| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |

Estelle McDeal
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 19:57:00 -
[1]
All they are doing is buying time.
Did they listen to us when it came to sanctum nerfs?
No all they wanted to do is sell more PLEXes. PLEX price went up meaning the demand was much higher then the offer.
If they really never planned to move microtransaction other then vanity items they would have said that immediately.
You lost our trust and calling in CSM for any credability will not work.
You gave a **** on CSM doing all other changes and all you want to do now is buy time which means more RL ISK until the obvious is stated.
You will sell game affecting items for RL cash one or the other way.
No cease fire and no clam down. This time we will not step down like stupid cash cows.
Before calling in CSM let Hilmar state in plain public that this was never intended and you will never again even think about it.
If not, rest in peace EvE.
|

Estelle McDeal
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 22:26:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Angeliq
Originally by: Julian Kirov
Here's a presentation from the creators of BF:Heroes that explains why Hilmar gives no fcks about the forums.
http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win
This is a very interesting presentation. Everyone should... MUST watch it!
This presentation will tell you why EVE Online WILL have a Cash Shop WITH GAME CHANGING ITEMS beyond vanity ones!! It shows that the business model works and why it will work in EVE too.
Really worth to watch this.
It is EXACTLY what Zulu told us. They are offering items via NeX that players demand.
One difference left: We already pay for EvE and the greedy tards donŠt get enough and this is what will **** off people.
|

Estelle McDeal
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 23:37:00 -
[3]
Calling in CSM to Iceland to talk to our "representatives"?
I rofled so hard.
Did you talk to CSM about nullsec nerf?
Did you talk to CSM about your glorious NeX plans?
What do you consider better feedback then +300 pages on forums?
We donŠt need "representatives" that you ignored on any major change in the past.
CSM will not get you back the trust because of constantly nerfing our gameplay.
|

Estelle McDeal
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 23:50:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Estelle McDeal on 26/06/2011 23:50:58
Originally by: Akira Zendragon Well this has certainly been a good step forward. I wish it was taken sooner and more decisively, but I'll go with a +1 to CCP Zulu nevertheless. Some good will was badly needed and this blog delivered some.
Tbh, I feel it could have been a bit more explicit on the pay-to-win issue. I see quite a bit of wiggle-room available that could still lead to p2w MTs, but I'll wait for the outcome of the CSM summit.
It's good to see some measure of respect and common sense by CCP showing through to the community by finally calling on CSM, and hopefully this time to actually listen to them and communicate effectively with them and with the community.
This CSM is certainly earning it's pay... oh wai... 
To the CSM: Good work so far, hope you guys have a very productive summit this week and manage to fix this mess for good.
ROFL you also still believe in santa?
Go on hoping while they are planning on optimizing their revenue coz this is what it is all about.
They never gave a **** on CSM and this will not change.
Metrics > CSM
CSM = unimportant wannabes that can be used if s.h.it hits the fan but other then that they are merely puppets to CCP
|

Estelle McDeal
|
Posted - 2011.06.27 00:05:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Karsa Egivand I will add my voice to the others who have said:
Wait and see.
If they meet with the CSM to "assist ... in defining and iterating on our virtual goods strategy" then I will wait a week for that. If they make public promises to stick with solely vanity items - not in a dev blog - but to CSM after such a high-profile meeting, then they will have very little leverage to ever break that promise. Lets see if they do.
Until then, I am off to earn some ISK and do some flying.
High-profile meeting?
Wake up dude. We are talking about the CSM that has been ignored on any major changes in the past.
We are not talking about an investors meeting.
No profile meeting would be the suitable term.
|
| |
|