Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:15:00 -
[1]
During the Alliance Tournament IX finals, CCP Soundwave conducted an interview with CCP Zulu regarding the third-party application program, which is currently in draft form. CCP GuardĘs newest dev blog provides both a video and transcript of the interview. Read the blog, and watch the video here.
DE
RU
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Chruker
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:25:00 -
[2]
I doubt any kind of contract requirement will keep people from making sites with advertising and certainly wont protect anybody from harmfull apps. ----- http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online ----- Top wishes: - No daily downtime - Faster training on sisi
|
Seleene
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:32:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Seleene on 22/06/2011 18:34:12
"So no $99. We need a token charge and it is going to happen and we are all good."
So, token charge = 99 cents.
Amirite? ---- Seleene's Sandbox - My Blog, where I say stuff. |
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:35:00 -
[4]
Quote: Dear space friends
.... have you looked at your game since the last patch? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Iurnan Mileghere
Singularity Foundation
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:36:00 -
[5]
I don't see anything unreasonable about charging RL $ to sites that do the same.
However, for sites that charge only ISK, perhaps you could require them to pay a PLEX every year? Or something along those lines?
|
Marchocias
Snatch Victory
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:36:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Chruker I doubt any kind of contract requirement will keep people from making sites with advertising and certainly wont protect anybody from harmfull apps.
Of course, the cowboys are always gonna be out there scamming away, and there would be nothing to stop someone from foolishly downloading an app without checking its on the registered ccp list.
However, this should provide a seal of approval which would help the playerbase separate the good stuff from the bad (assuming ccp provide a public list of registered 3rd party devs and apps), whilst at the same time the licensing of the api service will allow CCP the option to persue the malware authors via appropriate legal channels.
---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
Glasgow Dunlop
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:37:00 -
[7]
so if there now saying they need a token charge, then why the hell tell everybody is was $99? im sure most of the guys the run the 3rd party apps would have been ok with like a small charge, but now you screwed up massively, you might have lost the trust of the 3rd party guys, where this goes from here who know . . . hopefully for the best thou :)
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion RONA Directorate
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:38:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Seleene Edited by: Seleene on 22/06/2011 18:34:12
"So no $99. We need a token charge and it is going to happen and we are all good."
So, token charge = 99 cents.
Amirite?
I hope so.
|
Marchocias
Snatch Victory
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:40:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Marchocias on 22/06/2011 18:44:50
Originally by: Seleene So, token charge = 99 cents.
Amirite?
No... you have to cut out and collect tokens from the back of the Eve box. You'll need 50 of em.
Edit: Oh look... here come the voices of reason: ↓ ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
Marcus Vorenius
Instant Annihilation
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:42:00 -
[10]
you have got to be ****ing kidding me - is 3rd party apps more important than that 750 MB pile of dog poo we got yesterday? Get your head out of your arse
|
|
Pierce Alta
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:47:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Pierce Alta on 22/06/2011 18:48:13 Token charge? What's needed for the contract is an exchange of value...I'm certain the creative minds at CCP and their legal counsel can characterize the value exchange in terms of something other than cash.
There are plenty of other third party/community developer arrangements that don't charge anything to the developers (token or not), and still have effective contractual terms.
Besides...a 'token' exchange (and admitting it's merely a token) may have other implications CCP/their legal don't intend.
|
Sakura Zendragon
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 18:58:00 -
[12]
Glad to see there is some good, common sense in Iceland, after all.
Still, some clarification regarding donations ($$ or ISK), Shattered Crystal affiliate links, et al. would be nice. And regarding ISK-based "comercial" services, as well, since you can't actually convert ISK->$$.
Nice distraction from the CQ-gate/NeX-gate, btw
|
PC l0adletter
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:05:00 -
[13]
If your attorneys insist that you need an exchange of substantial money to make a contract binding, you should fire them and send them back to the first year of law school.
Ask them how GPL is binding, for example.
Pretty convenient to blame some lawyers for the failed moneygrab, though, isn't it? Too bad they can't take the fall for monocolegate.
|
Phoenix Tyrox
Krupp-Stahl Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:09:00 -
[14]
Originally by: CCP Zulu What is going on is that we as a company saw the need, and this is coming from all third party developers, that they want to make some money or have the option to charge ISK for services that they are providing to the community.
Really? From who namely?
|
Buzzmong
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:18:00 -
[15]
Crikey, has CCP been taking U-turn lessons from David Cameron? (For non UK people: He's our current ineffective Prime Minister).
The turn arounds in the original feedback thread were impressively quick, this is just icing on the cake.
At least Zulu has the good grace to recognise the calls of BS were correct and justified. --------------------------------- Go Web! Go! |
Ranger 1
Amarr Paragon Fury Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:19:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 22/06/2011 19:24:33
Originally by: Phoenix Tyrox
Originally by: CCP Zulu What is going on is that we as a company saw the need, and this is coming from all third party developers, that they want to make some money or have the option to charge ISK for services that they are providing to the community.
Really? From who namely?
I would imagine anyone wanting to develop an Iphone app to sell for a buck or two in the App store.
That being said, it is deemed too much money to expect a 3rd party developer to pay $99 for the ability to make money off of an app they develop for EVE.
However it is perfectly acceptable to expect your average player to spend $60 to buy a simple monocle from the Noble Exchange.
I think a blog on what is going to be done to fix the Noble Exchange should be a priority, as it is a far, far bigger issue (and screw up) than the licensing fee could ever hope to be. ===== The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction. |
Prince Kobol
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:21:00 -
[17]
They needed a token payment so somebody thought "hey, this is great way to screw more money out of our players.. lets charge them 99$ but what ever you do.. don't mention the token payment part"
Gives me a mental image of Basil Fawlty saying "Don't talk about the War" in The Germans episode.
What they didn't expect (god knows why they didn't) was the outrage.
They probably expected us to be grateful.
|
Zaxix
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:23:00 -
[18]
I just want to know whether Red Frog Freight site falls into this category or not. Then I'll know whether I should care about this. |
Gripen
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:37:00 -
[19]
Would be great if CCP set up a shop where 3rd party developers could place their software and people could use CCP payment processing system to buy it.
|
Xailia
Unsteady Corporation
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:38:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Pierce Alta Token charge? What's needed for the contract is an exchange of value...I'm certain the creative minds at CCP and their legal counsel can characterize the value exchange in terms of something other than cash. . .
I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps CCP could have a tools page on eveonline.com, and the something of value they receive from the developer is the right to mirror a copy of the tool.
It could get complicated with websites, etc. but CCP is full of creative people, find some creative lawyers too.
If monetary, I'm assuming a token charge can be as little as 1 kr=na.
"The sky above the port was the color of a television, tuned to a dead channel."
|
|
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:43:00 -
[21]
It is better that I dont say anything... after few years you will realize what it was when you find dusty spaceships hidden behind all kinds of worthless crap.
------------------------------------------------- Play with the best - die like the rest starwreck.com - support the cause :) |
Dorkus Americanus
The Laugh Factory
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:54:00 -
[22]
I think perhaps this blog was released not only to try to explain the $99 fee for third party apps and so on, but also to try to direct people's attention away from the issue of $68 pixel monocles.
|
electrostatus
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 19:54:00 -
[23]
So I do NOT need this license IF I only ask (not charge, or actually ask) for ISK donations, is that correct? This is only for people who want to charge real money or ISK for their programs? Free programs are exempt from this license, correct?
If not true, will a license be required even if someone insisted to donate ISK for a free program? ― Vexo M > He turned the drives up to 11 |
Etown
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:01:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Etown on 22/06/2011 20:01:42
Originally by: Dorkus Americanus I think perhaps this blog was released not only to try to explain the $99 fee for third party apps and so on, but also to try to direct people's attention away from the issue of $68 pixel monocles.
Don't buy it... I'd give up if I was CCP. Gamers just aren't what they used to be. I don't see how they put up with you.
|
Makko Gray
Nexus Aerospace Corporation
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:04:00 -
[25]
I don't think the token charge of $99 was on it's own the problem. Part of the problem was $99 per year - if it's just a token payment why not make it a 2, 3 or 5 year licence in turn decreasing your own administration and potentially allowing you to reducde the cost without shouldering the burden yourself.
As well with the $99 charge is that for all there people that play eve there is still not a big enough community to make a good profit on many platforms. Apps the are dicipline specific and tied to a platform will have a limited number of potential subscribers, for example how many people who like to mine and would use an app have an android phone.
And with yearly licensing you'd either need to implement a similar model in your app or accept the once people bought it if you wanted to keep covering your licence costs year on you you may end up dipping into your own pocket.
Personally I think a charge of $49 every 3 years might have gone down a lot smoother but I'm sure the community could feed back on what sort of terms they'd find palatable.
|
Smoking Blunts
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:21:00 -
[26]
nothing you can dress up now will make me think anything other than your getting gready and trying to grab every last cent from your customer base. look at the total garbage you just released. its nothing more than an abortion with a price tag in AUR
|
Vanessa Vansen
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:22:00 -
[27]
It seems like CCP kind of realized what the impact of $99 would be to their 3rd party developers. I hope that the community will be involved in the developing the draft into its final version.
|
Eclorc
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:30:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Eclorc on 22/06/2011 20:36:20 I do get what CCP want to accomplish with this.
An "approved product" or "developer" scheme, is a decent thing to aim for, enhances quality and allows commercial apps to be developed.
BUT, calling this a licence, requiring a fee - even token - from freeware community developers sets a worrying precedent legally. This would in effect open the floodgates on anyone (with EVE IP and otherwise for other games), that provides the facility for others to voluntarily donate or use adverts on their hosting websites. Now that would be a very slippery legal slope, and will ultimately damage community development for all games.
A registration mechanism to simply confer an "approved supplier" rubber-stamp, with zero fees for community developers that do not REQUIRE a fee to use their add-on product I have no problems with.
The fact that we're seeing a company that believes it has the right to start charging a fee to anyone else, if that person allows other folks to buy them a beer or contribute to hosting costs via RL cash donation or adverts is a signal to worry and strongly object imo.
Also, charging any amount of RL cash for a licence for ISK-donations (or even ISK-fees for that matter) is also questionable, in-game currency ain't RL currency.
I get the need to validate contract in some way, I really don't think this is a sensible or good-for-gaming's-future way to do it.
(edit: I derped)
|
Vertigo Ren
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:40:00 -
[29]
99/year is basically paying for nearly a whole other account. For nearly most of the developers, even if we I did charge, would probably never make a profit enough to even recoup that fee over the course of a year.
I know for the stuff I've been working on, I would love to receive isk donations, but am I going to require that? no. am I going to expect it? no. If someone gives me donations, now I'm suddenly in violation of these licenses?
Secondly, what about programs I develop never uses your API? How does that fall under any of this? It's certainly eve related, but doesn't require any of the api.
I want to develop stuff for this community to use, but not at my own monetary expense for services you already provide for free to every member of the community, not to mention I can't ever see myself recouping your 'license' fee within a year. Not everyone can make an Evemon blockbuster program.
|
Ulair Memmet
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 20:58:00 -
[30]
Quote: Walk safely
You haven't been watching the forums lately haven't you --------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |