EVE Search - MUST WATCH! This is what CCP plans to do with EVE.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

MUST WATCH! This is what CCP plans to do with EVE.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DangerosoDavo Gallente Missions Mining and Mayhem Merciless.	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:02:00 - [31] Edited by: DangerosoDavo on 27/06/2011 01:03:21 Originally by: Yarrrrrhh Edited by: Yarrrrrhh on 26/06/2011 23:58:56 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. EDIT: Some sad but additional truth (source); Quote: It's going to be so fun watching all of you slowly distance yourself from this as time goes on and you realize you were raging about nothing. Six months from now when golden ammo hasn't appeared and you all come crawling back to re-sub as your subscriptions actually expire, will you have the balls to admit you were acting like a hysterical woman or will you pretend you never raged? I'm betting on the latter. But hey even if you all end up being right and non-vanity items are introduced, what's the big deal? There are a already a thousand ways to gain an advantage over another player in this game and a number of them already revolve around how much RL money you're willing to spend. I mean the height of irony is watching some ****wit talk about how he's cancelling his $150/month of accounts because at some point in the future another player might gain an advantage in-game by paying RL cash. And how many of you don't have a second account you are paying for? You're already buying an in-game advantage that everyone who doesn't have that disposable cash can never meet. This doesnt compare to the eve online business model we pay a subscription... in that game they paid nothing... the subscription cost being so high should mean p2w model isnt needed and would only alienate the subscribers, we already pay for the game and therefore should have equal advantage. So no to Pay To Win. People can buy plex which adds to ccp revenue and can help people who want to gain an advantage, but atleast this way no new isk is added to the game for RL cash. It is simply transfered. Althought they gain an advantage by having isk people who have isk and are good at the game can also play at the same level. Adding P2W things will add stuff to the game and will hurt the player run market and will hurt the eve we play. In Summary Plex fixes and balances the need for p2w. Subscriptions mean we should all be on the same level as we pay for the game, and with multiple accounts we pay quite alot (remember the average number of account/player is 2.5). EDIT: the link was very good to listen to though was quite insightful as to how a p2w model works. _______________________________________________ Regards Davo
octahexx Charante	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:07:00 - [32] well honestly all mmos are designed with psyhology to manipulate and make you addicted. why do you think you can only skill 24 hours of skills? why doesnt every npc drop the same amount of items? etc. its not random...its designed. this is just the new more agressive instant get-more-money way.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:08:00 - [33] Originally by: Mr Epeen -No one will quit despite the rage. -Cash purchases will become common and an accepted part of the EVE experience. -The people raging the loudest will become some of the best customers. -No one will be too wound up that the ship they just destroyed/got blown up by was fitted with uber weapons paid for with cash. I expect a large number of people will quit, thus leaving the remaining EVE population more accepting of microtransactions (because all the ones who don't like microtransactions have quit). In my case, I can't play the game on my main computer - an iMac with Radeon X1600, which is now obsolete due to change in minimum spec for playing EVE. I'm trying to get by on laptops which aren't designed for playing games, and we'll see how it goes. I'll be upgrading my iMac when the next range of Thunderbolt-equipped iMacs come out. Until then I'll be hobbling along until I can't be bothered playing anymore. If CCP starts introducing "power" or "concierge" items as (I hope jokingly) described in the Fearless newsletter, I'll quit for sure. In the meantime I have CQ turned off most of the time because I've had enough of staring at the wall and I'm starting to get cabin fever. This is regardless of CQ pushing my processor and GPU to 65¦C. [ Australian players join channel ANZAC ]
Obsidian Hawk RONA Legion RONA Directorate	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:11:00 - [34] would people calm the hell down and stop adding fuel to the rage. Let's all step back, take 5 mins to breathe, there is a csm summit this next weekend. Let's all eve mail our csm members and keep the forums in an orderly fashion till then. Let try to be civilized with ccp this week. Also wild speculation only hurts players and the game, it doesnt help it at all. all this trolling and speculation kills the community. So please just stop.
Namura Kautsuo	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:11:00 - [35] Originally by: Toawa Edited by: Toawa on 26/06/2011 22:44:39 Originally by: Anna Maziarczyk Atlas Shrugged meets Greedy Developers. How did Atlas Shrugged do at the box office? i forget. $4,627,375, according to Wikipedia. No DVD release yet, of course... And as someone who has actually read Atlas Shrugged, I can say that there's really no comparison between these two situations. When the government starts forcing you to buy monocles to prop up the monocle industry, let me know... ... Ok, maybe a little comparison; some of the EVE population who are unsubbing are somewhat analogous to the business people who go on strike in AS. But that's a pretty pale comparison. It could also be that atlas shrugged was written by a crazy woman who actually honored a cold blooded murderer. Ayn Rand was a cold hearted old woman who had crappy ideas about economics.
Bastet Aiona Tir Capital Management Group The Mockers AO	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:17:00 - [36] The problem is when CCP ****es off its customers and they leave they IMMEDIATELY lose a form of income. These guys have NOTHING to lose by pressing the issue. However, you consistently hear how they were afraid of introducing certain benefits and items because they were worried about losing the player base. Second, you're talking about EA, the evil twin sister to SONY.
The Offerer Minmatar	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:26:00 - [37] Edited by: The Offerer on 27/06/2011 01:28:08 One "LITTLE" thing that OP failed to mention is that EVE depends on in-game economy and production to survive. No economy, no EVE. edit: big red font, since OP seems to like it.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:30:00 - [38] Originally by: Mr Epeen That is, in fact, an interesting presentation. Thanks for the link. There are some differences but there are some basic truths. Some things I took from this show. CCP needs to/will do: -Ignore the forum posters as they represent approx 2% of the user base. -Introduce cash for performance type merchandise -make it more difficult to acquire ISK except as RMT (plex). What will happen: -No one will quit despite the rage. -Cash purchases will become common and an accepted part of the EVE experience. -The people raging the loudest will become some of the best customers. -No one will be too wound up that the ship they just destroyed/got blown up by was fitted with uber weapons paid for with cash. A real kick in the teeth for those protesters that think they can change the future of EVE with idle threats and petty forum tantrums. Mr Epeen You are jumping several steps in the process. Remember the point was that Dice had the data it was also a F2P game with a cash shop from jump street. Also their ARPU is much lower than the existing ARPU from EVE. They were also in a position where they were in financial dire straights to begin with so they had very low risk in taking the gamble. EVE is generating enough revenue to support development on two different products beyond EVE. You're also comparing a system where there is no lasting cost to loss. You're talking instanced no impact battles. It's just a different environment there for one can not automatically assume that what worked in battlefield hero's will work in EVE. I suspect that the CCP's decision to bring the CSM to Iceland and the new blog from CCP Zulu is a reflection of the fact that the data isn't coming out the same as was the case for BFH. They no whether we're bluffing they can see the cancellations and they aren't talking about losing 25 cents from the average user that rage quits they're losing $15+. I suspect that part of the reason the player base in EVE is so livid about this is that we pay a substantial amount more for this product than the average user of something like BFH. There are no freeloaders in EVE like there is in BFH and other F2P games. Those games also do not have a player driven economy that provides a major motivation for people to play. There are thousands of people who play EVE who spend 0% of their time shooting at other ships. Hell there are thousands who probably never undock from Jita 4-4. The user profile for a F2P FPS is substantially different from those in a game like EVE so it is not a good idea to try and apply lessons from one to the other. I could of course be wrong it's happened a few times in my life. But I think CCP's efforts at damage control at this point are indicative of the fact that their data isn't mirroring Dice's after all they don't have to wait months to see the results they can see the account cancellations in real time. Now they could just assume that we are bluffing but the stakes in their case are higher. Most users who leave a F2P game aren't providing any revenue anyway. Every user that leaves EVE is taking several orders of magnitude more revenue away than those people who left BFH. Also remember someone playing a F2P and doesn't participate in the cash shop isn't losing anything they aren't paying anyway so if they lose they can blame it on their opponents paying for advantage if they win they get bragging rights either way they aren't paying anything. Someone in a subscription game is they are already paying to use the service and to have someone else able to buy an additional edge well it's just far more insulting. Like I said I suspect they are getting a little reality check right now and finding out that no you cannot apply the lessons from a F2P FPS to a subscription based persistent universe sandbox game.
Salomon Kaine	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:32:00 - [39] With 2.5 accounts per player that is $37 arpu per month. Maybe CCP should take a closer look at the market and see how much P2W and MT games make per user. EVE Online with $37 arpu and these kinds of free to play games in the video and like zynga games and all of that complete crap which are prolly happy if they see $1 are not in the same universe as EVE. When you buy a designer shirt you don't expect to pay extra for the buttons. If someone where to offer you a Wall-Mart shirt for free though you might not be that surprised when the bill for the button drops down. These are complete different business models and they do not blend well, because if you pay for a product you expect to get all features in that product. Of you don't pay for the product you expect to pay for each feature. Also CCP should investigate there ARPU and compare it to other games. I will think they find they are making much more money per player then the market average. Also they might be re-investing less of the earnings in the product then the market average now. There is no longevity in that at all I am afraid for obvious reasons...
Black Dranzer Caldari	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:33:00 - [40] Even though that presentation contains nothing new to me, it's still depressing. Even if we do all riot and unsub (and I have), we're probably just a drop in the ocean compared to all those who will help make this a success. **** it. I give.
Mr Kidd	Posted - 2011.06.27 01:43:00 - [41] Originally by: DangerosoDavo This doesnt compare to the eve online business model we pay a subscription... in that game they paid nothing... the subscription cost being so high should mean p2w model isnt needed and would only alienate the subscribers, we already pay for the game and therefore should have equal advantage. So no to Pay To Win. People can buy plex which adds to ccp revenue and can help people who want to gain an advantage, but atleast this way no new isk is added to the game for RL cash. It is simply transfered. Althought they gain an advantage by having isk people who have isk and are good at the game can also play at the same level. Adding P2W things will add stuff to the game and will hurt the player run market and will hurt the eve we play. In Summary Plex fixes and balances the need for p2w. Subscriptions mean we should all be on the same level as we pay for the game, and with multiple accounts we pay quite alot (remember the average number of account/player is 2.5). EDIT: the link was very good to listen to though was quite insightful as to how a p2w model works. Actually, I may have misunderstood, but it sounded like they did have a subscription and F2P at the same time as they indicated that their metrics demonstrated that their subscription players weren't increasing their spending. But, I may have misunderstood. However, they did mention the next iteration of the game would be a completely F2P model. If you can believe what that guy says then it's a very attractive model for a company to run. And its disturbing that their statistical data pretty much indicates that implementing it has no impact on player numbers and has the potential to double the company's income. So, this is where we're at. CCP is taking Eve F2P. The currency model in BF:H is identical to Eve with the exception of isk. Plex and Aur versus XP and VP. CCP's silence on the matter......more indication.
stoicfaux Gallente	Posted - 2011.06.27 02:03:00 - [42] Edited by: stoicfaux on 27/06/2011 02:03:13 Originally by: Maeve Nightside This tells a story on how EA ignored user outrage and bad press and went on to success. Nice story. This seem eerily familiar to anyone? It presents the "don't listen to the users" model as a success because most users don't use the forums and the forums don't represent ***. No, they did* listen to their users... by looking at their user's actions. The data revealed that what the forum users said didn't match their actions. (The user numbers didn't drop and forum users spent ten times the money that the average user did.) As for applying the principles of the presentation to Eve, I think CPP is entering partially uncharted waters with Eve and MTs. Eve is sub based but is free2play-ish due to PLEX. Space Barbie accessories don't really appeal to people who have been flying spaceships for years. Never mind that WiS/Incarna is too incomplete to justify high expectations from the NeX store. Of course, there's the problem of NeX items being way overpriced. I think that any MT plans that CCP has for Eve are still in their infancy. What we're seeing now isn't representative of a meaningful MT implementation, and won't be for some time. ----- <wearing_$1000_jeans> Let them eat cake! </wearing_$1000_jeans>
Spitmebeers Makeitcool	Posted - 2011.06.27 02:13:00 - [43] If this is the case, wouldn't it be much better to encourage people to use the forums via CEO's and coop leaders instead of shooting a ******ed monument for more then 6 hrs? I am pretty sure that we can show CCP that we are not going to accept "cash for the win" system by keeping this video bumped all the time and giving the link away in local chats ecc. if we are that addicted to "i have achieved this" feeling of the mmorpgs im pretty sure ruining a company's business model would give us a lot more sadisfaction then pewpewing some pixel art which probably took 10 minutes of 3D modeling on 3Ds max xP please don't get me wrong im not raging or anything, i have been playing this game for two weeks anyway, all i am saying is that even if we can make CCP loose 2% of the revenue they could do in a year that would give them an idea of what %2 of a society is capable of... IMO canceling subs is pretty stupid, since the changes they are about to make are focused on in-game cash spending...they already forgot about making revenue out of subscription fees, making the already invested system failing however...thats the way to go to be honest.
kestrael nanahara Caldari Wrecking Shots Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.06.27 02:14:00 - [44] The metric used by the BF:Heroes guys is money per person per month, they wanted to make 50 cents off every player per month.... To play eve costs 15 dollars a month per player or 30 times as much money per player per month..... "Make a free to play game and make it so paying makes you win so that you can pay for the development" - random EA subsidiary "Lets continue to charge people Eve's monthly to play and THEN make them also pay to win" - Hilmar "Brilliant we can bill our players TWICE" - Soundwave =/
General Xenophon	Posted - 2011.06.27 02:17:00 - [45] I sincerely hope this model mixing fails completely and utterly. If not it will forever change MMO's in a way which is horrible in my opinion. Paying to play shouldn't mean 'Paying to play, and then some'.
Spitmebeers Makeitcool	Posted - 2011.06.27 02:26:00 - [46] bump!...OPS!
Havegun Willtravel	Posted - 2011.06.27 02:37:00 - [47] It was a very interesting presentation on a number of levels. There are however a number of glaring mistakes. One is quality, for which EA has a poor to non existent reputation. Crap to play is not an undue comparison to the state of the industry today. How many of these games will exist in 2 let alone 8 years. What happens when the non paying player wakes up to the fact that they are basically just a punching bag for the Pay to Play players ? Those with excessive disposable income wont hesitate to pay, and those with more limited means will question their wisdom if they do pay for a game with limited content and a game model based principally on ptw which they know they cant participate in. How long can you perpetuate that cycle. It is also widely acknowledged in the industry today that both the quality of the programming and the quality of development have suffered under the ftp/ptw micro trans market. FTP/MT prioritizes ARPU over quality. The ideal FTP/MT generates a Pavlov response or trigger as opposed to a genuine feeling of reward or accomplishment. Thus their formula for success is based more on maximizing revenue per user on a small minority as opposed to developing quality entertainment for the majority of users. Is that the type of game you want to play ?
alexreborn Invicta. Rooks and Kings	Posted - 2011.06.27 02:44:00 - [48] Has anyone played Battlefield Play 4 Free? Its fun to load up and shoot some guys, and then log off. Its a BROWSER based game, it loads fast, and gets you shooting stuff quick., EVE is not the same. If EVE went to a PLAY for free model, I would hapily "pay to win" with "micro transactions" SO LONG as the items I bought cant be lost when I die.
Dragan Moonraker Rheinbraun Heavy Industries	Posted - 2011.06.27 03:15:00 - [49] Edited by: Dragan Moonraker on 27/06/2011 03:15:17 Thanks for posting this. I'm sure most people won't listen to the whole thing, but jesus christ it couldn't be more relevant.
diaufop	Posted - 2011.06.27 03:43:00 - [50] Edited by: diaufop on 27/06/2011 03:47:31 Edited by: diaufop on 27/06/2011 03:46:47 Edited by: diaufop on 27/06/2011 03:45:15 Originally by: Salomon Kaine With 2.5 accounts per player that is $37 arpu per month. Maybe CCP should take a closer look at the market and see how much P2W and MT games make per user. EVE Online with $37 ...Also CCP should investigate there ARPU and compare it to other games. The thing is - EVE makes enough money to pay for itself. That is indeed obvious at a glance. But EVE it doesn't really make enough for the whole of CCP's operations any more, and hasn't for a while (hence them taking out loands, getting into bed with more investors, and so on). They're committed to 2 other games, both of which have fairly substantial development costs (WoD more so than Dust), and they're are launching the microtransactions to pay for the costs of those other two games as well as EVE (of course, it should be pointed out that the whole of Incarna is nothing more or less than free large-scale Alpha testing for the WoD engine). Eventually, Dust and WoD could well make just as much ARPU as EVE does for CCP, and everyone would be happy. But Dust is still a long way from paying for itself and WoD is 3+ years away from paying for itself, hence CCP's sudden cash grab via pay-to-win. Als, the one thing most posters don't pick up on - and I have a sinking feeling that CCP missed it as well - a huge amount of that BF: Heros revenue came in via SMS charges, not via credit/debit cards or paypal. Why? Because the majority of their pay-to-win addicts are teenagers. 12-16 year olds who don't have a credit card and therefore were locked out of paying for their advantages until the SMS-based payments were put into place. EVE's customer base it substantially different to BF: Heros. You know that, I know that.....but it does look like Hilmar and friends are forgetting that.
Sekket Caldari White-Noise	Posted - 2011.06.27 04:47:00 - [51] Originally by: Murev Vorchilde immagine how many bots we would have if you could make as many f2p eve accounts as you wanted, fun times ahead Quoting because this deserves discussion. If EVE goes FTP then what are they gonna do to prevent everyone from having their own personal mining fleet? Limit the number of accounts per credit card? I have more than 1 credit card. Limit the number of clients that can run at once on a computer? I've two active machines and could brush up a few older pieces of hardware I have around. Plus I could run virtual machines to get around their client limitations. EVE is a competitive game, and as a competitive game with a competitive in-game economy how does FTP work? I don't think it does.
Meridian Siri	Posted - 2011.06.27 05:00:00 - [52] bumping. folks need to see this
Postradamus	Posted - 2011.06.27 05:28:00 - [53] I love how the presenter thinks that a weapon that is 10% more powerful is "nothing particularly major" (about 25:45 in).
Markarian Aurelius	Posted - 2011.06.27 06:22:00 - [54] Edited by: Markarian Aurelius on 27/06/2011 06:23:31 First off, Eve is not exactly a FTP game. Sure, with enough grinding you can buy your PLEX with ISK, but someone had to buy that PLEX in order for someone to buy it, so CCP has really not lost any revenue from those who buy PLEX with ISK. Instead of spending more time in marketing and improvement of the game to draw more gamers to Eve, they've decided the easiest way was to try squeezing the utters, Us, a little harder. What CCP probably thinks is that we all are that "small userbase subset" and that a majority of the players don't feel the way we do. Hence Hilmar's comment to "watch what we do and not what we say". I'm sure the upper management thinks the larger subset of players would love to spend money on items that would give them an advantage in the game. If this is the case, they are probably also putting all of their bets on that since we (the smaller, more vocal subset) are so passionate and have invested so much into this game that we couldn't or wouldn't just up and leave in droves. The fact is that if we are indeed a small subset of the playerbase, we need to recruit more people into our camps. Either we convince them to leave the game or we enact policies inside our corps and alliances that prohibit advantage giving items from being owned by those who bear our insignias. Afterwards, we ruthlessly target any individual, corp, or alliance that allows their players to use such items. Alienate and isolate those who wish to sully the purity of the game. I know some, especially those new to Eve, will be very tempted or see no problem paying cash for "i-Win" weapons, ships, or ammo. They will likely think that since so many other MMO's have it, so why is it such a horrible thing. The veterans will have to teach them that such shenanigans won't be tolerated in the sandbox we helped build, regardless of what CCP wants it to be like. After getting primaried constantly, blacklisted by every "anti-gold anything" Corp and Alliance, I believe most will eventually bend and play the game the way it was meant to be played. Equal grounds for advancement regardless of income. The want for approval is often more powerful than the want for competitive advantage, especially within a social driven and very political game like Eve. I think this will work.
Reza Temiz	Posted - 2011.06.27 06:49:00 - [55] This slideshow is about F2P games. Eve wants to charge a monthly fee and offer a F2P style cash shop. This is double dipping and will not work.
Acac Sunflyier Gallente	Posted - 2011.06.27 06:52:00 - [56] Okay so I watched the whole thing but there was one big difference between that game and Eve. See eve requires a monthly subscription and isn't f2p with a mt market model. Rigt now it is a p2p with a mt added in. This leads players to feel they're being double billed for one subscription. I don't think this video applies to Eve.
Serpents smile	Posted - 2011.06.27 07:29:00 - [57] We are but canaries in the cole mine, ey? Not sure if this model from the presentation will work on the current EVE model though. Also, bump.
XIRUSPHERE Gallente The 8th Order Mean Coalition	Posted - 2011.06.27 07:34:00 - [58] Thing is, this is not EA and it is an entirely different paradigm. Eve is sub based and going f2p would take quite awhile to implement. I'm sure some folks at CCP watched it with starry eyes and got some bad ideas but they are in a very precarious position. It wont take much to push CCP over the edge with all that's going on right now. If CCP had respect and common sense they would have been transparent as they have been claiming to be for years. It's the lack of respect and integrity that is causing players to bail, and others like myself see that there is enough potential momentum to push CCP into a position where they either learn to respect the players or find a new market. I have happily paid subs and for quite awhile now have just used plex for my accounts for a game that I routinely put down for weeks at a time because I was happy to support this niche market. Im shutting my stuff down because I have more than enough SP, ISK, and other games to play to send CCP a message that I do not support this kind of crap. Ive lurked on the forums for years, this is the first time I even bothered to contribute towards anything here and it's primarily for entertainment and being advantageous. I got into it simply because watching Zinfandel on at9 and then seeing what he did in game and the subsequent CCP failcascade made it the right time to snowball them. Eve is harsh and so are it's players. The metrics and experts CCP have count on people being soft targets and this base is largely not. I'm not angry, I'm quite entertained and seeing the community make a stand puts a smile on my face. Why should we play fair when CCP thinks they can insult and debase their community and implement marketing strategies straight from captain obvious.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.06.27 07:37:00 - [59] Heh... make gold ships show up with gold entries in the overview (i.e.: "Ishukone Watch Scorpion" in gold in the "type" column). People will buy that stuff just to be different. Will also make it easier to pick out the expensive ships in any fleet battle. [ Australian players join channel ANZAC ]
Mantreh	Posted - 2011.06.27 07:37:00 - [60] Edited by: Mantreh on 27/06/2011 07:37:49 Originally by: Yarrrrrhh EDIT: Some sad but additional truth (source); Quote: It's going to be so fun watching all of you slowly distance yourself from this as time goes on and you realize you were raging about nothing. Six months from now when golden ammo hasn't appeared and you all come crawling back to re-sub as your subscriptions actually expire, will you have the balls to admit you were acting like a hysterical woman or will you pretend you never raged? I'm betting on the latter. But hey even if you all end up being right and non-vanity items are introduced, what's the big deal? There are a already a thousand ways to gain an advantage over another player in this game and a number of them already revolve around how much RL money you're willing to spend. I mean the height of irony is watching some ****wit talk about how he's cancelling his $150/month of accounts because at some point in the future another player might gain an advantage in-game by paying RL cash. And how many of you don't have a second account you are paying for? You're already buying an in-game advantage that everyone who doesn't have that disposable cash can never meet. I love it ... so true it makes me smile. I especially love how the poster points out so well the irony of people cancelling multiple accounts because "no-one should be able to P2W".

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.

Originally by: Julian KirovHere'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.

One "LITTLE" thing that OP failed to mention is that EVE depends on in-game economy and production to survive. No economy, no EVE.

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.