EVE Search - To those who quit or whining about incarna

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

To those who quit or whining about incarna

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Spumantii	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:24:00 - [91] Edited by: Spumantii on 29/07/2011 18:25:31 Originally by: Abriael VonRosen I should look at my own posts before criticizing others
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:28:00 - [92] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Abriael VonRosen Do quote. ôOur business model isn't changing, you all have nothing to be concerned about.ö That's your idea of an non equivocal statement? That's one of the most equivocal statement i've ever seen. "Business model" for a mmorpg company is a very generic definition. It can simply indicate the main business model. And that didn't change. EVE Online is still primarily a subscription based game. That didn't change one bit. It didn't go free to play and it's not based on microtransactions. The nex as it is now is marginal. "you have nothing to worry about" is as generic as it can be. It doesn't say "there will never be microtrans" it says "whatever there will be, it won't negatively impact your experience". The NEX is vanity stuff, like the silly sparkly ponies in WoW. Hence, "you have nothing to worry about". Quote: It is if it's the only way to make them listen. The learning bit, as mentioned, is just me being positive. We have yet to see if that part actually happens. You seem to have a pretty warped idea of the way to make people listen to you, as do the majority of the whiners around here. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:30:00 - [93] Edited by: Tippia on 29/07/2011 18:32:51 Originally by: Abriael VonRosen That's your idea of an non equivocal statement? It is descriptive, not merely normative. So yes. Quote: EVE Online is still primarily a subscription based game. That didn't change one bit. It changed from "solely" to "primarily" ù that is, indeed, a bit of change. Quote: You seem to have a pretty warped idea of the way to make people listen to you, as do the majority of the whiners around here. Seeing as how it worksà ànah. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:32:00 - [94] Edited by: Abriael VonRosen on 29/07/2011 18:34:46 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Abriael VonRosen That's your idea of an non equivocal statement? It is descriptive, not merely normative. So yes. It's descriptive in terms so generic and broad that it says absolutely nothing. All it says is "don't worry". Quote: It changed from "solely" to "primarily" ù that is, indeed, a bit of change Nope. There are only three kinds of business models in MMORPG. F2P, P2P and Hybrid. The current business model doesn't classify as hybrid. It still fully falls into the P2P. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Spumantii	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:34:00 - [95] Edited by: Spumantii on 29/07/2011 18:36:12 arguing nomenclature when the content is still the same: There are countless promises still left unchecked, and then MT gets released, proving that priority is not placed in game play. That was the original argument, which you once again conveniently ignored. People are tired of waiting for the GAME, not necessarily mad about MT
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:35:00 - [96] Edited by: Tippia on 29/07/2011 18:37:50 Originally by: Abriael VonRosen It's descriptive in terms so generic and broad that it says absolutely nothing. All it says is "don't worry". But it is still descriptive, rather than just normative. So it is far more specific and unequivocal for the simple reason that it actually makes a claim. Quote: Nope. There are only three kinds of business models in MMORPG. F2P, P2P and Hybrid. The current business model doesn't classify as hybrid. Oh really. Why is that? Are you now saying that the NeX is a completely pointless waste of time that serves no purpose? ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:35:00 - [97] Originally by: Spumantii arguing nomenclature when the content is still the same: There are countless promises still left unchecked, and then MT gets released, proving that priority is not placed in game play. That was the original argument, which you once again conveniently ignored. LOL. We're talking about a business. Priority is ALWAYS based on revenue. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Spumantii	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:38:00 - [98] What impressed me about CCP for so long, was the fact that they didn't fall into the same trenches as other companies, and didn't require this stuff to have a fun game. They always claimed to be 'different' and the gameplay was the most important part. I am a believer in the fact that a game can and should be fun without a ton of fancy gimmicks. Take Minecraft as a perfect example. It is fun for many, and does not require a hi res 'station environment' for it's role play. Yes you can re-skin yourself, but the game was not designed around this for immersion. CCP went from hero to zero in my book with their recent moves to this end. I have trouble believing in future changes that will augment flying in space, if they clearly have abandoned their old ways, which made them unique, special. I play sports for example, because the game is fun, not because of the color of my uniform, or the behavior of the fans, or the style of the arena. Player interaction is the key to all of this. This is what makes eve fun, and the interaction part is the flying, not identification with my avatar. My play in game is what makes my avatar 'who I am'.
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:38:00 - [99] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Abriael VonRosen It's descriptive in terms so generic and broad that it says absolutely nothing. All it says is "don't worry". But it is still descriptive, rather than just normative. So it is far more specific and unequivocal for the simple reason that it actually makes a claim. It makes the claim that you neededn't worry. That's such a generic claim that it's laughable. And again, the business model didn't change. It's still P2P. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:39:00 - [100] Originally by: Abriael VonRosen It makes the claim that you neededn't worry. àand that the model isn't changing. Quote: And again, the business model didn't change. It's still P2P. It's changing, though, contrary to the claim. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:46:00 - [101] Edited by: Abriael VonRosen on 29/07/2011 18:46:56 Originally by: Tippia It's changing, though, contrary to the claim. Nope. There's no signal of a change in the business model until people are able to access parts of the game for free, with the ability to pay a "gold" subscription and microtransactions on top (which would be hybrid), or to access the game for free with MTs (which would be free to play). Until then it's still P2P, same as WoW, some SOE's games and DCUO. Fully Pay to Play. Microtransactions are a marginal addition to it, but not a change. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:48:00 - [102] Originally by: Abriael VonRosen Nope. There's no signal of a change in the business model àyou mean apart from the lead designer saying that they're changing their business model? Quote: until people are able to access parts of the game for free, with the ability to pay a "gold" subscription and microtransactions on top (which would be hybrid), or to access the game for free with MTs (which would be free to play). àor until part of the business model is earning money through other means than subscriptions. Quote: Microtransactions are an addition to it, but not a change. Ah, so 1+1 = 1 because adding to something does not change it. Got it. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:52:00 - [103] Edited by: Abriael VonRosen on 29/07/2011 18:53:59 Originally by: Tippia àyou mean apart from the lead designer saying that they're changing their business model? they clearly said that they're not going to go F2P or hybrid as far as I know. Quote: àor until part of the business model is earning money through other means than subscriptions. That's a marginal part, which is no different than WoW's fashion mounts for instance. WoW is still considered by everyone under every point of view a P2P game. Same as EVE. Quote: because adding to something does not change it. Got it. It does not. It doesn't change the way to access the game in any way. P2P -> P2P. It didn't go F2P or Hybrid. When I see the monocle shooting lasers that incinerate ships, i'll be the first to rage. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:53:00 - [104] Originally by: CCP Shadow There are no microtransaction plans, whatsoever. Originally by: CCP Zulu Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.
Spumantii	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:54:00 - [105] Edited by: Spumantii on 29/07/2011 18:54:24 The reason most people are dissatisfied is the lack of attention to game play and game mechanics in EXCHANGE for the things you keep arguing about. AND CCP has a bad track record for keeping promises.
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:56:00 - [106] Originally by: Spumantii Edited by: Spumantii on 29/07/2011 18:54:24 The reason most people are dissatisfied is the lack of attention to game play and game mechanics in EXCHANGE for the things you keep arguing about. AND CCP has a bad track record for keeping promises. if you're a game developer like you claim you should know very well that any softco with any sizable size has several teams at work on different things. Besides, I perfectly heard that you want them to focus on internet spaceships and nothing else. Guess what? You're not the only player of the game. Other people enjoy playing something more than an anonymous internet spaceship. You seem to think that CCP should tailor the game over you, for some reason. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.29 18:57:00 - [107] Edited by: Tippia on 29/07/2011 18:57:58 Originally by: Abriael VonRosen they clearly said that they're not going to go F2P or hybrid as far as I know. You haven't read any of the interviews, or any of the leaked material then, I take ità Quote: That's a marginal part Not really, since that was the kind of transactions being discussed when the claim was made that no changes are happening with the business model. So whether you look at it that way or not, they do. Quote: It does not. It doesn't change the way to access the game in any way. P2P -> P2P. It didn't go F2P or Hybrid. Then your view of what constitutes a business model differs from CCP's and your enumeration is not complete. CCP have said that they are changing the business model according to the definition of business model they used to say that the business model is not changing. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:02:00 - [108] Originally by: Tippia CCP have said that they are changing the business model according to the definition of business model they used to say that the business model is not changing. They said that this would not happen far more specifically and unequivocally than they have said that there will be no P2W. So yes, the "no plans" claim holds about as much water as the fact that there are no plans for MT. There's only one definition of "business model" for MMORPGs. And only three business models: P2P, Hybrid, F2P. EVE was P2P before. EVE is P2P now. I've not seen any indication of EVE not being P2P in the future. Hence, the business model hasn't changed. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Spumantii	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:05:00 - [109] Edited by: Spumantii on 29/07/2011 19:06:44 I am most definitely NOT the only one who wants more priority placed on the spaceship part of the game. Just read up, if you are capable. Thousands agree with me. It certainly sounds more like you'd rather have the game tailored to your CQ needs. Once again putting words in people's mouths. And once again, your definition of a business model is not industry standard, just because you think it is FYI.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:05:00 - [110] Originally by: Abriael VonRosen There's only one definition of "business model" for MMORPGs. And only three business models: P2P, Hybrid, F2P. Obviously not. Quote: I've not seen any indication of EVE not being P2P in the future. Hence, the business model hasn't changed. àaccording to your definition, which is not the one CCP is using. Most likely, it's your idea of "hybrid" that isn't aligned with how they talk about things. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:05:00 - [111] Originally by: Abriael VonRosen Originally by: Mag's Originally by: CCP Shadow There are no microtransaction plans, whatsoever. Which again lacks the verifications checks in the current statements. This one just says "CURRENTLY there are no microtransactions plans". The current one says "Currently there are no pay to win plans. YOu should not pay to win (now or ever, there's no time specification). In the future we'll use the CSM so that you can verify what we're saying". It's a LOT more solid as a statement. Do you even know what you are saying any more? Originally by: CCP Zulu Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:06:00 - [112] Don't argue with Tippia. Don't you know that every time Tippia posts, an alarm goes off at CCP HQ. Everyone drops what they're doing to marvel over the wisdom and insight brought into the EVE-O forums by such a font of pure deductive reasoning that is our Tippia. Mr Epeen
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:08:00 - [113] Originally by: Spumantii I am most definitely NOT the only one who wants more priority placed on the spaceship part of the game. Just read up, if you are capable. Thousands agree with me. It certainly sounds more like you'd rather have the game tailored to your CQ needs. There are PLENTY internet spaceships in the game. On the other hand immersion, customization and attention to the human side of science fiction is extremely scarce. They tailored the game over you for eight years. Time to cater to other needs too. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Spumantii	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:10:00 - [114] Edited by: Spumantii on 29/07/2011 19:10:49 He's already proven in his own mind that he's an expert on all things game development wise. He apparently knows better than I do and I AM a game developer. /sarcasm. Originally by: Abriael VonRosen Time to cater to other needs too. Says you. Unfortunately the majority disagrees.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:10:00 - [115] Originally by: Abriael VonRosen On the other hand immersion, customization and attention to the human side of science fiction is extremely scarce. àfunny thing how they implemented something that removed immersion and customization, then. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:10:00 - [116] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Abriael VonRosen There's only one definition of "business model" for MMORPGs. And only three business models: P2P, Hybrid, F2P. Obviously not. Quote: I've not seen any indication of EVE not being P2P in the future. Hence, the business model hasn't changed. àaccording to your definition, which is not the one CCP is using. Most likely, it's your idea of "hybrid" that isn't aligned with how they talk about things. The hybrid business model has only one definition: access for free, premium for pay. the current business model in EVE is not hybrid. It's P2P, exactly identical to the one WoW has. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:13:00 - [117] Edited by: Tippia on 29/07/2011 19:13:24 Originally by: Abriael VonRosen The hybrid business model has only one definition: access for free, premium for pay. àthen there is a fourth model that you're not counting. Quote: the current business model in EVE is not hybrid. It's P2P, exactly identical to the one WoW has. àwhich CCP counts as a different business model, one that the game has to/will change ù and, in fact, is changing ù into, contrary to previous claims that it is not. Either way, CCP does not agree with your definitions. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:14:00 - [118] Originally by: Spumantii He's already proven in his own mind that he's an expert on all things game development wise. He apparently knows better than I do and I AM a game developer. /sarcasm. Translation: "I am a game developer! Hear me! I DEVELOP GAMES! Henceforth CCP should DO WHAT I SAY!" Lol. Quote: Says you. Unfortunately the majority disagrees. A debatable majority of a vocal forum minority, Every MMORPG developer out there is quite lucky of the fact that official forums are never a representation of the playerbase. Otherwise they'd all go bankrupt in 2 weeks. But don't worry, it's usual for trolls to assume "I" = "The majority". Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Abriael VonRosen On the other hand immersion, customization and attention to the human side of science fiction is extremely scarce. àfunny thing how they implemented something that removed immersion and customization, then. Oh do explain how. I'm very, very curious. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com
Spumantii	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:15:00 - [119] Edited by: Spumantii on 29/07/2011 19:16:35 Edited by: Spumantii on 29/07/2011 19:15:15 at this point it gets irrelevant as he doesn't have the relevant experience to back any of those definitions. He is not a game developer or financial expert, or business consultant, just a talking head. If you disagree with my claim that it is the majority, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have the room to quote the thousands of comments made to back that up. If your little world can comprehend anyone else's opinion you'd see it everywhere. Read up.
Abriael VonRosen Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.29 19:16:00 - [120] Originally by: Tippia àthen there is a fourth model that you're not counting. Nope. Pay to play with some strictly vanity and marginal microtransactions added is still Pay to Play. Exactly like WoW, like SOE's games, like DCUO and others. They're all Pay to Play games. There's no magical fourth definition. -- Abriael Contributing Writer - DualShockers.com

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.