Originally by: Moolti

---

The issue isn't directly CQ, or high prices, or heat issues, or charging for API access...

The issue is the direction Eve is headed. We need CCP to be open and honest about what it wants Eve to be. When unexpected things come out of left field. When things happen that we had previously been told would not happen. We stop believing you.

We don't feel you have been honest with us. You have an agenda that you haven't shared.

Please just share your agenda, tell us what you are planning, give us realistic expectations.

---

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Pann, thank you for at least taking this preliminary step, but we need answers from your bosses. You aren't allowed to take this bullet for them.

---

Originally by: CCP Pann

---

The newsletter was not fake. I guess this is how it feels when someone reads your diary, something you hadn't intended anyone else to see. Not to deflect the heat but to explain why what I'm about to say, I wasn't involved with writing it. The only reason I mention that is because I am not going to presume to know the minds of the people who did have comments in there. I am not going to throw people I love under the bus or to the lions or whatever. I can't/won't answer questions about what they said or why they said it.

Our newsletters are written as a means to bring about discussion (that sometimes can even become heated debate) among our coworkers. That's really all I can say about it. I am not a game designer. I'm a mouthpiece. I'll admit it. By the time I get involved, the decisions have been made. Not making excuses for myself, just explaining.

---

But it's not good enough. And it never will be.

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

You get a pass on this, Valerie, but your bosses do not. We are beyond sick and tired of game designers and marketing jockeys hiding behind lower level employees and community mouthpieces. We need answers from THEM, and we need those answers NOW.

---

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Originally by: Don Pellegrino

---

Who the F*** though that preemptively banning vocal parts of this community would do you ANY good?

Geeze, the "community manager" that allowed it needs to be fired.

---

Whoever ORDERED it needs to be fired; Pann's job is to take the heat for the people genuinely responsible. DON'T LET THEM.

---

Originally by: Reed Tiburon

---

Edited by: Reed Tiburon on 24/06/2011 00:36:39
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1534552

Do you see the bit where CCP says one thing to the players (Vanity MT only, WE PROMISE!) and another thing completely internally (selling faction standing, selling ships, selling ammo, selling more than 50 fitting slots)?

Do you understand how we might be a teensy bit angry about that? About being treated like imbeciles, children who'll lap up any shiny as long as it's presented properly and introduced slowly enough?

And most importantly: Do you understand how, on a basic level, this destroys the promise of EVE Online?

---

Originally by: Boardwalker

---

CCP Soundwave, Kristoffer Touborg. This is your defining moment.

Please step forward and face the community that you have splintered.

---

Originally by: CCP Manifest

---

Aurum is here to stay. The cycle here isn't changing soon.

...

We've asked you guys to digest a lot of very quick changes and did a suboptimal job at walking beside you during the past month.

---

"We will go as slow as we need to go."

Originally by: CCP Manifest

---

Originally by: AdmiralJohn

---

Edited by: AdmiralJohn

---

Do you have any definitive idea of the future of Aurum?

Aurum is here to stay. The cycle here isn't changing soon.

However, I feel like none of the concerns of the community have been addressed. Worse, I feel like these concerns are being swept under the rug, and even treated with outright contempt.

That was not on purpose and I sincerely apologize for that. We've asked you guys to digest a lot of very quick changes and did a suboptimal job at walking beside you during the past month. Dev blogs and test servers and AT interviews and such didn't quite cut it for everything. There is NO contempt against our players.I've witnessed some extreme amounts of exhibited patience for the nastiest of the nasties who have threatened lives, engaged in character assassination and such--and that's because we as developers realize there are a lot of hurt/angry people out there.

Features that many players want are ignored, while decisions that are questionable at best are made without regard to the concerns of the community.
I won't make excuses for those features we know are much wanted or the ones people want us to go back and "fix". Heck, I want some of them. Soundwave and Eyjo and Dropbear and TonyG and Fallout want them too. BUT, making and designing and creating a game isn't pick and choose, especially when it comes to introducing something like Incarna or devoting significant dev time to rewriting old code backbone so we can grow again in the future. We know the other stuff is wanted. We know Incarna is also wanted and are working towards what many of you have wanted out of it. It just takes time.

I don't think that it's too late to save this special little den of internet spaceships and internet spaceship captains; however, this trend cannot go on forever and it has all the signs of fail cascade written all over it.
Word.

CCP, your players really do care about you and about your game. It would just be nice if the feelings were returned.
I could profess my love for each of you and really really mean it. Yes even you back there! But we all know its going to be more about showing you and not just saying it.

---

Originally by: Reed Tiburon

---

Edited by: Reed Tiburon on 24/06/2011 00:36:39
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1534552

Do you see the bit where CCP says one thing to the players (Vanity MT only, WE PROMISE!) and another thing completely internally (selling faction standing, selling ships, selling ammo, selling more than 50 fitting slots)?

Do you understand how we might be a teensy bit angry about that? About being treated like imbeciles, children who'll lap up any shiny as long as it's presented properly and introduced slowly enough?

And most importantly: Do you understand how, on a basic level, this destroys the promise of EVE Online?

---

Originally by: CCP Manifest

---

Originally by: Majuan Shuo

---

Edited by: Majuan Shuo on 24/06/2011 01:18:12

Originally by: CCP Pann

---

Hi, everyone

As I see it, the chief complaint is regarding the high cost of goods in the Nobel Market.

---

Then you are blind, go get us someone else.

---

You have to admit that some people are vexed about the high cost of the monocle... but not because they would buy one at 3/4 the cost.

I think Pann might have mistyped (as she did with Nobel/Noble) and put that instead of NeX/Microtransaction. That's the chief concern atm, and of course there are the other more immediate ones and of course the longer tail concerns that many of you have mentioned here.

---

If you don't understand that the number one concern is not PRICES but instead the plan for non-vanity MTs detailed in the newsletter, then BRING US SOUNDWAVE.

Originally by: CCP Manifest

---

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 24/06/2011 00:36:49
Here's my big question that I demand an answer to.

Are you going to **** the EVE Online sandbox over for Monetary Transactions or not? If not, all is forgiven. If MTs are going to impact the sandbox, start printing your resumes and god help you all.

---

The designs we will implement in game will not **** over the sandbox.

---

ARE you, or are you NOT, going to implement non-vanity MTs at ANY POINT??

Originally by: HoboWithAShip

---

Edited by: HoboWithAShip on 24/06/2011 01:50:18

Originally by: Miilla

---

Edited by: Miilla on 24/06/2011 01:47:27

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

This. This needs an answer NOW.

---

Broken promises hurt, CCP. We'd like an answer.

Originally by: Kaltor e'Daw

---

Hi, I am a new player, I signed up about 2 months ago, and I was just starting to like the game. I have been a long time player of MMO's, involved with testing and feedback for probably most of today's main online games.

I always applauded EVE for being one of the only true sandbox type game that exist, and has done so PURELY on the backs of the players that inhabit it's universe. Unlike WoW, EQ2 or other such games, there are dynamic, human-generated 'quests' that exists within corps, and require no GM intervention to make it an epic arc.

And now, I fear that is to be taken away from myself before I even get a chance to experience it.

I know that tomorrow, SOE is to make a huge announcement on the future of Everquest 2. I also am pretty sure it is going to be along the lines of what happened to LOTRO, and I also know that the players there are going to be just as passionate about that decision as everyone here is about the newsletter and Arum decisions.

Both games are ageing. EQ2 is to be superseded by EQ: Next, and it sounds like EVE is to be left by the wayside in favour of CCP's new title. This is sad by itself. But EVE has the huge potential to continue as it has done so for many years; on the backs of the players.

If you truly want the game to die a painful death CCP, by all means introduce your GREED IS GOOD policy. Charge real money for weapons and ships. That's fine. Just don't expect many new players, such as myself, to share in this wonderous new vision. For without new blood being introduced into the game, it will slowly hemorrhage and bleed veteran players until there is nothing left but bots. You think this won't happen? Take a look at SWG sometime, and see what happens to a pretty good game when you eradicate its very soul.

In closing, I paid for a 60 day card. I cannot see me playing EVE much now, and I definitely won't be paying for another 60 days. Not unless this whole issue is resolved in favour of the players. Because they are what count. No players - noone to buy vanity and other Aurum items.

Then, perhaps, you might wish you'd left things well alone.

---

Originally by: Miilla

---

Edited by: Miilla on 24/06/2011 01:47:27

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

Originally by: Miilla

---

Originally by: Panda Name

---

Originally by: Miilla

---

Edited by: Miilla on 24/06/2011 01:47:27

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

such a simple question, yet it won't be answered until we see gold ammo and ishukone scorpions.

---

Yeah but CCP will steal it back from you before you get to suck on it.

---

Originally by: Words Words Words

---

Originally by: Panda Name

---

Originally by: Miilla

---

Edited by: Miilla on 24/06/2011 01:47:27

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

such a simple question, yet it won't be answered until we see gold ammo and ishukone scorpions.

---

Needs to be answered immediately.

Seriously, pull Hilmar out of bed and put him in front of a computer

---

Originally by: Tsubutai

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Sure when you have been playing Eve as long as we have you learn to take the rough with the smooth but you do so with the general feeling that CCP developers understand and ôgetö what makes Eve great û and thatÆs the problem now. This internal newsletter (if real) shows that one of the leading developers does not ôget eveö does not care about eve, and simply sees eve as a cash cow to be milked ferociously to fund other projects. This is about keeping the golden goose of eve subscriptions (on a drip feed if necessary) while chasing and grubbing every little loose cent he can from the player base.

Let me give you a couple of examples of how this can and does (and has already) impacted our enjoyment of this game:

1. The Captains Quarters û itÆs not gameplay its a display cabinet for vanity items. And the price of this display cabinet for you and I is that multi-client performance in stations is now terrible û if you have a bad graphic card itÆs a jerk fest û if you have a decent graphics card itÆs heat-fest. I can run 3-4 clients with CQÆs turned on û I can run it smoothly û but do I want to? Hell no because my Gtx 580 sounds like its melting my motherboard now! So I need to turn off the CQÆs on multiple accounts and as a result have more limited functionality on those accounts and an ugly wallpaper. No more station environment, no more clicking on my ship to open cargo hold, no more dragging ship to the hanger to board it. The delivery of the CQ vanity item display case has impacted my gameplay.

CCP could have made it optional and given us the option of keeping the old hanger view and added a ôdisembark shipö option to the UI but ôoh noö to do that would have meant we werenÆt being forced to look the vanity display case that marketing insisted must be front and centre if weÆre to even think about buying these ridiculously overpriced items from the Noble store.

2. If you read the newsletter youÆll see reference to saved fitting slots û and I donÆt know about you Verone but in JF weÆve run out of saved corp ship fittings. We want CCP to up the limit but is that really going to happen while the ôbiz-devsö talk honeyed words about how to squeeze extra income from players for such ôminor upgrades.ö? How long till we pay aurum for extra corp standing slots? For wardec options? For a usable corp management screen?

3. And who develops these vanity items? Yes thats right its Eve artists and developers whose salary we pay with our subscriptions. Given the choice wouldnÆt you rather have engine trails and flashy cyno effect for all players rather than a bunch of overpriced tat in the Aur store for a fleeced few?

Because that is precisely the compromise being made here -> CCP using our subs money to pay for vanity item production they want to sell back to us for greedy prices and it is something you SHOULD get mad about.

So hereÆs the thing.

The time to fight for the game we love is not in six months time when these concepts have bedded down and CCP is feeling bold enough to start selling Noble Faction ammo and +9 implants. The time to fight is now. Because this newsletter embodies everything that many of us feared but didnÆt want to believe CCP were becoming capable of. It is a massive betrayal of the compact we shared as players and developers of this game and indicates that CCP is preparing to leap down a very dark and deep path of self-immolation in the months to come.

I donÆt want to see Eve Online die Verone. That sounds dramatic I know, but gameworlds die when the dreams and visions are extinguished and that can happen through a succession of bad ideas foisted on a community by people who really donÆt have much of a clue in business.

---

Quote:

---

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

---

Originally by: SailorBacon

---

Originally by: Da Gooch

---

Quote:

---

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

---

---

Originally by: TV Evangelist

---

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

Follow up: How do you define a Vanity item?

Originally by: Reed Tiburon

---

Originally by: Miilla

---

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

Follow up: How do you define a Vanity item?

---

Originally by: Maziy

---

Originally by: Scoper's Alt

---

Originally by: Fi1ippo

---

Originally by: Iurnan Mileghere

---

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

---

---

The correct answer here will win some of your customers back.

---

They won't give you a straight answer.

Or EVE is dead.

Originally by: Miilla

---

Eve is dying.

---

Originally by: ovenproofjet

---

Originally by: Vuk Lau

---

Finally reason strong enough to stop playing this game. Canceled subscription on 28 accounts. Leaving main subbed purely to be able to post here.

---

This coming from Vuk says it all tbqfh.

---

Originally by: Token Afrodude

---

Originally by: Riflin' Betty

---

Here is the EVE Exit Survey.

Fill her out. They want metrics, let's give them metrics.

http://eveexitsurvey.questionpro.com/


-Heli

---

Done.

---

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow

---

As for what you should do to best express your opinion of recent events in New Eden, all I can tell you is that CCP pays more attention to what you do than what you say.

---

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal

---

I feel sad that this has happened - and sad that I need to write this post (not just because it'll probably get buried under 9000 other posts). However, I hope this will be read because I am trying to make a reasonable argument here - not a raging flame post.

As a recurring member of the CSM, whose duty it is to represent the players (something I took very seriously), I went to CCP to discuss the issue of microtransactions. In fact, this topic was discussed several times on CSM summits (both in October and in December). We were assured that microtransactions would be vanity items only.

I was told, to my face, that CCP would not sell anything in their virtual goods store that would not be a vanity item (vanity items being useless fluff, not giving any benefits). Now I read in your newsletter that one of your main game designers is openly argueing to break this promise. I take that as a personal insult and a clear sign of disrespect towards the Eve community as a whole. Shame on you for even considering to break your word!

I'm still subscribed, the but moment CCP will offer anything other than vanity items for PLEX/AURUM/etc is the moment I will cancel my accounts. In going for the 'hobbyist gamer' (casual gamers, even though eve isn't that casual gamer friendly), you seem to have forgotten a large part of your player base. The part that has shaped Eve over the years: the hardcore gamers. We don't come here as a hobby to experience an ultimate sci-fi simulator. We pay a subscription for an all-access pass to this crazy dystopian universe, where what you do, what you become and what you achieve comes down only to your skills and your effort. And because of that, our actions are meaningful.

By extending the virtual goods sales beyond vanity items you directly attack one of the things that seperates Eve from all the other MMOs out there: that actions are meaningful. If I can just buy faction standing, what meaning is there in doing missions for faction standings? What meaning is there in finally achieving 6.0 standing (for POSs) or 9.0 standing (for COSMOS missions)? And from what I read, that's not even the end of it!

Some people might enjoy spending more money 'on their hobby' like it was golf (an analogy that is inherently flawed, which I'll explain below), but due to the dystopian, merciless nature of Eve you've bred a community that exists for a large part out of hardcore players. People who see Eve as a serious business proving ground - not as a lighthearted diversion. These are the people who have allowed you to get to where you are today. These are the people who stuck by you over the past 8 years - even if they do call themselves "bittervets". To turn your back on those people is at best poor form, and at worst commercial suicide. Because Star Wars Galaxies has shown you can't just trade in one group of customers for another.

Why golf is not the same as eve
Specifically, buying golfclubs isn't the same as buying items in Eve. The equivalent would be if you could pay $100 to get one swing/strike/whatever it's called removed from your record. Instead of making a hole in 5, you could pay $400 and get it listed as a hole in one! Suddenly, your golf stats won't depend on how good you are, but simply on how much money you're willing to spend. Try to suggest that to golfers and see how they like it.

In Eve, just flying a spaceship isn't all there is to the gameplay. The effort to GET that spaceship is part of the game. The fact that it isn't easy to obtain certain things, achieve certain things or do certain things is exactly what makes these things meaningful. Meaningful to me AND to others, who can see what I have achieved. And now some game designer would like to take that away? Bad move CCP.

---

Originally by: xeitgeist

---

I told CCP to take a hike. They got lost in the woods and almost died and I was subsequently permabanned.

---

Originally by: Miilla

---

Edited by: Miilla on 24/06/2011 01:47:27

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal

---

I feel sad that this has happened - and sad that I need to write this post (not just because it'll probably get buried under 9000 other posts). However, I hope this will be read because I am trying to make a reasonable argument here - not a raging flame post.

As a recurring member of the CSM, whose duty it is to represent the players (something I took very seriously), I went to CCP to discuss the issue of microtransactions. In fact, this topic was discussed several times on CSM summits (both in October and in December). We were assured that microtransactions would be vanity items only.

I was told, to my face, that CCP would not sell anything in their virtual goods store that would not be a vanity item (vanity items being useless fluff, not giving any benefits). Now I read in your newsletter that one of your main game designers is openly argueing to break this promise. I take that as a personal insult and a clear sign of disrespect towards the Eve community as a whole. Shame on you for even considering to break your word!

I'm still subscribed, the but moment CCP will offer anything other than vanity items for PLEX/AURUM/etc is the moment I will cancel my accounts. In going for the 'hobbyist gamer' (casual gamers, even though eve isn't that casual gamer friendly), you seem to have forgotten a large part of your player base. The part that has shaped Eve over the years: the hardcore gamers. We don't come here as a hobby to experience an ultimate sci-fi simulator. We pay a subscription for an all-access pass to this crazy dystopian universe, where what you do, what you become and what you achieve comes down only to your skills, dedication and your effort. And because of that, our actions are meaningful.

By extending the virtual goods sales beyond vanity items you directly attack one of the things that seperates Eve from all the other MMOs out there: that actions are meaningful. If I can just buy faction standing, what meaning is there in doing missions for faction standings? What meaning is there in finally achieving 6.0 standing (for POSs) or 9.0 standing (for COSMOS missions)? And from what I read, that's not even the end of it!

Some people might enjoy spending more money 'on their hobby' like it was golf (an analogy that is inherently flawed, which I'll explain below), but due to the dystopian, merciless nature of Eve you've bred a community that exists for a large part out of hardcore players. People who see Eve as a serious business proving ground - not as a lighthearted diversion. These are the people who have allowed you to get to where you are today. These are the people who stuck by you over the past 8 years - even if they do call themselves "bittervets". To turn your back on those people is at best poor form, and at worst commercial suicide. Because Star Wars Galaxies has shown you can't just trade in one group of customers for another.

Why golf is not the same as eve
Specifically, buying golfclubs isn't the same as buying items in Eve. The equivalent would be if you could pay $100 to get one swing/strike/whatever it's called removed from your record. Instead of making a hole in 5, you could pay $400 and get it listed as a hole in one! Suddenly, your golf stats won't depend on how good you are, but simply on how much money you're willing to spend. Try to suggest that to golfers and see how they like it.

In Eve, just flying a spaceship isn't all there is to the gameplay. The effort to GET that spaceship is part of the game. The fact that it isn't easy to obtain certain things, achieve certain things or do certain things is exactly what makes these things meaningful. Meaningful to me AND to others, who can see what I have achieved. And now some game designer would like to take that away? Bad move CCP.

This illustrates it well:

---

Originally by: Cailais

---

Originally by: akitespero

---

4000 posts, still no answer... that is a loud answer in itself.

---

Rome burns while Nero fiddles.

C.

---

Quote:

---

People wanted something simpler, more direct, more accessible.

We told them. ôIf you do this, you will lose all of our subscribers. It is that significant.ö

The response was that we would gain more due to the marketing push and relaunch.

So, we pushed forward.

...

We launched, the marketing push failed, and we lost subscribers.

It was a misread at an organizational level. Design, Marketing, Production,
community. You name it.

We made huge mistakes. We got too close to the changes. Design took something and made it bigger than it shouldÆve been.

We got swept up in the wave of changes and ran with it. And we ****ed it up. All of us.

...

The point, the ****up, the mistake that we made, was answering an
unasked question.

ôCan you change an MMO drastically after it launches?ö

Categorically, NO.

If we were to do it again, and wanted to make those types of changes,
you have to make a new game.

Relaunch with a new title.

Or shut down Galaxies and relaunch for real.

You cannot change it at runtime.

---

Originally by: Reed Tiburon

---

Edited by: Reed Tiburon on 24/06/2011 15:03:39
All the people who care about this game have either already unsubbed or are seriously considering it.

This is CCP's NGE moment.

Quote:

---

People wanted something simpler, more direct, more accessible.

We told them. ôIf you do this, you will lose all of our subscribers. It is that significant.ö

The response was that we would gain more due to the marketing push and relaunch.

So, we pushed forward.

...

We launched, the marketing push failed, and we lost subscribers.

It was a misread at an organizational level. Design, Marketing, Production,
community. You name it.

We made huge mistakes. We got too close to the changes. Design took something and made it bigger than it shouldÆve been.

We got swept up in the wave of changes and ran with it. And we ****ed it up. All of us.

...

The point, the ****up, the mistake that we made, was answering an
unasked question.

ôCan you change an MMO drastically after it launches?ö

Categorically, NO.

If we were to do it again, and wanted to make those types of changes,
you have to make a new game.

Relaunch with a new title.

Or shut down Galaxies and relaunch for real.

You cannot change it at runtime.

---

That's what we're talking about, folks.

---

"Those 200,000 customers - customers - you blithely dismiss as "dregs" and "weirdos" - are paying your salary. You can't just blow them off for the mythical millions of people looking for a better game."

Originally by: Macon Squaredealer

---

Where the hell is the "NO, we will never even consider moving beyond VANITY AUR items" ??? How hard is that to say?

---

• this newsletter was a brainstorming session


• They cannot promise anything about the future


• They're very sorry (that they're not sorry)


• It was a draft


• They will iterate on it

Originally by: EVIL SYNNs

---

Originally by: Chogon Toil

---

What I'm ok with:
AUR / ISK for in-game benefits: $50 for a full set of +6 implants? Cool. X Aur / Isk for +x% damage implant? Cool. Slightly better ships, alright, fine. Better ammo? Fine. Etc. If the benefits are minor and not huge and reasonable in price (a minimum wage worker in any country could afford a few of such items a month).

What I'm NOT ok with:
Aur / Isk for gate tolls, buying SP, paying Isk / Aur for things we get now, already, for free such as docking in a station.

Also: FIX WHAT'S BROKEN BEFORE YOU ADD MORE!

P.S. CCP, please keep in mind this is a universe you've made. Something you called not a game but REAL LIFE at FanFest. Real life does not change on a whim with every gust. Minor additions we, the PLAYERS, see coming from a mile away is fine. Huge sweeping changes dropped on us anytime you like? Not. Cool.

---

Great you've broken EVE.. well done.

People run missions and they sell +5's and that pays for their eve, so they happy to do the hard work. I buy some PLEX and get ISK... and I purchase those +5's. The mission *****s get their money.. I can afford the plex.. everyone is happy.

Why would you buy from them for isk when you can just purchase it from the air. So they stop using their LP for +5's and start using it for Damage implants.. oh wait.. you can buy them too, ah well they are done.. AND LOG OFF AND NEVER COME BACK!

As soon as something enters the economy from fresh air... There is no reason to rat, no reason for industrial to make stuff... it JUST ARRIVES..

So well done.. miss the whole point in this argument.

If it comes from fresh air it kills the economy. As soon as the economy dies.. There will be no industrial... no industrialism = we all end up paying RL MONEY for stuff...

If thats what CCP want.. (as it looks like) FINE.. Eve will just be another game that people will play for 2 months and go and play something else.

---

Originally by: Azmodeus Valar

---

I can understand CCP's need for extra revenue, and would be ok with MT as long as it was for things like clothing options, or different skins for ships (should be priced at $1-5). However, the internal debate at CCP has me deeply worried, as there should be no debate at all. Fundamentally changing the nature of what impacts a persistent game environment should never have been on the table.

The performance issues and lack of content with incarna also reveal that quality control is not what it should be, despite the large outcry last year about lack of quality control. Overall, I am concerned with CCP's direction, management, and ability to continue Eve as a thriving community. I fear that the rush for the quick buck will destroy your main source of revenue.

As a member of E-Uni, I am in a unique position of dealing with large numbers of new players to Eve on a regular basis. The factors that have brought people into Eve and kept them in game are well known, and I don't see CCP's direction as expanding those factors and increasing subscription count. I feel that it will have an adverse effect on retention, and lower involvement in what still has the potential to be a great game.

---

Originally by: Ancyker

---

Originally by: Marcus Vorenius

---

Originally by: Ancyker

---

So I was on massively and they had a link to the now infamous newsletter, which I thought I had already read on evenews24.

But it said something about "missing pages". This peaked my interest so I downloaded it to compare to the first one. There are actually 20 pages in total in the original. It's pretty much the same thing, it appears the pages themselves were not edited, but pages were removed which dropped the context of the remaining pages. So while I'm still upset at those individuals my anger towards CCP as a whole has diminished.

The most notable line is:

DISCLAIMER: The views put forward in this magazine do not reflect general CCP company policies or decisions and are strictly individual opinions, written by CCPers or about CCPers who feel strongly about these issues. This is confidential internal information. Please respect that every company has its trade secrets and that you are privy to those at CCP.

Though it still upsets me that certain individuals at CCP think as outlined in the PDF, I do feel a little better with that simple paragraph. It definitely opens the door for them to fix it, where before I didn't see a chance in hell of that happening.

Compare them for yourself:
EVENews24.com Version
Original Version

The tldr difference is basically this is just asking people within CCP their opinions on the matter and doesn't actually represent any actual plans. I still want confirmation in writing and signed by the CEO himself before I believe anything that CCP says, but I'm a bit less ragequit-y now.

While this doesn't restore my trust/faith in CCP, it damages what little I had to start with in evenews24. Ok, well, I never actually trusted evenews24 at all, but now I definitely won't ever trust them :P

---

you could have saved some time by just reading the links in the second post in this thread - CCP Pann has confirmed the newsletter. FFS browse a little before posting.

---

The newsletter is real, the one most of us seen (the one on evenews24) was edited. The one on massively (originally hosted by megaupload, ew, now mirrored by me and linked in my reply) was edited. Pages were removed taking the remaining pages out of context. Read moar.

---

Originally by: Adam Reed

---

A note of caution: in the newsletter, the main EVE-affecting section was obviously written up as a 'For' and 'Against', with Touborg on one side in favour of non-vanity MTs, and Turbefield on the other against them. While I agree it's hugely dissatisfying to think they're actually considering it, there's little point in crucifying all of CCP because one guy was asked to write the 'For' side of an argument in a newsletter - to essentially simply state his own personal opinion.

If they come out and say they want to introduce it, fine, I quit too. But if they come out and say it's just one guy's opinion and there are no plans to implement it, don't be in any way surprised.

---

Originally by: Kaeda Maxwell

---

CCP: I'm not on the verge of quitting right now. I don't like jumping the shark.

What I would like is a very clear; "No we will not now and not ever sell any item for RL cash that will give an ingame advantage over other players". And the pledge will have to come from somebody at board level like Hilmar for it to still have any credibility to the player base at this point I think.

---

Originally by: Riithi Bashere

---

Edited by: Riithi Bashere on 24/06/2011 16:18:26

Quote:

---

To be perfectly honest, IÆm here to buy time while we try to sort things out.

---

Time is running out.

Quote:

---

IÆm willing to step out front and take a lot of heat for that since I was the one who made the decision to hold off on responding for a while to see if things cooled down once the new wore off. I was wrong to do that and I apologize.

---

And now you'r doing it again...

---

Originally by: Florestan Bronstein

---

Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 24/06/2011 16:35:05

Originally by: Azelor Delaria

---

I find it rather interesting that instead of coming to us, they went straight to an on-line publicist. On top of that, they've known this internal newsletter was leaked for days, and only after they go to the "press" do we find out, "Oh hey, bee tee dubs that was only part of the actual newsletter!". You would think when CCP Pann confirmed it's authenticity, she would have mentioned the fact it was just a small portion of a much larger picture?

---

By the time she wrote her post that was already well-known - I saved the full PDF to my PC at 8:30 eve time yesterday.

The link was posted many times in the older megathread, on tiwtter and on failheap-challenge.

If you want up-to-date info on this topic use twitter, if you want serious discussion on this topic use fhc, if you want to vent and rage you already are at the right place.

edit: Linkage 2011.06.22 23:03:00

---

Originally by: Lanrick

---

Originally by: Majuan Shuo

---

Edited by: Majuan Shuo on 24/06/2011 01:52:05

Originally by: CCP Manifest

---

You have to admit that some people are vexed about the high cost of the monocle... but not because they would buy one at 3/4 the cost.

I think Pann might have mistyped (as she did with Nobel/Noble) and put that instead of NeX/Microtransaction. That's the chief concern atm, and of course there are the other more immediate ones and of course the longer tail concerns that many of you have mentioned here.

---

Just stop posting.

EDIT: and get us a dev with straight "yes"/"no" answers.

---

I think this has gone beyond any dev. This will need to be resolved with a press release signed by an officer of the company commiting the whole entity to a very explicitly stated policy. What exactly will they sell for AUR and what exactly will they never sell for AUR. No more "We have no plans at this time to..." type statements.

---

Originally by: Eclorc

---

Originally by: Da Gooch

---

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

This is the only thing that needs an answer right now, everything else comes second to this vital question, simple as.

---

I'll add to this message. If I see "no plans at the moment" or "forseeable future" or any other wriggle-out clauses in the response I'm gone for good.

Nothing short of 100% commitment to NEVER allow anything beyond VANITY items will keep me here, as anything less would signal clearly the intent to renege down the line.

---

Originally by: Riflin' Betty

---

Liang Nuren is now also banned.

I can only assume Akita T is next.


We're out of the fight capsuleers, stay strong.

I salute you all o7


-Helicity

---

Originally by: Ranka Mei

---

It would appear CCP has now gone from "Damage Control" to "Just nuke 'em!"

An extremely black day this is. :(

---

Originally by: Constantinus Maximus

---

Edited by: Constantinus Maximus on 24/06/2011 17:55:34

Originally by: Reed Tiburon

---

Quote:

---

Are you moving beyond VANITY AUR items?

---

Deserves to be repeated again, and again, and again...

---

No it doesn't.

You would believe the answer?

Does the answer make the CCP management team start functioning differently to what it has for 3+ years?

---

Originally by: Republica Winder

---

THE BANNINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES!

---

Originally by: Zagam

---

Not to post the obvious, but...

A DevBlog is being worked on

---

Originally by: Justin Cody

---

Originally by: Tali Ambraelle

---

I honestly hope they do ban you all so they can get back to adding to the game. I want to see new CQ's some time soon.

Oh and yes, I AM willing to pay AUR for them :)

---

You are a problem. The art dept will continue working despite our howling here. It is shameful you would pay extra for something that was originally promised as simply an add to the game as part of the expansion. You have too much money and not enough sense in how to use it.

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

CCP,

You do realize that Gordon Gekko goes to prison at the end of the movie for his whole 'Greed is good' thing right?

Hope I didn't spoil Wall Street for people but needed to point that out.

---

Originally by: Lord Wiggin

---

- 3 accounts, not waiting for the spin to hit...

---

Originally by: Magicblue

---

Ok, me an my friends/acquintences have all agreed not to complain about eve. Unless MT starts affecting the game, if that happens we all agreed that thats the end. Thats around a hundred less subscribers. If you wish, jack up the prices monthly. Whatever, just don't introduce MT where you can get an advantage that isk cannot give you by itself Custom paintjobs, custom clothes. Bring it on, we are all for that part. However, micro transaction that affects the game in more then a visual way is a turnoff. If you read ccp thanks:) Hf fun spiralling this game into the next stage

---

Originally by: shilpi

---

We want Answers and we want them Now!!!!!

And unban the players you are banning just because they are raising this issue on the player's behalf

---

Originally by: Tea Ester Elliot

---

Originally by: Constantinus Maximus

---

Originally by: Gabriel Arxangel

---

I have been here a while, I remember t20. I remember the reason for starting the CSM. There is no doubt that selling valuable items through MT has the potential for making significant money for CCP, and I understand how a company would desire to pursue that. Ironically enough I'm one of those in position to take advantage of the MT market. Real money for unbeatable ships or t3 ammo or even extra skill points certainly wouldn't break me. But I know it's wrong. It destroys the "sandbox" concept that eve has valued for so long. It cheapens the game.

It is very disturbing that anyone who works on this game could even contemplate such a game destroying feature. It does not 'cross the line' it leaps over it. Eve is based on you taking what you want and fighting to keep it, everyone starts the same and goes from there. Giving players the option of buying what they want devalues the cornerstone of the game. That's why it is so wrong for eve. I always thought the biggest fans of eve were the devs who loved and cared about this game, I see now that isn't the case, at least for some.

I blog won't fix this, neither will any grandiose promises. PR won't stop this, perhaps even Helmar can't stop this. I am not upset about the system demands of CQ, and believe in the vision of increasing player immersion. When CCP shared their vision of a total sifi MMO, I cheered. Could CQ have been implemented better, sure. Could some the players ideas be included to improve the expansion, sure. Do I believe that CQ is a bold leap forward, yes and I applaud the effort.

But allowing out of game advantages to spill over into the game is 180 out from the sandbox concept eve has prided itself on. It is so wrong on every level, and the fact that anyone involved in the development of this game fails to see that is truly frightening. I am not ready to rage quit, I am not threatening. MT for in game advantages is NOT in place yet, and hopefully never will be. If/when it becomes a reality, I will have some hard choices to make. I truly hope CCP never asks me to make that decision.

---

Well said.

but to quote another thread..

Originally by: Mater Dolorosa

---

"We need to milk them 9 more months to get enough cash to finish Dust & WoD. Be brave guys, in 2013 Eve will be a f2p and we'll get rid of them..."

---

They can and did contemplate it.

This is why CCP is in fact over regardless of any action they take save sacking the whole team.

---

While we're on the topic of T20, anyone else recall a young Stoffer Ninjapirate entering into that threadnaught (opposing the ban). Years later, CCP Soudwave (yep, same person) is the one who bans a new batch of whistle blowers.

Ah sweet irony.

---

Originally by: Don Pellegrino

---

Originally by: cerbus

---

---

Now I see why you left the CSM in protest, T'amber. I thought you were overreacting and silly but it all makes sense now.

---

Originally by: Zedah Zoid

---

According to a poster on our internal forums:

Quote:

---

...on the livestream someone claiming to be t'amber posted this:

Quote:

---

t_amber: CCP were planning on allowing people who'd not been subbed to pay money to get the skills they would have had if they'd been subbed
t_amber: so if you had an account from 2008
t_amber: and hadn't played for 4 years, you could pay to get your SP you'd missed in those 4 years

---

Claimed that was why he quit CSM. Interesting idea for sure. IMO it falls under the "pay to not play the game" category though.
Same person keeps plugging t'amber's microtransactions crowd source thread over and over so it prolly is him.

---

---

Originally by: Constantinus Maximus

---

Originally by: Isis Soryu

---

Quote:

---

CCP Fallout
Arnar's blog should be ready and published in about an hour, but that is an estimate.
51 seconds ago

---

Why we aren't hearing from Hilmar him ****ing self is beyond me.

---

Not Hilmar? WTF?!? They are still that far behind on where they are at?

---

Originally by: Care Bear King

---

Originally by: Miilla

---

Originally by: Sandar Orontur

---

Actually, the SM3.0 change wasn't silent.

---

---

The Mac-specific issue with SM3 was that several cards which hardware-wise *do* carry support for SM3, don't have SM3 capable drivers in OSX. You can Bootcamp on the same hardware and run EvE just fine (by post-Incarna standards) in XP. It's hardly CCP's fault that the OSX driver doesn't support SM3, but messaging was at best poor on the matter. It would not have been difficult to have a test call to something requiring SM3 weeks prior to the expansion to alert people that the system they were playing on would no longer function post-Incarna.

I got burnt by the issue, and I specifically checked the my video card for SM3 compliance when it was announced ages ago. I was unaware of the driver issue until Incarna, however. I had taken the ability to create an avatar on my laptop as evidence that my ****ty old GPU was minimally sufficient.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

[Yellow]Sure when you have been playing Eve as long as we have you learn to take the rough with the smooth but you do so with the general feeling that CCP developers understand and ôgetö what makes Eve great û and thatÆs the problem now. This internal newsletter (if real) shows that one of the leading developers does not ôget eveö does not care about eve, and simply sees eve as a cash cow to be milked ferociously to fund other projects. This is about keeping the golden goose of eve subscriptions (on a drip feed if necessary) while chasing and grubbing every little loose cent he can from the player base.

Let me give you a couple of examples of how this can and does (and has already) impacted our enjoyment of this game:

1. The Captains Quarters û itÆs not gameplay its a display cabinet for vanity items. And the price of this display cabinet for you and I is that multi-client performance in stations is now terrible û if you have a bad graphic card itÆs a jerk fest û if you have a decent graphics card itÆs heat-fest. I can run 3-4 clients with CQÆs turned on û I can run it smoothly û but do I want to? Hell no because my Gtx 580 sounds like its melting my motherboard now! So I need to turn off the CQÆs on multiple accounts and as a result have more limited functionality on those accounts and an ugly wallpaper. No more station environment, no more clicking on my ship to open cargo hold, no more dragging ship to the hanger to board it. The delivery of the CQ vanity item display case has impacted my gameplay.

CCP could have made it optional and given us the option of keeping the old hanger view and added a ôdisembark shipö option to the UI but ôoh noö to do that would have meant we werenÆt being forced to look the vanity display case that marketing insisted must be front and centre if weÆre to even think about buying these ridiculously overpriced items from the Noble store.

2. If you read the newsletter youÆll see reference to saved fitting slots û and I donÆt know about you Verone but in JF weÆve run out of saved corp ship fittings. We want CCP to up the limit but is that really going to happen while the ôbiz-devsö talk honeyed words about how to squeeze extra income from players for such ôminor upgrades.ö? How long till we pay aurum for extra corp standing slots? For wardec options? For a usable corp management screen?

3. And who develops these vanity items? Yes thats right its Eve artists and developers whose salary we pay with our subscriptions. Given the choice wouldnÆt you rather have engine trails and flashy cyno effect for all players rather than a bunch of overpriced tat in the Aur store for a fleeced few?

Because that is precisely the compromis
---

R.I.P.

EVE ONLINE

[img]ht

Originally by: Kueijin Legion

---

You kinda have to feel for the poor lower to middle management types at CCP who were going "OH ****! OH ****! THIS IS GONNA FAIL HARD! WHAT THE HELL ARE THE GUYS AT THE TOP THINKING?! OH GOD! GOING TO HAVE TO FIND A NEW JOB! OH HELP ME JESUS/MUHAMMAD/ASUS! I DON'T WANNA BE POOR(ER)!".

Betcha money those guys knew the customers well enough to know this **** wouldn't fly.

---

Originally by: Sijakta Ho Pakrsh

---

ôHell has three gates: lust, anger, and greedö

~Bhagavad Gita

---

Originally by: Brother Pullo

---

I've pretty much given up hope that there will be an official statement that NO non-vanity items are planned for the NEx shop.

I'm still waiting, but am basically finished with EVE.

---

Originally by: placeholder Zateki

---

Great Parley CCP - I'm really enjoying the open communication and understanding atmosphere </sarcasm>

At least give us SOMETHING, even a confirmation of our worst fears would be better than silence at this point, be open with us and we might forgive you yet, but sit there quietly trying to spin language to distract us while you ram this down our throats will not win you any fans.

You think these people would want to talk to the PEOPLE THAT PAY THEIR SALARIES

---

Originally by: kestrael nanahara

---

Originally by: Julian Kirov

---

Free Helicity

---

---

Originally by: Zero GodOfDestruction

---

Dont let the threadnaught die. Dont let eveonline die. Stay vigilant, and there minght be a chance, however small, that CCP will see the light. If not, it was fun while it lasted.

---

Originally by: CCP Zulu

---

Itæs clear that itæs the will of the community to keep virtual goods sales outside the spectrum of what we classify as the "merit economy". That refers to skills gained over time or items that have a gameplay impact. So after discussions, designs, brainstorming and all sorts of processes weæve come up with a strategy that weæve already polished with the help of the CSM and would now want to present to the larger community.

Virtual goods sales in EVE Online will evolve through sales of vanity items, first in Incarna but later in-space features. The scope will be (and thereæs no design has been done around this, weære just talking strategy now) that anything that doesnæt affect gameplay directly can be, potentially, sold for PLEX or other means. Ideas that have come up include Incarna clothing and furniture, logos on spaceships and swapping out portraits. This is by no means a comprehensive list, nor is it a commitment that said items will be available for sale, I mention these as an example for what type of items weære thinking about.

---

Quote:

---

So this thing is vanity items only?
Yes. We will start out with a rather limited number of items initially, carefully measuring the demand and how it impacts the economy. As time progresses, we'll gradually introduce new items and revise our strategy. We've also discussed this issue in depth with the Council of Stellar Management and will both consult with them and keep them up to date every step of the way.

---

Quote:

---

Please note that although we are discontinuing support of Shader Model 2 we will not actively block those cards from running the client.

---

Originally by: Gulliver Rex

---

Originally by: Jaroslav Unwanted

---

Originally by: Wakeland

---

LET'S GET THIS THREAD TO. . . THREADAGGEDON! 400 PAGES, ONWARD!

---

Thats probably only reason why this and similar threads are still alive.

Kinda childish, but enjoy your game, wonder why some company hadn't come with such idea of game minimal sub. Forum Wars. Create some hypothetical document and leave player-base to think for you.

---

--- Top 20 Posters Between Pages 1 and 380
439: Miilla
264: Constantinus Maximus
94: leth ghost
78: Isis Soryu
72: Adunh Slavy
71: Marcus Vorenius
67: Tea Ester Elliot
63: Reed Tiburon
61: Grey Stormshadow
58: Jaroslav Unwanted
50: Bloodpetal
50: Alexis Sachs
49: Shintai
48: Eladaris
46: RougeOperator
43: Manos Heimenbarger
41: Kewso
41: Cutter Isaacson
40: Ris Dnalor
39: Ranka Mei

Wacha talkin about Willis? You made more posts than CCP sold monocles.

---