Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ryker Struvian
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 05:04:00 -
[1]
Wasn't there a huge fuss last week over the fact CCP wanted to charge sites like battleclinic and agentfinder $100 for usage of their IP?
Seems to go hand-in-hand with CCPs pay-to-win gameplan.
|
VeloxMors
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 05:12:00 -
[2]
Edited by: VeloxMors on 26/06/2011 05:12:05 If I recall correctly, they even stated the full intent wasn't to create revenue, just to give the users the ability to charge for 3rd party services.
What I don't understand, is why $100 then? Why not $1? Not trying to create revenue my ass.
|
Faith Clothos
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 05:14:00 -
[3]
Well, for someone that charges 68 USD for a monocle, 99 USD is symbolic.
|
Yoshitaka Moromuo
Distant Light Galactic Apocalypse Now.
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 05:16:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Ryker Struvian Wasn't there a huge fuss last week over the fact CCP wanted to charge sites like battleclinic and agentfinder $100 for usage of their IP?
Seems to go hand-in-hand with CCPs pay-to-win gameplan.
I forget exactly where (I know it's documented on the eveonline.com domain somewhere...) but I'm sure the $99 figure was blammed already, and was said to be replaced with a lower figure when they figure it out...
... I'll bet it'll be $98, but I'm hoping lower ;)
|
yumike
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 05:17:00 -
[5]
CCP Announces amazing plan: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=901
CCP Apologizes for ******ed plan: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1528607&page=32#940
|
Ryker Struvian
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 05:22:00 -
[6]
Greed is good, guys! There is no way they could've been aiming for revenue!
|
Beelzebubz
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 05:30:00 -
[7]
battleclinic is a site for more than just eve and im sure their ad revenue can more than pay for their fee also if you people didnt log into incarna and immediately go to the forums to rage about monocles you might have noticed the new agent finder in game is pretty freaking awesome, not "get over mt awesome" but awesome nonetheless
|
VeloxMors
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 05:34:00 -
[8]
Originally by: yumike CCP Announces amazing plan: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=901
CCP Apologizes for ******ed plan: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1528607&page=32#940
Seems like a recurring theme...
Step 1: announce AMAZING new idea, call it "good news" Step 2: wait for players to read it and become enraged. Step 3: Apologize repeatedly and answer no questions. Step 4: release original idea as planned. Step 5: ??? Step 6: CCP! (aka profit)
|
Dek Kato
Amarr Delusions of Mediocrity
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 06:14:00 -
[9]
Indeed, this is another part of the current rage that's been going on (if somewhat forgotten about). Its not the monocle, its not even the game breaking MTs, its the feeling that CCP has lost all touch, and this is part of it. The ignoring players on forcing us to load an overly intensive station environment should also be noted.
Originally by: CCP Shadow Thread locked due to troll convention.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 06:37:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Windjammer on 26/06/2011 06:39:53 CCP Zulu addressed this issue in his ôinterviewö (announcement) amongst the commentators of the recent alliance tournament during that tournament. He said that the $99 fee would not be charged and that only a token fee would be used in the licensing. He also said it was necessary for a fee of some kind to be charged for the license in order to create a paper trail of the exchange for purposes of documentation and enforcement should the need arise to take legal action.
However, he did not say how much the ôtokenö fee would be. Thus CCP retains considerable latitude in the amount of the fee by not making a statement they can be held to. Technically it could be any amount under $99. $98, $50, $40ààà..your guess is as good as any.
It would have been easy for CCP to say they were going to charge a dollar. This would have defused considerable anger on this issue. That CCP did not do so suggests the fee is not going to be one the community is going to likeààà.or just as likely someone is terribly inept at PR.
-Windjammer
P.S. Just for fun watch the video and observe the body english of the commentatorsàààas well as that of Zulu.
|
|
Ryker Struvian
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 06:45:00 -
[11]
The reasoning sounds rational but why now? What is different now which requires a paper trial as opposed to years ago? All of this stuff about CCP's direction with that tidbit just seems too coincidental. And I want to think of it as being an entirely justifiable thing, at the same time I'm not stupid.
And yes, it's been forgotten which is why I'm raising the discussion again. It cannot be forgotten, especially not now.
|
Fractal Muse
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 06:48:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ryker Struvian
And yes, it's been forgotten which is why I'm raising the discussion again. It cannot be forgotten, especially not now.
Shhh! If you don't talk about it then CCP will imagine it was forgotten and leave the agreement as is! I think you are spoiling their plan by bringing it up again.
|
Ryker Struvian
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 08:14:00 -
[13]
oh hello thread.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 17:52:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ryker Struvian The reasoning sounds rational but why now? What is different now which requires a paper trial as opposed to years ago? All of this stuff about CCP's direction with that tidbit just seems too coincidental. And I want to think of it as being an entirely justifiable thing, at the same time I'm not stupid.
And yes, it's been forgotten which is why I'm raising the discussion again. It cannot be forgotten, especially not now.
It isnÆt so much rational as it is rationalization. IÆm unaware of any problem or potential problem CCP is facing that their intellectual property (IP) needs protection from. Not within the realm of reasonable probability, anyway. I meanàààà..anything is possible.
-Windjammer
|
Simmion
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 18:52:00 -
[15]
It seems some of you are missing the idea here. the Fee you pay to CCP is so that you can charge other people for your 3rd party apps..
e.g. I make a 3rd party app, using the EVE API. It's really great I want to sell it to people, instead of giving it away for free (because it is CCP's api i used to create it) I can license the code with CCP, and sell my application to other people.
Essentially, you pay CCP to use the API, only in instances where you intend to charge for your work. otherwise, you may continue to produce 3rd party programs that are free to use to your little hearts content.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.28 01:33:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Simmion Essentially, you pay CCP to use the API, only in instances where you intend to charge for your work. otherwise, you may continue to produce 3rd party programs that are free to use to your little hearts content.
True, but the devil is in the details. CCP will count any advertisement on your apps website as income, any donation of isk as income, etc. Their stance is that any income makes the license a requirement. This will not only encompass app developers and their sites, but fan sites as well.
Second, by enabling app developers to require a fee for their apps, you open the door to a pay to win situation.
-Windjammer
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |