| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Khamelean
   |
Posted - 2011.06.25 01:53:00 -
[1]
 Quote:
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.
Linkage
Regarding the "Greed is Good?" newsletter.
Quote:
The opinions and views expressed in Fearless are just that; opinions and views. They are not CCP policy nor are they a reliable source of CCP views as a company. The employees who submitted articles to that newsletter did exactly what they were asked to do, write about theories and opinions from an exaggerated stand.
Linkage
I really can't see why there is still confusion about this.
|
Quidgo Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 01:57:00 -
[2]
shame most people here will ignore this thread.
+1 buddy
|
Ga'len
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 01:59:00 -
[3]
Not really, this has been brought up several times today. The issue is that when CCP was asked the question again, they didn't point to this dev blog. They simply did not respond at all and that's what has people concerned.
If the answer is what's in the dev blog, why can't they simply repeat it?
The silence from CCP is the cause of all the angst.
|
ELECTR0FREAK
Eye of God
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:01:00 -
[4]
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 25/06/2011 02:03:26
And it also says in the Fearless newsletter:
Originally by: Scott Holden
Second, we must sell our units of virtual currency - the AUR - at appropriate rates. No pair of pants, no matter how cool, should cost the same as a new Maserati; similarly, it would be silly to buy sunglasses for my avatar and pay the same price that I would for a faction battleship.
How much does a monocle cost again? Riiiiiight.
Discoverer of the Original Missile Damage Formula |
Khamelean
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:02:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ga'len
Not really, this has been brought up several times today. The issue is that when CCP was asked the question again, they didn't point to this dev blog. They simply did not respond at all and that's what has people concerned.
If the answer is what's in the dev blog, why can't they simply repeat it?
The silence from CCP is the cause of all the angst.
Silence? The second quote is from the most recent dev blog, it specifically states that the only source of new information on the topic of micro-transactions was a personal opinion piece. Therefore their current policy still stands.
|
Khamelean
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:04:00 -
[6]
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 25/06/2011 02:03:26
And it also says in the Fearless newsletter:
Originally by: Scott Holden
Second, we must sell our units of virtual currency - the AUR - at appropriate rates. No pair of pants, no matter how cool, should cost the same as a new Maserati; similarly, it would be silly to buy sunglasses for my avatar and pay the same price that I would for a faction battleship.
How much does a monocle cost again? Riiiiiight.
Your quoting form a document that has nothing to do with ccp policy.
|
Ranger 1
Amarr
Paragon Fury
Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:10:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 25/06/2011 02:11:55
Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 25/06/2011 02:03:26
And it also says in the Fearless newsletter:
Originally by: Scott Holden
Second, we must sell our units of virtual currency - the AUR - at appropriate rates. No pair of pants, no matter how cool, should cost the same as a new Maserati; similarly, it would be silly to buy sunglasses for my avatar and pay the same price that I would for a faction battleship.
How much does a monocle cost again? Riiiiiight.
Your quoting form a document that has nothing to do with ccp policy.
I agree with you completely on all points.
However I STILL want to know:
1: Why they have chosen to price their virtual vanity items at 10X - 30X higher than the rest of the gaming industry?
2: Why would they give up the huge amount of pure profit they would make if they simply priced these items competitively?
=====
The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction. |
Ranger 1
Amarr
Paragon Fury
Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:18:00 -
[8]
Isn't it amazing how any sane and reasonable thread gets drown within moments by the troll posts...
=====
The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction. |
Snake Scofield
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:23:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Snake Scofield on 25/06/2011 02:23:38
Quote:
2: Why would they give up the huge amount of pure profit they would make if they simply priced these items competitively?
Maybe because they're not the greedy, money grubbing capitalists everyone's making them out to be and want the VANITY items bought at the NOBLE exchange to remain fairly exclusive?
|
cytex malrone
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:23:00 -
[10]
Edited by: cytex malrone on 25/06/2011 02:24:07
Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 25/06/2011 02:03:26
And it also says in the Fearless newsletter:
Originally by: Scott Holden
Second, we must sell our units of virtual currency - the AUR - at appropriate rates. No pair of pants, no matter how cool, should cost the same as a new Maserati; similarly, it would be silly to buy sunglasses for my avatar and pay the same price that I would for a faction battleship.
How much does a monocle cost again? Riiiiiight.
Your quoting form a document that has nothing to do with ccp policy.
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
Seriously you cant see the wiggle room 
Combine that with not one of the devs giving a straight answer on this and the fact that they are discussing it in a internal memo and you get fail cascade
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=913
|
Khamelean
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:32:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Ranger 1
However I STILL want to know:
1: Why they have chosen to price their virtual vanity items at 10X - 30X higher than the rest of the gaming industry?
2: Why would they give up the huge amount of pure profit they would make if they simply priced these items competitively?
The primary reason is this, if they made the NEX items cheap enough so that they were appealing to everyone, most people would pay for them with ISK, this would drive the price of PLEX up and destabilise the economy. The best way to avoid this is to initially only add items that are of interest to a very small segment of the eve community. This avoids a massive growth in spending on initial deployment and allows them to release items that appeal to a wider audience at a later date without breaking the in game economy.
Quote:
We will gradually introduce items at other price points, definitely lower and probably higher than whatæs in the store today. We hope you enjoy them and are as passionate about them as you are of the current items that are for sale.
Linkage
Short answer, CCP cares more about the integrity of their game than they do about making a quick buck. If they were just after a cash grab they would have made the NEX cheaper. Lots of people buying cheap stuff makes more money than only a few buying expensive stuff.
|
Tugrath Akers
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:53:00 -
[12]
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 25/06/2011 02:03:26
And it also says in the Fearless newsletter:
Originally by: Scott Holden
Second, we must sell our units of virtual currency - the AUR - at appropriate rates. No pair of pants, no matter how cool, should cost the same as a new Maserati; similarly, it would be silly to buy sunglasses for my avatar and pay the same price that I would for a faction battleship.
How much does a monocle cost again? Riiiiiight.
So maybe we shouldn't take the newsletter's every word as gospel...
|
Khamelean
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:56:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Khamelean on 25/06/2011 02:56:42
Originally by: cytex malrone
Seriously you cant see the wiggle room
Combine that with not one of the devs giving a straight answer on this and the fact that they are discussing it in a internal memo and you get fail cascade
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=913
Of course there is wiggle room. Companies simply cant make a statement like you want to hear. There is no way they can predict the decisions of management if the company changes hands. Who knows what the economic climate will look like in 20 years, 50 years?
The best you will ever get from a company or person is what they can honestly tell you about right now. And for right now their policy is clear. You want a 100% guarantee that something will never happen? Well harden the **** up, life doesn't work that way.
|
Ranger 1
Amarr
Paragon Fury
Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 03:04:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: Ranger 1
However I STILL want to know:
1: Why they have chosen to price their virtual vanity items at 10X - 30X higher than the rest of the gaming industry?
2: Why would they give up the huge amount of pure profit they would make if they simply priced these items competitively?
The primary reason is this, if they made the NEX items cheap enough so that they were appealing to everyone, most people would pay for them with ISK, this would drive the price of PLEX up and destabilise the economy. The best way to avoid this is to initially only add items that are of interest to a very small segment of the eve community. This avoids a massive growth in spending on initial deployment and allows them to release items that appeal to a wider audience at a later date without breaking the in game economy.
Quote:
We will gradually introduce items at other price points, definitely lower and probably higher than whatæs in the store today. We hope you enjoy them and are as passionate about them as you are of the current items that are for sale.
Linkage
Short answer, CCP cares more about the integrity of their game than they do about making a quick buck. If they were just after a cash grab they would have made the NEX cheaper. Lots of people buying cheap stuff makes more money than only a few buying expensive stuff.
I get that, believe me, but we aren't just talking about the stupid monocle.
The clothing items are, to be frank, nothing special. If those very plain looking items are supposed to be worth $20, how crappy is the "more reasonably priced items to be released later" going to look?
On a slightly obtuse note, DUST 514 and EVE are going to share a common market. The way this is starting off, there is a huge disparity in the ISK pricing schemes between the two. That a fore mentioned plain shirt costs as much in ISK as a Battle Barge (using a direct AUR/ISK conversion, not the horrendous price gouging prices we currently see). Just something to consider.
=====
The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction. |
Mystical Might
Amarr
The Imperial Fedaykin
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 03:05:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Mystical Might on 25/06/2011 03:08:03
Idiots.
Aurum as it is at the moment is a test run.
That was said multiple times during the alliance tournament, when CCP zinfanwhateverthehellhescalled said they'd slowly release the content and see how it goes.
Obviously, it's not going well.
Obviously, A substantial amount of eve online players don't want it to happen, or to affect the game in certain ways.
CCP Should take into account everything that the eve online playerbase has said, and adjust the future AURUM store releases to suit the consumer demand.
WHat'd you expect them to do at the very beginning? Seriously?
Of course they were going to over-price everything so as to reduce the risk of losing any possible profits they could make.
They should reduce those prices, and the prices of future items when they see how ******edly stupid the initial prices were.
To be completely honest with you, all it comes down to is this:
- CCP are throwing the idea of Aurum for ammo/SP/Remaps around. It's not a definite thing.
If you don't like the cosmetic aurum items, such as the monicle, don't buy it. Really. Does someone else using their hard earned cash to purchase a useless cosmetic item that makes them look stupid really make you want to slit your wrists? Because if it does...
EDIT:
Still accepting isk and assets of those who're quitting over someone elses gameplay style.
|
Michela
Bosun Shipyards
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 03:09:00 -
[16]
Honestly, I don't see why there is such outrage over the cost of vanity items. If some rich guys wants to buy one, go ahead. I'm not going to. I love my free shades.
Those folks who are converting AUR to US$ are making a mistake. These items will be purchased by those people who are massively rich in the game. Not by people buying GTC/PLEX to buy the vanity items.
And, if people did spend their US$ or other hard currency on vanity items why do you care?
It is nobody's business what I do with my money. And, it is not my business what you do with yours. If CCP wants to sell useless pretty items for huge sums of money, let them. And, let those who like them and who can afford them buy them.
Are there issues with this patch? Oh yes. So very many. But, letting people buy vanity items for huge sums is not one of them. |
cytex malrone
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 03:12:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Khamelean
Edited by: Khamelean on 25/06/2011 02:56:42
Originally by: cytex malrone
Seriously you cant see the wiggle room
Combine that with not one of the devs giving a straight answer on this and the fact that they are discussing it in a internal memo and you get fail cascade
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=913
Of course there is wiggle room. Companies simply cant make a statement like you want to hear. There is no way they can predict the decisions of management if the company changes hands. Who knows what the economic climate will look like in 20 years, 50 years?
The best you will ever get from a company or person is what they can honestly tell you about right now. And for right now their policy is clear. You want a 100% guarantee that something will never happen? Well harden the **** up, life doesn't work that way.
no there policy is not clear if it was we wouldn't have this ****storm they are not clarifying there policy with us they are ignoring us. I want a 100% guarantee that there is no plans to **** up the sandbox I want a guarantee that they are not going to ruin this game or its market without that there is no reason to stay around for any of us.
From what im reading they no longer care so I am voting with my money and cancelled
|
Harcosi
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 03:12:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Harcosi on 25/06/2011 03:12:54
So they're not going to sell gameplay affecting items through MT? I'm on the verge of cancelling my accounts, this is the only point I care about.
*edit* I hope they're not going to allow gameplay affecting MTs, I love Eve, and nothing else comes close. But I'm spending over $100 a month on Eve.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |