EVE Search - New Dev Blog: CCP Zulu on third party application licensing

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: CCP Zulu on third party application licensing

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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 GuardÆs 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 --------------------------------------------------
Playing Eve	Posted - 2011.06.22 21:05:00 - [31] Originally by: Seleene "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? Well, I'm sure that it will cost no more than a virtual monocle for your pilot.
Apollo Gabriel Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels Etherium Cartel	Posted - 2011.06.22 21:07:00 - [32] Thank you for the clarity CCP, AG *** Signature may appear without warning! *** Please do not feed the trolls, it builds dependency.
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.06.22 21:24:00 - [33] Originally by: CCP Zulu Charging $99 for a third party development suite or license is not what we are trying to accomplish. Are you sure this time? Because one week ago it sounded exactly like that: Quote: To become a licensee, developer must enter into a commercial license agreement with CCP. The fee for a commercial license is $99, payable annually by credit card or wire transfer (for identification purposes). We do not require further payments from developer or royalties.
Soden Rah Gallente EVE University Ivy League	Posted - 2011.06.22 21:35:00 - [34] Yes we know you ballsed this up... but this is a PR screw up, whereas the the forums are currently on fire with the "actually live on TQ" balls up you have going currently called Incarna.... Would you like to stop pretending this isn't happening and SAY SOMETHING... Please. -------- By Grfmsv÷tn, Eyjafjallaj÷kull, Vatnaj÷kull, and Hekla itself... THIS is my sig. Support Optional CQ
Patient 2428190 DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School	Posted - 2011.06.22 21:55:00 - [35] This is CCP. We aren't going to change a damn thing, we weren't wrong and **** yourself sideways if you want to disagree with us. Always true to form. You never listen. ...Then when you stopped to think about it. All you really said was Lalala.
Epitrope The Citadel Manufacturing and Trade Corporation	Posted - 2011.06.22 22:02:00 - [36] Originally by: transcript Now, I feel that the blog that was put out was good in many aspects and we had our lawyers go over the contract to ensure that it is sound. There were some nuances in there which the community called æbull**' on, and rightfully so. What we are going to do now is go back, factor that in to a new arrangement and try to come up with something which is more to our needs and more to community expectations at the end of summer. So no $99. We need a token charge and it is going to happen and we are all good." We still haven't seen the contract. We called bull** on the proposed outline. In order to have happy devs, you'll need to solicit feedback on (and later incorporate that feedback into) a draft of the license itself in advance of you requiring us to agree to it.
Antihrist Pripravnik Scorpion Road Industry	Posted - 2011.06.22 22:04:00 - [37] Good clarification and +1 for the effort of linking the info in a separate devblog (for those of us who were at work at the time of the original broadcast). I guess I can remove my signature (for) now and get back to developing my non-commercial ISK donations accepting app. Don't do anything stupid in the mean time as I'm spending time that I don't really have on making an application that will improve your product and ask nothing in return explicitly.
Tex Bloodhunter	Posted - 2011.06.22 22:48:00 - [38] So the way I understand the token charge is that CCP wants something to be at stake for app developers. Something that keeps them from screwing around - doing things which are bad for EVE Online. So that when an app dev does something silly CCP can just ban him and his apps and he effectively loses real money - the 99 dollars. If the token charge was just one dollar all the isk traders out there really don't give a **** a about their dev license being retracted. Anyhow, one dollar doesn't solve the problem while a high amount of money shuts off the "good" devs. When trying to find a trade-off CCP went for those 99 dollars - which obviously doesn't work with the community. So why not use a different token. Something that is already there. Like for example you need to have a 20+ million skill point character associated with your dev license. Btw 20 million obviously is just an example and an association with an account doesn't work since characters can be transferred out, making an account just an empty (worthless) hull. That way there is something at stake for the app dev. There is a token in place. CCP has a handle on things via this token, allowing them to enforce their rules (which is a good thing as it makes EVE a more secure environment).
Dark Odile Caldari	Posted - 2011.06.22 23:10:00 - [39] Guys, it won't be $.99, simply because the contract need to have a certain value to be legally binding. In addition, the value of the license is also important for the type of legal action CCP can take when someone bypasses the contract altogether or violates the contract in any way. On the bright side, if this goes through, it will give CCP a way to deal with botters etc, simply because botters and people who sell bots no longer simpy violate the ToS/EULA but violate a licensed service by either having no license at all or by violating the license's conditions.
Minidd	Posted - 2011.06.22 23:11:00 - [40] soo... hmmmm... they want to make money by charging for teh API use. Then for teh $99 per ear I want atleast a premium API where I am able to change my skills, send mail, do corp stuff and many other things offline from Eve. Now as that is NEVER going to happen I think this is just BS! They have no idea what they are doing, they wanne charge for the API, they are massively overpricing the new Noble items. maybe the next thing is paying tax to fly ship in space ... aaaaahhhhh Aahh well - close Eve - play Rift
Besbin	Posted - 2011.06.22 23:21:00 - [41] Firstly: I do wonder why CCP didn't swing this proposal by the CSM first. After all that's what they're there for... Secondly: You ppl should learn to read. I quote from the first dev blog: "we need to charge a fee so that we get proper non-spoofable information about the applicant" So... Question to the crowd: How'd you feel about a $10 fee? And how about a $25 fee?
Wilhelm Riley	Posted - 2011.06.23 00:49:00 - [42] Edited by: Wilhelm Riley on 23/06/2011 00:50:19 Originally by: Seleene So, token charge = 99 cents. Amirite? 19,600 Aurum
Gene Windstar	Posted - 2011.06.23 03:40:00 - [43] Edited by: Gene Windstar on 23/06/2011 03:41:20 Ok guys, the witch-hunt is over for now, they accepted that it was poorly conveyed and that some of you were right about some aspects of that draft and its far from being perfect "wee called bs on them, and rightfully so". Its a much better response then the original one, and they finally came out from the bunker, going as far to addressing it live during the tournament. Yes there are things there that need to be hammered out, and hopefully they are doing that now as they could clearly see that many were less than amused. Thank you for addressing this issue, and hopefully continued feedback will help refine the issue.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.06.23 04:40:00 - [44] Doesn't need to be a charge to be a binding contract. For example 3rd edition DnD allowed an OGL to anyone that wanted to help produce stuff for it. It was updated from time to time and really allowed 3.0 and 3.5 DnD to flourish. In essence it could be argued CCP has been doing this. Then fast forward to 4th edition DnD where the license was changed significantly to the point that much fewer 3rd party publishers put out stuff for it and generally there has been a slowdown in the marketplace for DnD in general. It's much like I figured though CCPs made up their mind and the rest of us be damned. I'd like to hear what Chribba, Wollari and others have to say that are actually affected.
Photon Ceray	Posted - 2011.06.23 04:47:00 - [45] CCP, what are you doing? You're trying to make profit in the stupidest of ways. make EVE attract 1 more eve player and you'll get more than the 99$! Token charge? that's BS, 99 cent would be enough. I am fine with setting a reasonable charge but that should be no more than 29$. if you want more then charge per user of the app, like 1$ or 10% of what the app will make. Do you realize that charging 99$ would stop many developers from making these apps that make EVE a better game, you are reducing the quality of EVE online! On a side matter, I think you have a horrible marketing department and worst financial planning one. If you want to make good profit from EVE then invest in better marketing, and most importantly, fix the game! you say you're working on it, but I've been playing since 2006 and I have yet to see any real fix to R&D, Sov and 0.0! Only thing that ever came close was speed nerf, but that was just a nerf! Instead of spending so much time and effort and money to make bigger fights possible, which happen 0.00001% of the time players play EVE, invest that time and effort into fixing the real problems that face players 80% of the time! For the record, I think eve has no more than 10% of the player base it could have, fix EVE itself, not by trying to attract a new market through DUST514 or charging more money here and there.
Lykouleon Wildly Inappropriate Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.06.23 05:04:00 - [46] Originally by: Dark Odile Guys, it won't be $.99, simply because the contract need to have a certain value to be legally binding. International contract law only requires that a contact (written or verbal) was created and that both parties agreed (written or verbally) to the terms of the contract. There is nothing in international copyright law that requires a monetary transaction to occur to bind the contract. Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER SO THAT I CAN HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.06.23 05:53:00 - [47] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 23/06/2011 05:54:35 Originally by: Soden Rah Would you like to stop pretending this isn't happening and SAY SOMETHING... Please. Elsewhere you may read how they are fearless. Some pride and even some arrogance given by a feeling of doing well, could be a good thing, until you start delivering lower quality content that should make you worry and be humble instead. These days are actually the case. Anyway, I can't see why asking for ISK payments makes someone commercial, since ISK is a wholly owned CCP property to boot. How can you demand a license fee on something that is totally yours already? It's not like we can take ISK off the game and listen to them in a separate device like i.e. an MP3 song. Finally, CCP proposal is not covering AT ALL the following situations: - Charities, expecially those collecting PLEXes for CCP emergency relief campaigns. I had to sustain tangible RL penalties for hosting it on my website (since I went beyond the allowed server usage). Now, I collected 245 PLEXes but I did not even keep 1 ISK for me. So I am meant to pay web host penalty, I created a video showcasing the CCP goodness, I did not keep an ISK and I am ALSO considered commercial? Because I have 2 Google ads? - Meta-gaming entities: I perform audits and several ISK paid other activities that due to CCP forums inadeguacy I have to host - on my own cost - on my website. Again, since I enrich other players (Market Discussion mostly and 2 in game chats) experience at my own cost to offset CCPs facilities deficencies, I am required to shell further money? - 3rd party software: I salvaged some old open source software that stopped working since Apocrypha. I spent MY time and MY money and host the downloads at MY cost for ZERO isk, ZERO money. That software downloads the market orders via API. Now, who is going to charge the original author, who has still the outdated software available for download on an abandoned Google Ads free website? Now, how am I going to justify the fact I am meant to break his license because I need to make money on the software I salvaged and upgraded? Why shall I also pay on top of that, since I don't use the software but just gave it to everyone to download and use? These are the questions, and so far I got Z E R O answers. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Captain Mung	Posted - 2011.06.23 08:02:00 - [48] Why don't they just include this "token charge" as paid by our subscription fee. They said MONEY WAS NOT AN ISSUE, so why charge anything? Unless of course they were just lying to their customers.
Louis deGuerre Gallente Malevolence. Imperial 0rder	Posted - 2011.06.23 08:14:00 - [49] Walk safely ----- Malevolence. is recruiting. Dive into the world of 0.0 !
Aineko Macx	Posted - 2011.06.23 09:32:00 - [50] How about the license is already granted by having an active eve subscription? Simplest way really, just add the required paragraphs to the EULA. ________________________ CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation.
Zopha Gallente Interstellar Business Machines Corp.	Posted - 2011.06.23 09:55:00 - [51] I think the flip side of this will be those who do not pay the token license fee and instead of getting a letter of "nice doing business with you, keep up the good work" they'll get a cease and desist order. Wonder who will be the first.
ghost st	Posted - 2011.06.23 11:03:00 - [52] If you are worried about your ip there are much better ways than to charge people, especially those you are paying for your game, and then paying again for hosting free services for your game. As far as the API is concerned. - Create a 'locked down' api, where an api key is required for any data. - Create a 3 tiered system for api access; Player, Developer, and Commercial Developer. - Player api keys allow developers and commercial developers to request data on thier behalf, but cannot make requests directly to the api. - Developer access requires an active eve account, that is verified somehow (say a credit card used to pay the account, at least every so often). - Commercial developer access is required to charge rl money for web apps, and comes with the fee. This way CCP can see (and control) access to their IP. Also, make the 'fansite toolkit' available to developers only. notes - Having ads or a donation button on the page should be allowed for developers, though the ads nor donation (rl money) cannot be a requirement for access. (so developers can have them, but cant make them a form of payment) - Using CCP ip (images) in your ads should require commercial developer access.
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2011.06.23 11:04:00 - [53] Originally by: Besbin Secondly: You ppl should learn to read. I quote from the first dev blog: "we need to charge a fee so that we get proper non-spoofable information about the applicant" Ah, valid point there. Let me quote that. Still, it will properly not stop lesser gifted people from continuing to ask why they should pay anything at all. -- Mr. Science & Trade Institute - EVE Lorebook - Mysteries of W-space
Rrama Ratamnim	Posted - 2011.06.23 11:20:00 - [54] welll this is leaning more towards the old CCP i loved, hopefully they will clarify the cotnract and pricing for the token charge... but honestly for most sites 99$ was too much and they realized it, especially for smalls ites like killboard hosts etc.
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.23 11:33:00 - [55] After the latest fiasco, I wish you lots of luck finding those 3rd party developers.
Havegun Willtravel	Posted - 2011.06.23 12:01:00 - [56] If this was a simple one time mistake it could be tolerated. When combined with the fiasco of Incarna this just doesn't cut it. The curtain has been drawn back and we've seen the ugly truth. If it was " in draft form " then why was it rolled out in what looked very much like a done deal way ? I smell damage control. Holy Crap are they ever mad, lets call it a draft and pretend it didn't happen. Lets pretend not to be money grubbers real fast and maybe they'll forget about this. Lets stab people in the back who for the most part never charged and isk let alone a penny for anything they did. Lets screw the very people who filled the gaps and closed the holes in our crap dev process because we're to lazy or to busy making garbage no one wants. Try harder. This just don't cut it.
Raid'En	Posted - 2011.06.23 12:01:00 - [57] Edited by: Raid''En on 23/06/2011 12:04:39 we wanted you to do a big jump, you only put a little step on the good direction. what i read on this blog : Quote: hello guys, seems we need a very tiny mistake on com last week, our plan was pretty good, i'm sure we all agreee on that, it's just a little word that was wrong, don't worry, we'll make a little ajustement and you will all love us again (well not like you don't love us anymore after all). btw you saw how good was our monocle ? what i wanted to read : Quote: sorry guys, we totally ****ed our com' here. we heard some of you wanted a way to monetize, and we though it was a good idea, and so tried to. however, from the idea to the result, there were a big hole. we though it would be clear enough, and we though it would not be this problematic for you to pay this for any dev... seems both our marketing and com' dept made big mistakes. we apologize and we'll gonna make something way better, that is useful for those who want it, and which do not hurt any of the others. really sorry guys... and don't worry for the NEX things, we listened, and we're gonna whip the guy who decided on the prices until he change them to an acceptable level. here you didn't said at all if you are still planning to put a paying licence for people who want to be payed with ISK or some others pretty small payment. and it MUST be free for them. you only told you would change the 99$, but we told you tons of time it's NOT the ONLY issue here.

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2011.06.23 12:25:00 - [58] The AT clip was quite good. However I have a question that has boggled my mind a bit, and it's pretty much around this statement: What we are trying to accomplish is building an environment where we can have as many people developing third party apps as possible while we still maintain a measure of control in how these people portray our IP and brand. Do you (CCP) feel that there are services/software out there that do portray your IP and/or brand in a bad way? And now I'm not thinking about macros/bots/those things - since they would never be paying the fee anyway - and if so, in what way are they making EVE look bad? /c Secure 3rd party service \| in-game 'Holy Veldspar' Now /w voice

Zagdul Gallente Shadowed Command Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.06.23 14:02:00 - [59] Edited by: Zagdul on 23/06/2011 14:02:41 Originally by: Gripen 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. I don't think this post got enough emphasis. People could use game time as a form of payment or RL $$. Hire chribba and have him develop the method of delivery.
Wingi Amarr The Wolfhounds	Posted - 2011.06.23 14:33:00 - [60] Originally by: Chribba The AT clip was quite good. However I have a question that has boggled my mind a bit, and it's pretty much around this statement: What we are trying to accomplish is building an environment where we can have as many people developing third party apps as possible while we still maintain a measure of control in how these people portray our IP and brand. Do you (CCP) feel that there are services/software out there that do portray your IP and/or brand in a bad way? And now I'm not thinking about macros/bots/those things - since they would never be paying the fee anyway - and if so, in what way are they making EVE look bad? /c I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head Chribba, i believe this will tie nicely into the commercialisation of the eve IP, itÆs a nice place to be to issue licences based on CCP's opinion of what Constitutes a good representation of the brand or perhaps in other words Eve files will be fine until someone can show they can make money at it, and then perhaps you might find it hard to renew that licence. i know its sceptical but i am somewhat feeling like that at the moment.
Mordrake Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2011.06.23 14:34:00 - [61] Hey look the waitress came out of the kitchen to give me a fortune cookie.... THERE IS STILL A FLY IN MY FREAKIN SOUP!!! "Arte et Marte"
Erik CoolBreeze Amarr	Posted - 2011.06.23 15:19:00 - [62] 1 - Can't control api access through contracts, neither to protect your ip or end-users 2 - Incomplete documentation 3 - Overall poor api system 4 - Accepting a license contract? how about binding it to a player's account? same way you make people accept your ToS etc? 5 - license fee = money grubbing little *****, why would I, on top of spending time and money to develop a piece of software, pay ccp as well. I got plenty more issues, but cba to post them right now.
Photon Ceray	Posted - 2011.06.23 15:56:00 - [63] again, CCP you want to make more money? then do it freaking properly! not in pesky sneaky ways. Best way to make more money is to fix EVE, make it more fun and attractive, and market it properly. Not some BS fee that will discourage people investing their time and effort to give a service to the community.
Tel'Kar'Tir	Posted - 2011.06.23 16:13:00 - [64] Can we get rid of aurum please
Lady Britania	Posted - 2011.06.23 18:03:00 - [65] If CCP is hurting so badly for cash I have an idea. Instead of screwing over the community which has put so much of their personal time and effort into making some incredible apps why not start renting advertisement space on Concord's billboards. The ads can be stored local to each users machine that way CCP can target the ads to the right demographic base on the user's A/S/L.
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.06.24 04:05:00 - [66] Thanks for listening, and for keeping us updated on your plans. Most of us understand that CCP needs to retain control of its image and intellectual property. Am also fairly sure no-one would have a problem if CCP were to charge for-profit developers $99 or maybe even more. On the other hand, it makes no sense to treat developers who try to offset develoment and hosting costs through ad revenue or donations, or who charge ISK fees for services like they're for-profit businesses. In such a case it would make more sense to charge non-profit developers a nominal fee, and maybe retain the right to audit those developers' books at most to make sure they're not profiting from CCP's work unfairly.
Popsikle Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe	Posted - 2011.06.24 04:52:00 - [67] Originally by: Pierce Alta Edited by: Pierce Alta on 22/06/2011 18:48:13 Token charge? What's needed for the contract is an exchange of value...I'm certain the creative minds at CCP and their legal counsel can characterize the value exchange in terms of something other than cash. There are plenty of other third party/community developer arrangements that don't charge anything to the developers (token or not), and still have effective contractual terms. Besides...a 'token' exchange (and admitting it's merely a token) may have other implications CCP/their legal don't intend. I dunno, I was pretty happy with the 99$ license fee. Its small enough to not ever really effect anyone's business model.... If you cant afford 99$ on time fee, hmmm get a job? Its not like most other MMO's or games in general publish the wicked amount of info via dumps and api like ccp does. Grow up, **** IRL cost REAL money... ____ <t20> i want to be in a manager potition at Hooters <SaraDawn> Garthagk, do you have it up ? <Garthagk> I can get it up anytime.
Crunchmeister Gallente Sick Tight BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.06.24 05:18:00 - [68] Attempted damage control through sleight of hand. Seems to be a common trend these days. CCP - you're walking on thin ice. Remember, we can easily exist without you. You can't exist without us. Remember that when plotting to bite the hand that feeds you.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.06.24 06:12:00 - [69] Originally by: Popsikle Originally by: Pierce Alta 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. I dunno, I was pretty happy with the 99$ license fee. Its small enough to not ever really effect anyone's business model.... If you cant afford 99$ on time fee, hmmm get a job? Its not like most other MMO's or games in general publish the wicked amount of info via dumps and api like ccp does. Grow up, **** IRL cost REAL money... Bolded part is totally wrong. YOU see a game as a business, most other developers already code for a living and play EvE for what it is: a game. They happen to want to share their expertise and their personal made Excel sheets / software for free and all what they want is to offset the hosting costs. If we wanted a business model we'd develop Apple apps. At least, the market over there is not composed by few thousands of students playing on PLEX. Also, the italic part is offensive. We are just out of a big world crysis, "get a job" is not even an option in some countries ATM. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Mia Vola	Posted - 2011.06.24 12:24:00 - [70] we need a plex for ccp drive. I think there drowning in stupid idea's
Lutz Major	Posted - 2011.06.24 13:46:00 - [71] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha These are the questions, and so far I got Z E R O answers. ... and we will not get them either. It has all been a big misunderstanding! The blog was not set in stone. It was only to get some feedback. Blah blah blah Nothing will change in the next iteration, except for the token fee (probably $98.99) and maybe the aspect of a free/reduced license for ISK donations. Everything else will remain. The same as they listened to player feedback for the MarketOrders API or the lolthreads about Aurum prices - which were probably only test values - a misunderstanding you must see!
LifeHatesMe	Posted - 2011.06.24 14:02:00 - [72] Originally by: Lutz Major Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha These are the questions, and so far I got Z E R O answers. ... and we will not get them either. It has all been a big misunderstanding! The blog was not set in stone. It was only to get some feedback. Blah blah blah Nothing will change in the next iteration, except for the token fee (probably $98.99) and maybe the aspect of a free/reduced license for ISK donations. Everything else will remain. The same as they listened to player feedback for the MarketOrders API or the lolthreads about Aurum prices - which were probably only test values - a misunderstanding you must see! Sadly, while I know your being sarcastic. I agree. Saying "oops, $99 is too much for you devs barely making by with your google ads on your website".. is not going to fly. I thought about this alot. If I had to choose between $99 / $69 for developing apps on apple iOS / Android respectively.. or making customized programs with the Eve API. I would MUCH rather stick with the former. The API is better, well documented, and they -listen- to what devs want. I understand the hassle that comes with allowing people access to API, that they can, and do pull in tons of data using some Apps that are poorly written. If you need money to keep API fast, and updated with the best tech possible. My suggestion is to charge the user base on a teir level. Then on the dev end give some developers seals when they write good programs... But that again falls into issues, does EVE create it's own "app store"? You need alot of coders to review the code, a database of some sort to store all these applications, connectivity with all the types of services that devs use. (PC, iOS, Android, Blackberry, Java, etc.) Really EVE, don't you think that your over-stepping your bounds? I can just think of it already, the eve-central database being stored on EVE's web server for $99/year using gigabytes of bandwidth.. something that someone else designed that costs EVE nothing. Unfortunately, you can't force developers to get rid of their shoddy advertisements, you can't make them do what you want. And if you try, you stand to alienate them. (Especially me.) Your better off hiring the best ones to work for you, and the bad ones? Just write a token as you call it, that blocks their apps if they don't fix them properly. I'm sure no dev will even read this post.. so I dunno why I even bother :P ______________________________ War... War never ends.
Consortium Agent	Posted - 2011.06.24 15:16:00 - [73] 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 Ahem. One or two people wanting to sell iPhone/Mobile apps for real money does not constitute all third party developers requesting this capability. To my knowledge, none of the loyal guard of developers who work so tirelessly to provide services for Eve want to charge people RL money for them. You're blanket justification that the developer community cried out for this is a blatant lie. Not unlike many of the others you and your CCP brethren been passing down to us lately. Originally by: CCP Zulu or have the option to charge ISK for services that they are providing to the community. Err... under your current EULA/TOS we already have the option to charge ISK for services. So, that a moot point. Originally by: CCP Zulu What we are trying to accomplish is building an environment where we can have as many people developing third party apps as possible while we still maintain a measure of control in how these people portray our IP and brand. In other words... we want to ensure places like EveNews24 only puts out polished and sterilized content about our company. You GD third party developers keep telling the world how much we suck and don't listen to our players and we're decided the best way to combat this is to require everyone to be licensed so we can approve only the people who think we're hot ** and ban the people who want to be honest about our company. That's just bad press and we don't want the bad press that comes from the poor decisions we make as a company. Originally by:** CCP Zulu Now, I feel that the blog that was put out was good in many aspects and we had our lawyers go over the contract to ensure that it is sound. Nobody has questioned the legality of what CCP has proposed, we've only questioned the morality and ethics behind such a decision. We're sure the lawyer types will ensure the contract is 'sound' to CCP standards. The question becomes - does it pass mustard with the people who have been giving your game free press, free advertising and making the game actually playable so you can continue to have a company? So far that answer has been no. Originally by: CCP Zulu There were some nuances in there which the community called æbull**' on, and rightfully so. We keep trying to tell CCP they have a loyal base of highly educated, highly intelligent players - but you're internal communications seem to indicate you believe we're all a pack of ill educated dumbasses whom are to be used as the golden geese we are and sucked dry of every penny you can possible get from us. Geed is good! Right, Gordo? So, of course we call bull when we see it. And lately we've all had to strap on giant sized hip waders to wallow through the muck and mire of the asshat decisions you're making. Originally by:** CCP Zulu What we are going to do now is go back, factor that in to a new arrangement and try to come up with something which is more to our needs and more to community expectations at the end of summer. I'm not clear how that poor excuse for a money grab could be any 'more to CCPs needs' and I'm not clear you really understand nor care about the community expectations. I've said it before and you've proven me right before - this will be swept under the rug until the end of the summer when it will be crammed down our throats regardless of if we like it or not. That is exactly CCP's MO on every other hot topic for the last two years - what makes you think you're little video is going to make us think otherwise, exactly? You're in the middle of a PR nightmare of your own creation. Word in the gaming industry since Incarn'a release is CCP is a joke and more than one gaming journalist has predicted the downfall of CCP within the next 6 mos to a year. I, for one, agree with them. You've barked up too many wrong trees lately. Sad panda. :(
Kerrisone	Posted - 2011.06.24 16:57:00 - [74] Edited by: Kerrisone on 24/06/2011 17:00:42 I said it before and I'll say it again you need models that fit the different developer types, the different 'products' and services and that are aimed at the developer's goals. Not every developer wants to get rich off thier work, some want a small fee, some just want to cover costs, many just want the option to be 'thanked' by players with isk or $ IF they so choose to do so. Originally by: Kerrisone What if you have no website and do provide a 'service' in game like hauling freight, or do research, does your character need a commercial license or is this only applied to distributed applications and websites that run a service? Does every site(if you have several) have to get a commercial license? IE someone like Chribba with many sites that may or may not be on the same server. It isn't because of Monocles FFS.
toneoyay Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe	Posted - 2011.06.24 22:44:00 - [75] Force us to pay a $99 fee (ú61) just so we can use ads to break even on our hosting and domain costs? No, in a word. Although I understand what you are trying to achieve, this approach will most likely not work, and will result in the death of many community websites. I would appreciate it if you could clear up one fact for me: If someone donates ISK to the creator of a 3rd party app, and that creator hasn't said anything like "Please donate" (asked for donations, if you like) does this mean the creator needs a commercial license? IMHO, you should restrict the $99 license to those seeking to SELL said app ONLY.
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers B O R G	Posted - 2011.06.25 11:18:00 - [76] Originally by: Lutz Major Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha These are the questions, and so far I got Z E R O answers. ... and we will not get them either. This seems to be a recurring theme in CCP communication.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.06.25 12:55:00 - [77] Originally by: Zey Nadar Originally by: Lutz Major Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha These are the questions, and so far I got Z E R O answers. ... and we will not get them either. This seems to be a recurring theme in CCP communication. After the recent facts, I understand that I am meant to wear $1000 pants. Therefore, why would I care for measly $99? Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Mars Theran Caldari EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.26 16:03:00 - [78] Edited by: Mars Theran on 26/06/2011 16:03:18 Originally by: Seleene Edited by: Seleene on 22/06/2011 18:42:03 "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? Regardless, I'm glad to see him addressing this issue so directly. Thank you. Given your history and position; why don't you try helping instead of hindering? .99 cents ffs? $10 is token; .99 cents is a joke; you can't even legally transfer assets for less than a dollar.
GIDGET GLAM	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:56:00 - [79] Yay more examples of CCP leaching and cheap money grabbing antics. Low integrity, zero loyalty and bucket loads of smug responses... these are thee core values of CCP.
Chris Libby Gallente Heavy Industries Trinova	Posted - 2011.06.28 12:42:00 - [80] I don't normally post, but I feel I must as these latest changes in EVE are getting to the point where I am considering quitting the game. I don't have any problem with CCP charging a license fee for developers who wish to make a small profit developing software applications based on their API. In fact, I would like to take advantage of this. I consider the $99 a reasonable fee, but I would also demand better API documentation and a method to submit issues related to the API. I would also want to see milestone dates and possible two-way communications with the live game itself. How cool would it be for someone to download an app to read and respond to in-game mail real time? How cool would it be for CCP to not have to support three different mobile clients as developers have taken care of this for them? Would you pay $0.99 for an app like this? I do not agree with charging players to access their own data (even tho CCP owns it) for their own personal gain. There are a great many Excel and Google Spreadsheets geniuses who utilize this information to enhance their game play in many ways. I also do not agree with charging the developers of great software such as EveHQ, EveMon, etc. or websites such as Eve-Central. These people have donated a great deal of time and resources to the player community, and that community has received much value from these services. I believe that charging for this access will give players an unfair advantage, and possibly making Eve even less attractive to new players. Well - that's my two cents. I do hope it isn't falling on deaf ears. He's dead Jim...grab his wallet.
Glyken Touchon Gallente Independent Alchemists	Posted - 2011.06.28 15:03:00 - [81] Originally by: Eclorc 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. As with so many things, the aim is great, but falls down on implementation. The Devil's in the details. ______ Tippia's analysis of NEX/Incarna
Etheoma	Posted - 2011.06.28 17:09:00 - [82] Edited by: Etheoma on 28/06/2011 17:17:08 Edited by: Etheoma on 28/06/2011 17:15:00 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. Well it will at least protect CCP's IP and will also if CCP puts up all the apps/sites that have licences with them and have some kind of way in which you can easily report malicious/useless sites / apps this would protect the careful player but unless CCP enables some kind of search function for these applications/sites that they control and also successfully encourage players to use there list and search facility by making them easy to use and promoting it properly and or give Google and other search engines warnings about malicious sites / apps which should really be done in conjunction with the first idea as well as making it legally binding that third party devs have to follow a code of conduct which they can be prosecuted for if they break all of these things together would help protect users but yes simply charging third party devs having them sign an agreement and having them registered would not really help players that much without a public centralized list for reporting and searching these sites that the majority of eve players will use.
Eldaec	Posted - 2011.06.28 17:50:00 - [83] I enjoyed the bit where they said they don't want RMT services advertising on third party eve apps. Presumably this means people signing this can't do business with the CCP Global Virtual Goods Mega Mart and this magical self enforcing CCP contract will collapse reality in on itself creating a wormhole into Hilmar's mind. Plans within plans...
Etheoma	Posted - 2011.06.28 21:05:00 - [84] I know its a very small number of devs that actually make a profit out of making apps/sites but for those who do make a profit an actual profit after costs i think they should have to pay royalties to eve online to use a companies name and if you are making a profit off there name you should have to pay simple as that but for those not making a profit and often not even managing to break even it is unfair to require any money from them simply because there apps / sites are making up for bad game design which it totally your fault.
Lutz Major	Posted - 2011.06.30 16:57:00 - [85] Originally by: Etheoma I know its a very small number of devs that actually make a profit out of making apps/sites but for those who do make a profit an actual profit after costs i think they should have to pay royalties to eve online to use a companies name and if you are making a profit off there name you should have to pay simple as that but for those not making a profit and often not even managing to break even it is unfair to require any money from them simply because there apps / sites are making up for bad game design which it totally your fault. please name at least one dev who makes 'a profit'. Nobody does or did. They contribute countless hours of their free time to enrich EVE. Another that would interest me is how someone actually proofs that he didn't make any profit to not pay the royalties.
Hel O'Ween Men On A Mission EVE Trade Consortium	Posted - 2011.07.01 08:57:00 - [86] Also this gem from the original dev blog (which strangely enough has disappeared from the blog's archive ...): Quote: We will continue to provide technical assistance via the Technology Lab forum and IRC channel, but CCP does not offer formal technical support to developers or warrant the API in any way. It's provided as is. * Continue to provide technical assistance ...?!? This somehow implies that there has been some kind of assistance in the past. This rarely happened. * It's provided as is. Yes, we do like announcements like this one, just one week ahead of it's implementation, which breaks tools left and right and even removes features from the API. And it's almost two weeks after Incarna deployment, but still no sign or announcement when the SDB will be available. If I'm supposed to sign some kind of license agreement (yes, that includes a free license), I do expect some reliable service in return. And that's not just a working API, but also proper documentation and availability of the SDB prior to the deployment of the expansion. -- EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager
Xander Hunt Minmatar Dead Rats Tell No Tales	Posted - 2011.07.07 22:53:00 - [87] Originally by: From the Forum Post Headings ccp zulu on third party application licensing reported by CCP Guard \| 2011.06.22 18:14:29 \| Comments Dear space friends, To date, the EVE Online third party development community was only permitted to sell its products for ISK. After careful consideration of the growing requests for change, we set out to establish a program that will allow these third party developers to charge a fee for their services, if they so choose, but in such a way that also lets CCP protect its intellectual property and protects the EVE Online community from potentially harmful applications. An overview of our tentative plans were presented last week in a dev blog by CCP Atlas. RED: Growing requests from whom and in what regard? To charge RW monies, or for ISK? Where's the balancing point for this change? Someone actually wake up and realize a new revenue possibility, but, then decided to screw it to not only the people who write their stuff for the good of the game for nothing but a possible ISK donation, but to everyone as well? Yeah, its time to allow the developers who want to earn RW money to play your game, but putting the screws to people financially who just want to support their corp with a web page and a database back end FOR NOTHING is a really low blow. Green: Glad the developers outside CCP were brought into this, or even had a hint to that this was going on. I sure as hell didn't realize that this particular talk was going on. Glad the head of the table was someone in finance, followed by a lawyer (Both who probably hardly know how to turn on a computer, let alone knew what PHP, CGI, Perl, Apache, IPv4 or TCP is), and not someone who wrote the code supporting the API, or, who actually plays the game. Yellow: Anyone who know their way around any kind of IDE knows how the internet works, and knows that it is impossible to protect anyone and everyone. Charging RW monies doesn't do anything to protect against idiots who'll pay the $99 fee and then turn around and manage $10,000 by scamming people with useless applications, installing keyloggers, or whatever. I worked in the business of cleaning peoples computers from viruses for several years, and I've even personally been nailed by one just by going to a web site. Even legitimate applications marked as "SPYWARE FREE" from download sites can be affected. You may be able to go after them for tainting your name (which is already in a questionable state considering the last month or two), but I sense you're not going to anything to recoup a players losses. Final thoughts: If you want to turn around a profit out of this, require that developers are to register their software with your site (Free/donation/for pay), and all RW payments are done via CCP. CCP takes a percentage home off registrations, the owner of the software can decide to cash in with taking payment from CCP either by transactions being put into a PayPal account, or in-game time. Any product that is found to be against the policies can have the payment account locked, and any funds acquired that haven't been "paid out" stay with CCP. Requests to the API server are done via a POST and SSL connection to validate the applications access.
Kordel Trask	Posted - 2011.07.16 05:15:00 - [88] So, no new update on this in almost a week. Anyone heard any news
Kenn Caldari McKae Industries and Research	Posted - 2011.08.02 17:22:00 - [89] I liked Xander Hunts suggestion as follows: Originally by: Xander Hunt If you want to turn around a profit out of this, require that developers are to register their software with your site (Free/donation/for pay), and all RW payments are done via CCP. CCP takes a percentage home off registrations, the owner of the software can decide to cash in with taking payment from CCP either by transactions being put into a PayPal account, or in-game time. Any product that is found to be against the policies can have the payment account locked, and any funds acquired that haven't been "paid out" stay with CCP. Requests to the API server are done via a POST and SSL connection to validate the applications access. It's a pay as you make money plan. It provides CCP with a return and protects the developer from loss. No up front costs are involoved although payment by ISK may be nerfed by 3rd parties. However with the Plex program that may result in a workaround as ISK can purchase Plexes which can be sold as GTC (that gets untouched by the liscence as it's double dipping). If the mechanics do not allow transforming Plex to GTC (never worked with that) then that needs to be fixed to make it work. Sadly the outrage of the community and justifiably so has probably turned the dev away so they fail to see the constructive posts. I too question this move but if the devs feel it's necessary then let us simply find an agreeable way to do this. I personally see Eve as dying anyway. I am just waiting for that point where I myself leave the game (it's coming soon). Many 3rd party devs have already left the game and some prominent ones too and CCP didn't seem to care. For me its' a very bad sign. Instead of correcting this they instead took the step of driving more away. Whether this was intended or not it shows the state of mind CCP is in. There were better ways of handling this as there were with many things about this game but this is the flavor we get. This is how CCP does business. The writing on the wall is clear to me. There is still time however and maybe an anvil will fall on their heads and wake them up. Alternative solutions are out there that will work like Xander's shown above. So I won't retire my account just yet. Quote: Kenn> HAH! I'm tanking these whimps! Computer> Your Capacitor is empty.
Xander Hunt Minmatar Dead Rats Tell No Tales	Posted - 2011.08.21 09:10:00 - [90] Thanks. I hope this whole idea has been shelved. I've still not written one line of code since this crap was mentioned that has anything to do with EVE, however, I'm going to have to start soon as I need to keep tabs on some standings in my corp. Either way, its really sad that the community could be charged for this kinda crap.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

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.