCP gives is nothing and the API has so long cooldowns that people will scream at me. Plus EvE API is ridden with downtimes, bugs and who WILL get the blame? Still me.
Basically their revenue model sucks and is not viable for any except 3-4 top general apps.
Finally, many app stores will give you the web space, bandwidth, payment processors (long and costly to make). What does CCP give us? Yes, you guessed it, zero.
Before they charge for something, they should implement it.
Yes, they also give proper documentation, proper SDK's, proper support, proper, well everything.
What does CCP give? Unclarity, fudge, mist, fog.
That is a big problem with CCP.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 22:38:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Miilla Yes, they also give proper documentation, proper SDK's, proper support, proper, well everything.
What does CCP give? Unclarity, fudge, mist, fog.
That is a big problem with CCP.
Yes. They want to compete with Apple at how much they tax the developers but don't want to accept the counter part service to be given to those developers. This is "selective reality".
Auditing | Research | 3rd Party | Collateral Holding | EvE RL Charity |
Miilla
Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 22:42:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Originally by: Miilla Yes, they also give proper documentation, proper SDK's, proper support, proper, well everything.
What does CCP give? Unclarity, fudge, mist, fog.
That is a big problem with CCP.
Yes. They want to compete with Apple at how much they tax the developers but don't want to accept the counter part service to be given to those developers. This is "selective reality".
Now that is stretching it, It doesnt take much from CCP to give something.
For EXAMPLE.
.Net WCF Async REST API proxies Python bindings C++ Bindings.
They are easy to make, but we have to do the plumbing for them, each update, we have to DISCOVER what changes are in the REST API.
All they have to do is ship PROXIES for the REST API that are up to date, saves us time. A monkey can do that ffs.
Documentation, well, not hard to do, but they just hack up some DUMPS from the REST API. I could do that myself.
There is also the issue of what defines commercial and non-commerical usage of the API
You can isolate the website that generates ad revenue from the EVE API part, so how does that figure in the license? If it is non-commercial, then websites will split off the EVE part and should do, especially for small fan killboards.
|
Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission EVE Trade Consortium
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 23:27:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Hel O''Ween on 16/06/2011 23:28:10
Originally by: Zifrian
So who is really at fault here? CCP or those at the Fanfest that requested this in the Dev Track? Where does this "sore point" lie? I understand that there are some out there frustrated that they cannot charge but there is a pretty big response from 3rd party devs that they DO NOT want to charge for their programs. The only people I saw bring up this complaint is the developers of Capsuleer for the iPhone in another thread although I'm sure there are more.
I attended the fanfest and took part in most of the dev tracks, including the one (the first dev track) where CCP Atlas announced that they will come up with a license for 3rd party devs.
He mentioned this at the beginning of his introductionary speech. No 3rd party dev requested anything at the fanfest. At that time, I thought "Cool, now those that think their apps will sell, can try it and I'm not bothered by this, as I had and still have no intention to sell my tool."
There was no mentioning of requiring a (free or commercial) license at fanfest, though. Let alone requiring a commercial license for free apps that just happen to accept (ISK) donations or earn some meager cents from ads.
Had CCP Atlas mentioned that at the fanfest already, I guess those developers present (like Wollari) would have articulated their concerns.
I admit that I didn't take part at the 3rd party dev round table, so can't comment on what was spoken there about the license program. -- EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager |
Zifrian
Deep Space Innovations
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 23:32:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Hel O'Ween Edited by: Hel O''Ween on 16/06/2011 23:28:10
Originally by: Zifrian
So who is really at fault here? CCP or those at the Fanfest that requested this in the Dev Track? Where does this "sore point" lie? I understand that there are some out there frustrated that they cannot charge but there is a pretty big response from 3rd party devs that they DO NOT want to charge for their programs. The only people I saw bring up this complaint is the developers of Capsuleer for the iPhone in another thread although I'm sure there are more.
I attended the fanfest and took part in most of the dev tracks, including the one (the first dev track) where CCP Atlas announced that they will come up with a license for 3rd party devs.
He mentioned this at the beginning of his introductionary speech. No 3rd party dev requested anything at the fanfest. At that time, I thought "Cool, now those that think their apps will sell, can try it and I'm not bothered by this, as I had and still have no intention to sell my tool."
There was no mentioning of requiring a (free or commercial) license at fanfest, though. Let alone requiring a commercial license for free apps that just happen to accept (ISK) donations or earn some meager cents from ads.
Had CCP Atlas mentioned that at the fanfest already, I guess those developers present (like Wollari) would have articulated their concerns.
I admit that I didn't take part at the 3rd party dev round table, so can't comment on what was spoken there about the license program.
Thanks for this information.
======================================================== "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do." - Dale Carnegie
|
Mr Kidd
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 23:48:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Mr Kidd on 16/06/2011 23:49:24
Originally by: Barbara Nichole Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 16/06/2011 22:22:49
Originally by: Fractal Muse Free apps can still be developed for free.
So can free malware.
Here's the thing; this allows CCP to track and hold developers accountable for the "products" they release. It allows CCP for be able to say with more confidence that, "we know these people and their work; we trust them to take your security as seriously as we do."
I love this kind of logic. No....not really. It assumes that by making more rules and hoops to jump through that the people intent on breaking them will magically begin recognizing and following them.
People who produce malware have little respect for rules and even laws. CCP, by requiring a fee for people providing content for the game which I will remind you is CCP's job, only does one thing. And that is to penalize those following the rules.
|
Lauren Hellfury
Full Pocket Aggro
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 23:49:00 -
[17]
The first announcement of this was back on October 8th 2010 by CCP Manifest in response to the discussions held with the developers of Capsuleer and with the tone of the thread that resulted in their announcement of the termination of development for that app.
Linkage (page 8, post #230 - if it doesn't take you straight to it)
Now, when you move from the current situation of "no selling for real money and we'll turn a blind eye to in-game donations/web-ads" to one of a licensed structure the initial draft is always going to nail as much down as "for profit" as they can collectively think of. It's how you make sure that the default position is that a commercial license is required. You then go about building in the clauses that allow a free license for the "free" stuff.
So why not use a "not for profit" term instead of "free"? Simply put you can abuse "not for profit" quite heavily with the way you account for costs incurred which you attempt to recover. That $99 fee is an attempt to keep this whole scheme as a "not for profit" venture for CCP. Their figures could turn out to be wrong and they could make a profit, granted. But please take the point. $99 is "not for profit", $0 is "free".
What we're looking at now is the haggling over the detail of what "free" entails. I personally believe that charging ISK will not be kept as requiring a commercial license, but charging PLEX would be. I'm content to wait to see the next iteration of the document and review where it's at and where it's going at that point.
|
Miilla
Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 23:51:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Lauren Hellfury The first announcement of this was back on October 8th 2010 by CCP Manifest in response to the discussions held with the developers of Capsuleer and with the tone of the thread that resulted in their announcement of the termination of development for that app.
Linkage (page 8, post #230 - if it doesn't take you straight to it)
Now, when you move from the current situation of "no selling for real money and we'll turn a blind eye to in-game donations/web-ads" to one of a licensed structure the initial draft is always going to nail as much down as "for profit" as they can collectively think of. It's how you make sure that the default position is that a commercial license is required. You then go about building in the clauses that allow a free license for the "free" stuff.
So why not use a "not for profit" term instead of "free"? Simply put you can abuse "not for profit" quite heavily with the way you account for costs incurred which you attempt to recover. That $99 fee is an attempt to keep this whole scheme as a "not for profit" venture for CCP. Their figures could turn out to be wrong and they could make a profit, granted. But please take the point. $99 is "not for profit", $0 is "free".
What we're looking at now is the haggling over the detail of what "free" entails. I personally believe that charging ISK will not be kept as requiring a commercial license, but charging PLEX would be. I'm content to wait to see the next iteration of the document and review where it's at and where it's going at that point.
Put the EVE API consuming website for FREE
Put your non EVE API consuming but eve related, website AD supported.
Non-commercial license for the usage of the EVE API.
As for clients, well, I can foresee apps moving to sit on top of a browser. so CCP get 300,000 Internet Explorer applications on the first day of the new licenses.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 23:53:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Fractal Muse Free apps can still be developed for free.
The issues that I see with the announcement:
$99 / year for any in game service bought via any in-game mechanism.
This means all mercenaries corps will have to pay $99 / year to be able to advertise their services on a website. I wonder if each -member- of a merc corp would need to do this as well. Anyone else who provides an in-game service for ISK would also have to pay. That leads me to wonder if the people who sell characters would also have to pay the $99 / month.
Only if you pay money for your mercs or characters, which is against the eula anyway. Buying things with isk doesn't count, the isk isn't yours anyway, nor are the characters or indeed the service provided by the mercs. All belong to ccp and don't change hands.
|
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 23:54:00 -
[20]
That may have been their intention, but the wording of the initial release and their initial comments just show that the business people and higher ups at CCP (clearly including CCP Atlas) don't play this game and don't know how this game works. Most EVE players rely on 3rd party aps to play EVE. And yet, this fact clearly took CCP bizdev, CCP Atlas and Hilmar completely by surprise. They honestly had no idea that so many volunteer 3rd party aps exist, and are integral to gameplay.
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 23:55:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Doddy
Originally by: Fractal Muse Free apps can still be developed for free.
The issues that I see with the announcement:
$99 / year for any in game service bought via any in-game mechanism.
This means all mercenaries corps will have to pay $99 / year to be able to advertise their services on a website. I wonder if each -member- of a merc corp would need to do this as well. Anyone else who provides an in-game service for ISK would also have to pay. That leads me to wonder if the people who sell characters would also have to pay the $99 / month.
Only if you pay money for your mercs or characters, which is against the eula anyway. Buying things with isk doesn't count, the isk isn't yours anyway, nor are the characters or indeed the service provided by the mercs. All belong to ccp and don't change hands.
From Blog
2) Regarding this clause: Q: Will services for in-game currency require a commercial license? A: Yes, if you require any sort of payment for your services you will need a commercial license
Thought so.
Auditing | Research | 3rd Party | Collateral Holding | EvE RL Charity |
Lauren Hellfury
Full Pocket Aggro
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 00:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Originally by: Doddy
Originally by: Fractal Muse Free apps can still be developed for free.
The issues that I see with the announcement:
$99 / year for any in game service bought via any in-game mechanism.
This means all mercenaries corps will have to pay $99 / year to be able to advertise their services on a website. I wonder if each -member- of a merc corp would need to do this as well. Anyone else who provides an in-game service for ISK would also have to pay. That leads me to wonder if the people who sell characters would also have to pay the $99 / month.
Only if you pay money for your mercs or characters, which is against the eula anyway. Buying things with isk doesn't count, the isk isn't yours anyway, nor are the characters or indeed the service provided by the mercs. All belong to ccp and don't change hands.
From Blog
2) Regarding this clause: Q: Will services for in-game currency require a commercial license? A: Yes, if you require any sort of payment for your services you will need a commercial license
Thought so.
That'd be the blog discussing monetizing the use of API and IP? How does that fit in with the character bazaar or mercs?
Thought so.
|
jowming
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 00:10:00 -
[23]
Edited by: jowming on 17/06/2011 00:11:27 so in essence all ccp is saying is if you get donations or charge for the ap you pay us a little bit
does not sound to bad from the sound of it. seems ccp is just making it so devolopers can charge for a ap they just have to pay ccp a small fee
|
Miilla
Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 00:13:00 -
[24]
Originally by: jowming Edited by: jowming on 17/06/2011 00:11:27 so in essence all ccp is saying is if you get donations or charge for the ap you pay us a little bit
does not sound to bad from the sound of it. seems ccp is just making it so devolopers can charge for a ap they just have to pay ccp a small fee
Please define "application".
I just Donated to Firefox, that application (Firefox) I use to HTTP GET EVE API URL's, then I apply a style sheet to make it nice and easy to read.
Mozilla Foundation should get a CCP EVE API COMMERCIAL license :)
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 00:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Lauren Hellfury
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Originally by: Doddy
Originally by: Fractal Muse Free apps can still be developed for free.
The issues that I see with the announcement:
$99 / year for any in game service bought via any in-game mechanism.
This means all mercenaries corps will have to pay $99 / year to be able to advertise their services on a website. I wonder if each -member- of a merc corp would need to do this as well. Anyone else who provides an in-game service for ISK would also have to pay. That leads me to wonder if the people who sell characters would also have to pay the $99 / month.
Only if you pay money for your mercs or characters, which is against the eula anyway. Buying things with isk doesn't count, the isk isn't yours anyway, nor are the characters or indeed the service provided by the mercs. All belong to ccp and don't change hands.
From Blog
2) Regarding this clause: Q: Will services for in-game currency require a commercial license? A: Yes, if you require any sort of payment for your services you will need a commercial license
Thought so.
That'd be the blog discussing monetizing the use of API and IP? How does that fit in with the character bazaar or mercs?
Thought so.
The mercs are paid with ISK, this requires a commercial license. The mercs probably have a killboard and a forum. Both usually come with Shattered Crystal GTC button and / or ads. Both require a commercial license.
The character bazaar if you post the character skills on the usual websites then you'll be charged by them. If you use EvEMon in its current incarnation you'll have to pay it. Else feel free to write down all the skills. After the 100th case of "sorry I mystyped carrier V, I meant II" it'll grow quite old.
Auditing | Research | 3rd Party | Collateral Holding | EvE RL Charity |
Miilla
Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 00:16:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Miilla on 17/06/2011 00:16:54 Web sites can get away with a NON-COMMERICAL license easily.
2 websites, on paid for, the other free.
paid for hosts nice eve content (forums etc) but no EVE API.
Free site hosts EVE API content (killboard)
No direct links from paid for to free But you can have a HUGE non clickable banner with a huge glowing arrow to it :)
|
jowming
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 00:16:00 -
[27]
wow ''finds the door'' your all crazy and over thinking this ''man null sec does horrible things to people''
|
Lauren Hellfury
Full Pocket Aggro
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 00:23:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
The mercs are paid with ISK, this requires a commercial license.
Not as it stands at the moment. Because hiring a merc force doesn't require external use of the API or CCPs IP. I message preferred merc outfit and arrange contract in-game. Pay isk. They go to war for me.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
The mercs probably have a killboard and a forum. Both usually come with Shattered Crystal GTC button and / or ads. Both require a commercial license.
That's up to the corps involved to sort out. Considering how much they are likely to receive from that..... Besides, most killboards are rented for ISK so it's the provider of the killboards that would be required to pay the commercial license, not the corp renting it.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
The character bazaar if you post the character skills on the usual websites then you'll be charged by them. If you use EvEMon in its current incarnation you'll have to pay it. Else feel free to write down all the skills. After the 100th case of "sorry I mystyped carrier V, I meant II" it'll grow quite old.
Again, the provider would be liable for the commercial license, not the person who posts their character to it. If those providers then want to make a charge, well, that is up to them. Assuming of course that they continue to make use of any real life revenue generating ads/have a donate button/charge isk.
Same with EveMon. You won't need your own commercial license to use the program, but if they want to generate real life revenue from ads, accept donations or charge isk for the program then they will have to have a commercial license.
Note that the ISK part is only as it stands right now and I am confident that this will not make it to the final version.
|
Amber Accelerando
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 01:12:00 -
[29]
Smells like a Blizzard/WoW Douche move.
|
Constantinus Maximus
Paxian Expeditionary Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 01:29:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Constantinus Maximus on 17/06/2011 01:31:57 With so many of the 3rd party developers (and core players) leaving the game they have little reason not to shutdown their expensive to run free services.
If they can get some money aside from game-fame then they can continue to provide these value-added services for CCP, which helps keep idiots playing/paying.
Originally by: Mella Elcus With this change you'll need to pay CCP 99Ç annually if you want to accept ISK donations.
That's the path they're taking? ROFL!! Sec I'm sure eve-metrics can pay their server bill with ISK. oh man, way to miss the point CCP.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |