EVE Search - To everybody thinking CCP are cash-grubbing horrible people...

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

To everybody thinking CCP are cash-grubbing horrible people...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
RAW23	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:23:00 - [61] From a UK .gov website Quote: By law, all descriptions - whether verbal, written, implied or given in an illustration - must be accurate and not misleading. If you describe goods inaccurately, the customer may have a claim against you for breach of contract, and it may put you in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act. Tbh, I wouldn't be too surprised if a number of CCP's statements about the future of the game could be subject to claims, especially as anything they say must be good for a year given that they sell one year subscriptions. However, this is the kind of thing that is very often true of very many companies and is frequently evaded simply because people don't pursue claims. Another quote: Quote: The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations have replaced most of the Trade Descriptions Act. These rules make it an offence to mislead consumers about goods and services. Misleading practices could include: untruthful advertising leaving out important information deceptive after-sales information An advert is misleading if it deceives or is likely to deceive its audience and affect their decision on whether or not to buy. This also applies if it unfairly harms - or is likely to harm - a competitor of the organisation placing the advertisement. Hmmm..... Source: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1073792290&r.l1=1073861169&r.l2=1087428702&r.l3=1074014173&r.s=sc&type=RESOURCES
Eclorc	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:23:00 - [62] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 29/06/2011 17:15:18 Originally by: Maplestone Originally by: Akita T A multitude of fake characters (which are actually NPCs) each of them occasionally putting up small PLEX buy orders for which the ISK is generated by CCP out of thin air. They don't need to do even that because players already do all the work of opening alts and farming ISK for them (disclaimer: I have no alts) The fundemental question remains: what is the problem with PLEX that NEX is attempting to solve? The PROBLEM is that more PLEX are being created by people that want to buy ISK with them than the number which are used up by people to pay for their accounts. Normally, you would say that this would be an impossible situation - and with GTC, you would have been right. That was because GTCs could not be stockpiled - or, at least, impossible to stockpile after the "RMT killing" measure of having GTCs automatically apply to the purchasing account in a secure trade was implemented (alongside forbidding GTC trades outside the secure trade system). As soon as PLEX was introduced, this was something that could be stockpiled... and it was. Heavily. The current guesstimates put the PLEX stockpiles that exist in the game right now at anywhere between 80k and 400k units of PLEX. That's between 1.4 and 7 million USD just sitting there waiting for many somebodies to claim for personal use and NOT pay a sub with new cash anymore (while still sticking around). And still growing. THAT is the problem with PLEX. P.S. The NEX only needs to "eat up" the difference between PLEX created and PLEX used up by players. erm, thats somewhere between 1.2 and 7 million USD that CCP has accrued, up-front, like a loan in effect. If they have 7 mill to play with right now that they didn't have before, then surely that's a good thing for their development budget. I could basically TL;DR everything you've said: "I am defending CCP planning and implementing methods to trick or tempt people into destroying the contracts that we sold them for game time". In what you just posted, you are trying to argue the case FOR CCP being able to renege on the contract that the GTC and PLEX represents. /me can't fix stupid
Windjammer Gallente	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:25:00 - [63] Akita, all youÆre saying is CCP could have done it in a more clever and palatable fashion. Given recent events, are you really saying theyÆre clever? You donÆt believe the NEX store is designed to gain CCP money? I believe my view on the NEX store is the same as yours. Vanity items, fine. Non-vanity items that affect game play, not okay. However, no matter which way you look at it, the NEX store is designed to make money for CCP by creating a direct pipeline of cash to CCP rather than the current indirect one through the player run market place. Moreover itÆs an augmentation of cash intake. In its present state, the NEX store may be a poorly calculated phenomena, but itÆs not what IÆd characterize as money grubbing. It would have been better received if it had included some lower priced items as well as the higher priced ones. Introducing non-vanity items into that store would clearly crosses the line to money grubbing as it would be sacrificing game play for money. The latter is what concerns most people and is cause for most of the outraged accusations of ômoney grubbingö. -Windjammer
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:28:00 - [64] Originally by: Spookyjay Akita T I really have to ask you. Are you truly happy that CCP went from making profit to not and are at the same time not putting any where near the same quality of development into EVE yet are developing two other games that are financially dubious risks. Of course not. I disagree with a lot of the directions CCP took lately (or at least with their manpower distribution focus) and I do believe that the quality has slipped because of that (and because of lack of internal consistency, but that's a different story). I also disagree quite strongly with a lot of the decisions CCP made regarding in-game balance, and the clumsiness with which some have been implemented. But that doesn't mean I believe they're evil cash-grabbers that will do or say anything to just make more money regardless of what happens. In spite of hints to the contrary, I do think most of the higher-ups DO care about EVE much more than you'd care about a "cash cow" (or, well, "golden goose", whatever). Are they misguided sometimes ? Sure. Do they make mistakes ? Absolutely. However, I will not ascribe to malice things which can be adequately explained by incompetence. Incompetence is curable. Malice, not so much. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
Kyra Felann Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:28:00 - [65] Edited by: Kyra Felann on 29/06/2011 17:29:34 Edited by: Kyra Felann on 29/06/2011 17:29:01 I'd mostly be okay with this. It'd introduce lots of ISK into the economy, which is bad, but other than that, I'd have no real problem with it. The prices would have to be competitive and dynamic unlike normal NPC buy orders, but what difference does it really make to a player if you sell a PLEX to a player who then redeems it or an NPC that removes it from the game? I've always thought that there's nothing wrong with NPCs in EVE as long as they act like and follow most of the same rules as players. In other words, if you can't tell a difference between an NPC and a player, does it really matter which they are? -----WARNING SIGNATURE BELOW----- Bring back the NeoNeoCom!
stoicfaux Gallente	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:29:00 - [66] Edited by: stoicfaux on 29/06/2011 17:33:38 Edited by: stoicfaux on 29/06/2011 17:29:59 Originally by: Akita T The current guesstimates put the PLEX stockpiles that exist in the game right now at anywhere between 80k and 400k units of PLEX. That's between 1.4 and 7 million USD just sitting there waiting for many somebodies to claim for personal use and NOT pay a sub with new cash anymore (while still sticking around). P.S. The NEX only needs to "eat up" the difference between PLEX created and PLEX used up by players. And the NeX will most likely do that once CCP actually puts useful, spaceship related, consumable items at reasonable prices in the NeX store. The real questions are: When will CCP update the MT store with items that a significant number of players will actually buy? Will there be enough time to burn through the PLEX stockpiles to get more people to buy PLEX with cash before the October loan comes due? ----- <wearing_$1000_jeans> Let them eat cake! </wearing_$1000_jeans>
RAW23	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:30:00 - [67] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 29/06/2011 17:21:33 Originally by: RAW23 [...]But that isn't really relevant. The TDA (plus the EU legislation that sits on top of it) is designed to protect the 'average consumer' and I think CCP would have a very hard time arguing that the average new subscriber would qualify the advertised statements about a player-driven economy Having NPC buy orders for PLEX does not render EVE's economy no longer player driven. Even if they would purchase the entirety of PLEX rather than just the difference between those created and used up, the economy of EVE would still qualify as being player driven. There's nothing tricky or misleading about that. P.S. Hell, even if CCP removed each and every ISK faucet tomorrow replacing it with some loot drops instead and only made new ISK obtainable by selling PLEX to NPC buy orders, THAT WOULD STILL BE A PLAYER DRIVEN ECONOMY. I admire your willingness to stick to your guns but you really don't think having non-player orders secretly competing with player orders undermines the general concept that is sold through CCP's adverts? I'm sure we could argue about what exactly constitutes a player driven economy but that isn't really relevant. What matters is what most people would understand that to mean and whether they could be misled in their commercial decisions by a failure to explicitly mention that such practices go on. Personally, I would be pretty shocked if I had bought a subscription on the basis of CCP's adverts and then found that CCP were competing against me in a way that I couldn't detect or counter in order to fix prices.
Ghoest	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:30:00 - [68] Edited by: Ghoest on 29/06/2011 17:30:39 You baboons arent listening. When CCP publicly announced they would take measures to stabilize plex prices they they removed any expectation customers could have claimed that plex were part of a fair market in game. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Adunh Slavy	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:32:00 - [69] Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 29/06/2011 17:36:28 Originally by: Akita T The PROBLEM is that more PLEX are being created by people that want to buy ISK with them than the number which are used up by people to pay for their accounts. With out going through the never ending debate upon definition of liability, is this an actual concern of CCP's? If it were, the simplest solution to the removal of excess PLEX, is to just stop selling them (GTCs). Demand will consume them until the time required to purchase them, a price that would go up, simply is not worth the effort of 30 days game time, $15. If PLEX represent any threat to CCP it would seem to me be expressed most frequently and concerningly, from an accounting perspective, in monthly cash flows. If there is indeed a long term systemic risk of liability in the system, then halting all sales is the most direct solution. This may also have the effect of slowing redemption rates due to the fact that equilibrium of PLEX is going to increase as the supply dwindles. Those who hold may be able to get more ISK later, those who redeem save $15 RL now. Long and short version, if PLEX is such a risk, that it requires so much public debate, stop selling them, problem solved, next crisis please. My faith in CCP will return SoonÖ We'll watch what you do not what you say.
RAW23	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:34:00 - [70] Originally by: Ghoest Edited by: Ghoest on 29/06/2011 17:30:39 You baboons arent listening. When CCP publicly announced they would take measures to stabilize plex prices they they removed any expectation customers could have claimed that plex were part of a fair market in game. I'm pretty sure that this would be insufficient unless they could show that the 'average consumer' (including new subscribers who buy their subscriptions after the announcement) would read all their advertising in the light of their statement and that it was clear that their statement meant that they would carry out a scheme such as the one Akita suggests.
rootimus maximus Caldari	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:34:00 - [71] Originally by: RAW23 I admire your willingness to stick to your guns but you really don't think having non-player orders secretly competing with player orders undermines the general concept that is sold through CCP's adverts... a player driven economy Players would still get the option to create a sell order instead of the CCP-created buy order. That would leave the decision in their hands.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:36:00 - [72] Originally by: Eclorc erm, thats somewhere between 1.2 and 7 million USD that CCP has accrued, up-front, like a loan in effect. If they have 7 mill to play with right now that they didn't have before, then surely that's a good thing for their development budget. Not when it comes due. Especially when you don't know WHEN it comes due. Quote: I could basically TL;DR everything you've said: "I am defending CCP planning and implementing methods to trick or tempt people into destroying the contracts that we sold them for game time". In what you just posted, you are trying to argue the case FOR CCP being able to renege on the contract that the GTC and PLEX represents. /me can't fix stupid I think you're getting ONE very important thing completely backwards. I am saying that they COULD HAVE DONE THAT WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT AND ALMOST NO RISK OF EVER GETTING CAUGHT[b] (and even if caught it would have probably been less of a scandal than the one we have now) instead of trying to go with whatever it is they're going now, which requires a truckload of work. [b]AND THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR THEM FINANCIALLY than whatever it is they're doing now. So, recap : less scandal, less work, more cash. Only downside being they would have to be major douchebags to do it. Which is basically what everybody is accusing them of, due to what they're doing INSTEAD of the above. At absolutely no point whatsoever am I encouraging them to actually do any of that, nor do I say that it would be a good idea for them to actually do any of that. It is quite obvious I am actually saying the exact opposite, in context. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
Maplestone	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:36:00 - [73] Originally by: Akita T The current guesstimates put the PLEX stockpiles that exist in the game right now at anywhere between 80k and 400k units of PLEX. My suspicion is that this cannot succeed as PLEX destruction, that the black holes of the economy will continue to see PLEX as the ultimate currency to stockpile and that any demand generated by the NEX will be balanced by people buying PLEX. Then the only question is whether this is added spending or simply PLEX spending people would have done anyway, just now on monacles instead of ships. But my opinion is irrelevant in this case - CCP is accumulating hard economic data about what people are really doing and that trumps my dogmas.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation Frontline Assembly Point	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:39:00 - [74] Why do CCP need to give you any ISKs for a PLEX? Each PLEX means that CCP sold game time to someone. What happens with this time is entirely up to us players. If a player uses this time to make ISKs or only to queue a skill, or nothing at all, is entirely up to the player. CCP then allows for PLEX to be destroyed. Of course, you do not have to take it out of the station and fly around with 70 PLEX in a Kestrel, but the choice of what we do with this time stays ours. At best does PLEX teach players responsibility in how they use their game time. It is also good for a laugh when you see a PLEX on a killmail. Giving PLEX a minimum value just supports those players who want to buy ISKs with real money. For those who want to play for free is this like having a bouncer at the entrance to EVE. ("Pay the minimum or we will not let you in!") A change such as this will only drive the community apart once more (free-players vs. ISK-buyers). --
RAW23	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:40:00 - [75] Originally by: rootimus maximus Originally by: RAW23 I admire your willingness to stick to your guns but you really don't think having non-player orders secretly competing with player orders undermines the general concept that is sold through CCP's adverts... a player driven economy Players would still get the option to create a sell order instead of the CCP-created buy order. That would leave the decision in their hands. I'm talking more about players who are competing to buy.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:41:00 - [76] Edited by: Akita T on 29/06/2011 17:42:42 Originally by: Whitehound Why do CCP need to give you any ISKs for a PLEX? Each PLEX means that CCP sold game time to someone. Because of future earnings projections. It's like a company having sold 7 million USD worth of gift certificates for their stores. Gift certificates WHICH NEVER EXPIRE. Originally by: Whitehound Giving PLEX a minimum value just supports those players who want to buy ISKs with real money. For those who want to play for free is this like having a bouncer at the entrance to EVE. ("Pay the minimum or we will not let you in!") A change such as this will only drive the community apart once more (free-players vs. ISK-buyers). They woudn't give it a minimum limit. Price will still be (mostly) determined by players. They would only (stealthily) purchase the excess between PLEX purchased and PLEX used. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
Eclorc	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:42:00 - [77] Edited by: Eclorc on 29/06/2011 17:46:03 Speaking of context, GG. Now, one thing in all this "context" is that whichever what you slice your arguments and thoughts you have presented here, they ALL support CCP removing PLEX from the system in some manner that DOES NOT honour their game-time obligations to the PLEXes destroyed. That IMO is very very wrong. edit: for clarification of an earlier debate, and of my previous posts in this thread - CCP held the keys to whether PLEX should be destroyed or dropped in loot at the time a ship gets killed. They decided, unsurprisingly, to force the situation that the PLEX are destroyed, 100% of the time. Read into that what you will.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:44:00 - [78] Edited by: Akita T on 29/06/2011 17:46:46 Originally by: Eclorc removing PLEX from the system in some manner that DOES NOT honour their game-time obligations to the PLEXes destroyed Like the 72-PLEX Kestrel ganks ? Heck, that's actually MUCH WORSE than this. That person not only lost the "gametime", they also didn't get anything in return. Selling PLEX to a NPC order gets you exactly what you get when you sell to a player. Or the "PLEX for good" campaigns. Or any other of the PLEX uses (PLEX for fanfest, PLEX for char transfers). They also destroy PLEX without giving anybody gametime. What's so sacrosant about total game-wide gametime anyway ? _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
Adunh Slavy	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:48:00 - [79] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 29/06/2011 17:39:17 Originally by: Adunh Slavy With out going through the never ending debate upon definition of liability, is this an actual concern of CCP's? + 7.5% My faith in CCP will return SoonÖ We'll watch what you do not what you say.
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:49:00 - [80] Originally by: Akita T The PROBLEM is that more PLEX are being created by people that want to buy ISK with them than the number which are used up by people to pay for their accounts. Normally, you would say that this would be an impossible situation - and with GTC, you would have been right. That was because GTCs could not be stockpiled - or, at least, impossible to stockpile after the "RMT killing" measure of having GTCs automatically apply to the purchasing account in a secure trade was implemented (alongside forbidding GTC trades outside the secure trade system). As soon as PLEX was introduced, this was something that could be stockpiled... and it was. Heavily. The current guesstimates put the PLEX stockpiles that exist in the game right now at anywhere between 80k and 400k units of PLEX. That's between 1.4 and 7 million USD just sitting there waiting for many somebodies to claim for personal use and NOT pay a sub with new cash anymore (while still sticking around). And still growing. THAT is the problem with PLEX. CCP is not in financial trouble / about to go bankrupt, as some idiots are suggesting. Analyse their financial statements and you'll see a company that sensibly raised equity, not debt, to fund new products; healthy cash balances; only one bank loan; and a sound profit retention policy. They could suffer in future if their ambitious expansion plans don't pan out - but that's in the future and idle speculation is just silly. PLEX is not a problem to CCP. You are confusing in-game balancing issues with real world financing. Read their accounts, look at deferred income as a percentage of subscription sales - and in absolute terms, draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind deferred subs includes 3, 6 and 12 month subs and may well not include PLEX at all. There's plenty of valid indignation in the forums, but there's also a whole lot of silly hysteria. That's bad enough without you of all people adding fuel to the bonfire of silliness. And I agree with RAW. Your proposition would be illegal, in my view. Besides, it's so convoluted it beggars belief.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:50:00 - [81] Edited by: Akita T on 29/06/2011 17:54:47 Originally by: Adunh Slavy 7.5% I don't understand what you're trying to get at with that particular remark. Originally by: Varo Jan CCP is not in financial trouble / about to go bankrupt [...bigsnip...] I never said they're in "bankruptcy level" troble. I merely equated PLEX stockpiles with having a lot of unclaimed gift certificates that never expire, stockpile that keeps getting larger. That should be a concern to any company. An issue worth trying to get under control. Quote: And I agree with RAW. Your proposition would be illegal, in my view. Besides, it's so convoluted it beggars belief. "That plan is sheer elegance in its simplicity !" As for legality, you'd have to ask a lawyer. Immoral, yeah, borderline. Illegal, very doubtful. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
stoicfaux Gallente	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:52:00 - [82] Originally by: Adunh Slavy If it were, the simplest solution to the removal of excess PLEX, is to just stop selling them (GTCs). Demand will consume them until the time required to purchase them in-game, a price that would go up, simply is not worth the effort of 30 days game time, $15. Don't forget about the black market aka RMT sellers. They could buy the PLEX with "cheap" isk and then sell the PLEX for RL cash (at less than the price of a monthly sub.) A fraudulent PLEX for RMT transaction would be hard to detect. Is character A giving a free PLEX to an alt or friend or valuable corp-mate or as a means of paying a private debt? CCP would have no way to know for sure. It could potentially be some time before CCP saw the benefits of increased subs if players take advantage of untraceable black market RMT PLEX purchases. If too many people took advantage, then sub income could actually go down significantly until the PLEX stockpiles were sufficiently diminished. ----- <wearing_$1000_jeans> Let them eat cake! </wearing_$1000_jeans>
Eclorc	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:54:00 - [83] Originally by: Akita T Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I know, the chance of destruction for PLEX is pretty much the same as the chance of destruction for any other item in a cargohold. Well, I'm not about to go out and test the theory myself. But many threads spewed at the time of the destroyable PLEX debates both claimed to have witnessed and otherwise supported that view. I have seen no indication to the contrary since then.
edith prickley	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:56:00 - [84] I tend to agree with Akita. If CCP were really very worried about PLEX, there are a number of ways they could subtly reduce the stockpile which would amount to nothing more than printing toy money. The economy could be rebalanced post-hoc, if required. The NEX store seems like an exceedingly complicated (and as we've seen, risky) way to do this, if that's really its main purpose. Which is confusing. Because in its current iteration, that seems to be exactly what the NEX store is designed to do: clean PLEX out of the system. Nobody is really paying $70 for their monacles. They're converting toy money (of which they have bundles) into PLEX and breaking them up. From what I gather from the FHC thread regarding the 2010 annual report, CCP's PLEX problem may be exaggerated. A couple of quotes: "Best guess is that they have less than a million of PLEX outstanding, probably closer to $500k. And it's not like it'll all be cashed in at once, the law of averages is working in their favour here. Compared to their other problems, it's not a major issue." "Plex are recorded as a liability. When they are turned in, they just record the transfer from liability to equity and subtract the "cost of providing the service". So when you turn in PLEX it has no effect on their cash position it just gives them extra book profit." I'm no accountant, and much of this is gibberish to me. But people in that thread seemed much more worried about a 12M loan coming due in October, which would imply their more immediate problem is to obtain a cash injection, regardless of the PLEX situation. (Well, I don't want to label a couple of guys theory-crafting on the forums as an authoritative source for anything, just throwing some different perspectives in.) In any case, we're not all making a moral judgement of CCP as a greedy "cash-grubbing monster." As with any business, they're as greedy as the market will allow them to be. But they may just be a broke monster, in which case their attitudes towards customers might appear to be similar: You are not paying us enough, you should give us more money.
Ghoest	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:59:00 - [85] Originally by: RAW23 Originally by: Ghoest Edited by: Ghoest on 29/06/2011 17:30:39 You baboons arent listening. When CCP publicly announced they would take measures to stabilize plex prices they they removed any expectation customers could have claimed that plex were part of a fair market in game. I'm pretty sure that this would be insufficient unless they could show that the 'average consumer' (including new subscribers who buy their subscriptions after the announcement) would read all their advertising in the light of their statement and that it was clear that their statement meant that they would carry out a scheme such as the one Akita suggests. NO. As Akita said they might might not even have to tell you anything. Putting it out there in a public release aimed at the player base more than covers them legally. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.06.29 18:01:00 - [86] The problem with your idea is that people would notice a heavy increase in ISK sinks. With the NEX store however they can legitimately destroy plex while not messing with the isk supply at all. Much easier to deal with. It's actually a neat little economic trick they are pulling. If it works they simultaneously decrease the liability of a surplus of outstanding Plex floating around and increase the demand for Plex generating additional revenue. Unfortunately to really make it work they are going to have to damage some aspect of the game. Either by flooding the game with "gold ammo" or by breaking game mechanics via "enhancements and services". Vanity items just aren't likely to generate sufficient revenue (particularly the lame overpriced ones of the sort they are offering) and even if they did the pressure to increase revenue would push the development team to push the envelope of what they can get away with short of full on revolt. Sadly now that they are on the path the conclusion is damned near inevitable and all we can do is raise enough of a stink each step of the way to slow things down long enough for their financials to stabilize and their investors satiated or for this whole MT fad to crash and burn. It's a damned shame we're even having to have these conversations. Had they pumped all the resources they have into WOD and Dust instead into EVE to develop a real ambulation expansion and solve actual game play issues they would likely have better subscription rates. Particularly as they continue to offer something different from the rest of the industry. And I say this as someone who actually thinks Dust sounds like a cool idea.
RAW23	Posted - 2011.06.29 18:02:00 - [87] Originally by: Ghoest Originally by: RAW23 Originally by: Ghoest Edited by: Ghoest on 29/06/2011 17:30:39 You baboons arent listening. When CCP publicly announced they would take measures to stabilize plex prices they they removed any expectation customers could have claimed that plex were part of a fair market in game. I'm pretty sure that this would be insufficient unless they could show that the 'average consumer' (including new subscribers who buy their subscriptions after the announcement) would read all their advertising in the light of their statement and that it was clear that their statement meant that they would carry out a scheme such as the one Akita suggests. NO. As Akita said they might might not even have to tell you anything. Putting it out there in a public release aimed at the player base more than covers them legally. Can you provide some sources to support that? Obviously, things vary from country to country but I would be interested to know what your basing that conclusion on.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation Frontline Assembly Point	Posted - 2011.06.29 18:06:00 - [88] Originally by: Akita T Because of future earnings projections. It's like a company having sold 7 million USD worth of gift certificates for their stores. Gift certificates WHICH NEVER EXPIRE. And what do you want with it? Do you want CCP to pay you an interest for the PLEXes? Originally by: Akita T They woudn't give it a minimum limit. Price will still be (mostly) determined by players. They would only (stealthily) purchase the excess between PLEX purchased and PLEX used. Are you suggesting CCP shall destroy some of the game time and turn it straight into ISKs? It would make them look greedy. Who other than the ISK-buyers would want this? --
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.06.29 18:06:00 - [89] Originally by: edith prickley From what I gather from the FHC thread regarding the 2010 annual report, CCP's PLEX problem may be exaggerated. A couple of quotes: "Best guess is that they have less than a million of PLEX outstanding, probably closer to $500k. And it's not like it'll all be cashed in at once, the law of averages is working in their favour here. Compared to their other problems, it's not a major issue." "Plex are recorded as a liability. When they are turned in, they just record the transfer from liability to equity and subtract the "cost of providing the service". So when you turn in PLEX it has no effect on their cash position it just gives them extra book profit." I'm no accountant, and much of this is gibberish to me. But people in that thread seemed much more worried about a 12M loan coming due in October, which would imply their more immediate problem is to obtain a cash injection, regardless of the PLEX situation. (Well, I don't want to label a couple of guys theory-crafting on the forums as an authoritative source for anything, just throwing some different perspectives in.) Considering their size (assets, projected revenue, etc) they can easily obtain another loan from a different source to cover the one that comes due now, or even "reroll" the current one for another time period, or any other number of things. It is however more likely to get better loan terms (be it through negotiation or shopping around, or a bit of both) if your projected revenues are higher. A large and growing PLEX stockpile puts some doubt over the accuracy of the estimation of future revenues. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts
Ghoest	Posted - 2011.06.29 18:07:00 - [90] Honestly I think your are all fools for not assuming that CCP has been selling isk in the manner for some time. -If someone has a means to exploit you. -Then that entity point blank tells you it will use it will exploit you when it suits them. -You are fool for not operating under the assumption you are being exploited. Wherever you went - Here you are.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: 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.