Originally by: Akita T

---

The entire "CCP is a cash-grubbing monster" philosophy is in big trouble when you think about some of the easiest and stealthiest way for CCP to solve all their problems AND also make a load of cash on the side.
Can you think what that is ?
I'll tell you.

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.
Those fake player NPCs only need to eat up the difference between PLEX created and PLEX consumed by regular players on a regular basis.
They don't need to be obvious at all - just a 1-PLEX order now, another one after a few player orders processed, another one later and so on.

---

Originally by: Jennifer Starling

---

I know this one .. we'll never know if they actually do that or not ..

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Jennifer Starling

---

I know this one .. we'll never know if they actually do that or not ..

---

WTB T3 tifloilhat

---

Originally by: Smagd

---

You must be better at economics than CCP, and they got a professor!

---

Originally by: Rodj Blake

---

Who's to say that haven't already been doing this, but want even more money?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They can do that by introducing commander-level items (or even some that surpass them) that cost no tags, just LP and ISK

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Rodj Blake

---

stuff

---

I'm going to need a second T3 tinfoil hat, my first one appears to do nothing.
Should I upgrade to a T4 tinfoilhat ?

---

Originally by: stoicfaux

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They can do that by introducing commander-level items (or even some that surpass them) that cost no tags, just LP and ISK

---

Err... isn't that the CONCORD LP store and Incursions?

---

Quote:

---

This will transfer the PLEX item back into the redeeming system, ready for use out of game. Don't worry, you can redeem and reverse redeem any PLEX as many times as you like. Want to read more about this process? Check out our EVElopedia article on PLEX.

---

Quote:

---

Why use PLEX?


PLEX offers an alternative way for people to pay for their subscription without the use of our more conventional payment methods. Using PLEX, pilots can earn game time simply by playing EVE.

The PLEX system improves on the current method of secure time code trading since it uses the EVE market to nerf price fixing. And since you can only sell time codes to people who want to play for that time, the system is capped.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: stoicfaux

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They can do that by introducing commander-level items (or even some that surpass them) that cost no tags, just LP and ISK

---

Err... isn't that the CONCORD LP store and Incursions?

---

Egads, I just created the next moon landing conspiracy.
/facedesk

---

Quote:

---

The entire "CCP is a cash-grubbing monster" philosophy is in big trouble when you think about some of the easiest and stealthiest way for CCP to solve all their problems AND also make a load of cash on the side.
Can you think what that is ?

snip ...NPC PLEX orders and Incursions/CONCORD LP store ...

Now, if they could have done that... do you really think they'd go through ALL THIS TROUBLE just to make EVEN LESS money from it ?!?

---

Originally by: Val'Dore

---

You can't give a presentation on increasing your revenue by telling people you are going to commit fraud inside your own product.

---

Originally by: Emperor Cheney

---

Doing so would entail them violating their own published terms of service.
[...hugesnip...]

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Jennifer Starling

---

I know this one .. we'll never know if they actually do that or not ..

---

WTB T3 tifloilhat

---

Originally by: stoicfaux

---

Sorry, can't tell what your point is. I'm just not seeing the connection between "money-grubbing" and "making even less money".
Not grokking the moon landing comment either.
Needs more context.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Emperor Cheney

---

Doing so would entail them violating their own published terms of service.
[...hugesnip...]

---

No, it wouldn't.
The only guarantee they give you is that if you apply a PLEX to an account, you get 30 days of gametime extra.

Everything else is just explanations of the current situation and options.
They have absolutely no obligation nor restrictions regarding ISK prices of PLEX, and if they wanted to sell or buy PLEX for ISK, nothing would stop them from a legal standpoint.

In fact, they have as much as flat out stated quite a while ago (at the latest fanfest presentation the economist gave) that they reserve the right to intervene in the PLEX market if they ever feel the prices are not to their liking.

---

Originally by: Takseen

---

I don't think they're cash grubbing monsters. Just a bit full of themselves thinking that Incarna is the best thing since sliced bread when the actual reception ranges from rage to indifference. And foolish enough to think they could sell those custom items for so much when so few people can see them.

---

Quote:

---

And since you can only sell time codes to people who want to play for that time, the system is capped.

---

Originally by: Estephania

---

In any case this whole issue would cripple CCP PR image (like it's not tarnished already). Truth is MT is hugely unpopular and there's no real reason to bring it to Eve as it would contribute absolutely nothing. Wait... there are 2 reasons: Dust and WoD.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

The entire "CCP is a cash-grubbing monster" philosophy is in big trouble when you think about some of the easiest and stealthiest way for CCP to solve all their problems AND also make a load of cash on the side.
Can you think what that is ?
I'll tell you.

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.
Those fake player NPCs only need to eat up the difference between PLEX created and PLEX consumed by regular players on a regular basis.
They don't need to be obvious at all - just a 1-PLEX order now, another one after a few player orders processed, another one later and so on.

And then, they only need to HEAVILY increase the ISK sinks (and maybe reducing ISK faucets) while at the same time introducing new, more attractive (and therefore expensive) items into the game.
They can do that by introducing commander-level items (or even some that surpass them) that cost no tags, just LP and ISK, but much less LP and a lot more ISK.
Hell, they could just as well be T3 items which tie into the existing T3 economy, but require some ingredients that come from LP shops.

The former would be quite literally undetectable with even the least bit of precautions, the latter would cause next to zero concern.
Now, if they could have done that... do you really think they'd go through ALL THIS TROUBLE just to make EVEN LESS money from it ?!?

---

Originally by: lookatzebirdie

---

No that would be fraud Akita, and before you "but plex are ingame items"... the gametime owed on them is not

---

Originally by: lookatzebirdie

---

No that would be fraud Akita, and before you "but plex are ingame items"... the gametime owed on them is not

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 29/06/2011 16:10:08

Originally by: Emperor Cheney

---

Doing so would entail them violating their own published terms of service.
[...hugesnip...]

---

No, it wouldn't.
The only guarantee they give you is that if you apply a PLEX to an account, you get 30 days of gametime extra.

Everything else is just explanations of the current situation and options.
They have absolutely no obligation nor restrictions regarding ISK prices of PLEX, and if they wanted to sell or buy PLEX for ISK, nothing would stop them from a legal standpoint.

In fact, they have as much as flat out stated quite a while ago (at the latest fanfest presentation the economist gave) that they reserve the right to intervene in the PLEX market if they ever feel the prices are not to their liking.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

The entire "CCP is a cash-grubbing monster" philosophy is in big trouble when you think about some of the easiest and stealthiest way for CCP to solve all their problems AND also make a load of cash on the side.
Can you think what that is ?
I'll tell you.

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.
Those fake player NPCs only need to eat up the difference between PLEX created and PLEX consumed by regular players on a regular basis.
They don't need to be obvious at all - just a 1-PLEX order now, another one after a few player orders processed, another one later and so on.

And then, they only need to HEAVILY increase the ISK sinks (and maybe reducing ISK faucets) while at the same time introducing new, more attractive (and therefore expensive) items into the game.
They can do that by introducing commander-level items (or even some that surpass them) that cost no tags, just LP and ISK, but much less LP and a lot more ISK.
Hell, they could just as well be T3 items which tie into the existing T3 economy, but require some ingredients that come from LP shops.

The former would be quite literally undetectable with even the least bit of precautions, the latter would cause next to zero concern.
Now, if they could have done that... do you really think they'd go through ALL THIS TROUBLE just to make EVEN LESS money from it ?!?

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

I'm pretty sure that, in the UK at least, that would be a pretty flagrant breach of the Trades Description Act.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

I'm pretty sure that, in the UK at least, that would be a pretty flagrant breach of the Trades Description Act.

---

I seriously doubt that it would be.
It is almost exactly the same as CCP selling ISK.
Why would that be a breach of any laws ?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

In fact, they have as much as flat out stated quite a while ago (at the latest fanfest presentation the economist gave) that they reserve the right to intervene in the PLEX market if they ever feel the prices are not to their liking.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

The entire "CCP is a cash-grubbing monster" philosophy is in big trouble when you think about some of the easiest and stealthiest way for CCP to solve all their problems AND also make a load of cash on the side.
Can you think what that is ?
I'll tell you.

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.
Those fake player NPCs only need to eat up the difference between PLEX created and PLEX consumed by regular players on a regular basis.
They don't need to be obvious at all - just a 1-PLEX order now, another one after a few player orders processed, another one later and so on.

And then, they only need to HEAVILY increase the ISK sinks (and maybe reducing ISK faucets) while at the same time introducing new, more attractive (and therefore expensive) items into the game.
They can do that by introducing commander-level items (or even some that surpass them) that cost no tags, just LP and ISK, but much less LP and a lot more ISK.
Hell, they could just as well be T3 items which tie into the existing T3 economy, but require some ingredients that come from LP shops.

The former would be quite literally undetectable with even the least bit of precautions, the latter would cause next to zero concern.
Now, if they could have done that... do you really think they'd go through ALL THIS TROUBLE just to make EVEN LESS money from it ?!?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

I'm pretty sure that, in the UK at least, that would be a pretty flagrant breach of the Trades Description Act.

---

I seriously doubt that it would be.
It is almost exactly the same as CCP selling ISK.
Why would that be a breach of any laws ?

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

If you advertise your game as having a player driven economy and then include secret mechanisms circumventing player control in such a way as to mislead your customers that would, I think, very likely be a breach. The TDA has nothing to do with EULA's or ToS but only to do with how you present your product.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 29/06/2011 16:46:25

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

I'm pretty sure that, in the UK at least, that would be a pretty flagrant breach of the Trades Description Act.

---

I seriously doubt that it would be.
It is almost exactly the same as CCP selling ISK.
Why would that be a breach of any laws ?

---

They are selling you a GTC or pairs of PLEX to be used "to access the service" ("the service" in this case is "the game", and the game is "as is").
At no point is the value of those access tokens misrepresented, you pay exactly as much as you think you pay, and you get exactly what was advertised (active gametime).

The fact they let you voluntarily exchange gametime for ISK has been status quo for a long time.
The only difference would be who are you exchanging that gametime to - it would no longer be a player, but a NPC.

How exactly can you can argue that CCP buying some PLEX from players for ISK (as opposed to just other players doing the buying) or CCP selling ISK directly to you for cash (if they ever choose to do that) would be in violation of any of that ?

Originally by: RAW23

---

If you advertise your game as having a player driven economy and then include secret mechanisms circumventing player control in such a way as to mislead your customers that would, I think, very likely be a breach. The TDA has nothing to do with EULA's or ToS but only to do with how you present your product.

---

What secret ?
They flat out stated they reserve the right to manipulate PLEX prices during the fanfest at the economy presentation.

---

Originally by: Eclorc

---

Yup, PLEX is a token representing the contractual obligation to provide game time.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Eclorc

---

Yup, PLEX is a token representing the contractual obligation to provide game time.

---

And you are free to do with it as you will - sell it, use it, destroy it or risk having it destroyed.
If buying PLEX via NPC buy orders is illegal, then letting PLEX be destroyed would also have to be illegal.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Hormus

---

I think part of CCP's current plan is to stop ppl buying subscription with PLEX. Since they can control its price anyway, why should they let ppl play for free?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

If you advertise your game as having a player driven economy and then include secret mechanisms circumventing player control in such a way as to mislead your customers that would, I think, very likely be a breach. The TDA has nothing to do with EULA's or ToS but only to do with how you present your product.

---

What secret ?
They flat out stated they reserve the right to manipulate PLEX prices during the fanfest at the economy presentation.

---

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?

---

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.
Those fake player NPCs only need to eat up the difference between PLEX created and PLEX consumed by regular players on a regular basis.
They don't need to be obvious at all - just a 1-PLEX order now, another one after a few player orders processed, another one later and so on.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

---

Originally by: Eclorc

---

removing PLEX from the system in some manner that DOES NOT honour their game-time obligations to the PLEXes destroyed

---

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?

---

+

---

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.

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

7.5%

---

Originally by: Varo Jan

---

CCP is not in financial trouble / about to go bankrupt
[...bigsnip...]

---

Quote:

---

And I agree with RAW. Your proposition would be illegal, in my view. Besides, it's so convoluted it beggars belief.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.)

---

Originally by: Whitehound

---

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: Whitehound

---

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?

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

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.

---

Originally by: Skex Relbore

---

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".

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

CCP wants it to not keep growing.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

I am suggesting that IF CCP would have been indeed the ruthless cashgrabbing monsters a lot of people over here made them out to be in the past few days, they would have rather done THAT silently instead of bothering with more work, more scandals and ultimately less money.

---

Originally by: Ghoest

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

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.

---

Well lets see.
They published this in an open letter to the players which they advertised on the side bar when you log into the game.
Then the players actually discussed it on the companies official forums proving that we had access.

This would easily meet any standard of disclosure. And on top of this they had never promised not to do this in the past.

---

Originally by: stoicfaux

---

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.

---

---

Originally by: stoicfaux

---

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.)

---

Originally by: stoicfaux

---

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.

---

Originally by: stoicfaux

---

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.

---

Originally by: edith prickley

---

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.

---

Originally by: stoicfaux

---

* CCP hasn't finished coding spaceship paint jobs as evidenced by the NeX Scorpion issue. Custom paint jobs and other vanity spaceship only items are probably hard to code because they'll require architectural changes.

* With boosters, pills, Quafe Ultra, and temporary implants already in the game, CCP has the ability to seed the NeX store with Gold items but has chosen not to do so.

---

Originally by: Eclorc

---

In the interests of obstructing disinformation:

First point, IW Scorpion: It was stated that the problem was with the store being unable to perform transactions other than with AURum currency, and that the said repainted scorpion would not be available until August. Seriously? Unable to change the store to allow blueprint or ship+aurum exchange for repainted model in over a month, when the code more or less exists already in the LP store??

Second point: If I were trying to prepare the ground for acceptance of "virtual goods" as they are being described, such as the Quafe Zero booster (neatly sidestepping the label "drugs", which itself is a great idea) then introducing a "free sample" to the target addict would make a lot of sense to get that particular hook into their collective mouths.
I think your second point should have the word "yet" appended.

---

Originally by: stoicfaux

---

Originally by: edith prickley

---

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.

---

Or maybe the NeX store is just incomplete and shouldn't be taken seriously right now:

* CCP hasn't finished coding spaceship paint jobs as evidenced by the NeX Scorpion issue. Custom paint jobs and other vanity spaceship only items are probably hard to code because they'll require architectural changes.

* With boosters, pills, Quafe Ultra, and temporary implants already in the game, CCP has the ability to seed the NeX store with Gold items but has chosen not to do so.

* CCP might not care about MTs in Eve. Maybe the NeX exists solely as a technology demo/prototype for Carbon so that it can be applied to WoD and Dust. (Spaceship paint jobs could be the model for Dust vehicle paint jobs.)

Thus $70 monocles could just be an target of opportunity. They can make a minor dent in PLEX stockpiles and/or make some extra money on early adopters. Or maybe they just want to create a data point with edge data in order to price the MT store effectively for Dust and WoD. Even then it's not much of a data point, becaus the current NeX store items don't appeal to an internet spaceships market.


I think we're jumping to a lot of conclusions based on a seriously incomplete, foundational, half-ass piece of software whose actual target audience is Dust and WoD. NeX shouldn't be taken seriously at this time.



OTOH, NeX could be an attempt to get players to link Eve with WiS via "money" (aka isk and aurum.) The NeX store is a diabolical plan to get players to farm Eve for isk to buy Space Barbie accessories so that players will become emotionally attached to both Eve and WiS thus increasing CCPs MT income as players pimp out both their ships and their avatars instead of simply ignoring WiS.

---

Originally by: Eclorc

---

In the interests of obstructing disinformation:

First point, IW Scorpion: It was stated that the problem was with the store being unable to perform transactions other than with AURum currency, and that the said repainted scorpion would not be available until August. Seriously? Unable to change the store to allow blueprint or ship+aurum exchange for repainted model in over a month, when the code more or less exists already in the LP store??

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

Originally by: Ghoest

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

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.

---

Well lets see.
They published this in an open letter to the players which they advertised on the side bar when you log into the game.
Then the players actually discussed it on the companies official forums proving that we had access.

This would easily meet any standard of disclosure. And on top of this they had never promised not to do this in the past.

---

I'm not convinced this would be sufficient to overcome the requirement for their adverts to not be misleading on this point. As I asked before, can you cite some source that supports the idea that this would be an acceptable standard of disclosure? I'm looking myself but have yet to ind a sample case that provides a close enough analogy but most of what I have read so far suggests that things have to be clear at the point of sale (which makes the question of informing current players only a part of the wider issue).

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

7.5%

---

I don't understand what you're trying to get at with that particular remark.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

With out going through the never ending debate upon definition of liability, is this an actual concern of CCP's?

---

+

---

Originally by: Eclorc

---

Seriously? Unable to change the store to allow blueprint or ship+aurum exchange for repainted model in over a month, when the code more or less exists already in the LP store??

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

[
The current protests are all based on the idea that CCP is a money-grubbing monster of a company that plans to eventually introduce overt "pay to win" microtransactions to make a shedload more money than they already are.

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

Because perhaps I didn't understand this one,

Originally by: Akita T

---

+

---

---

Originally by: stoicfaux

---

Originally by: Eclorc

---

Seriously? Unable to change the store to allow blueprint or ship+aurum exchange for repainted model in over a month, when the code more or less exists already in the LP store??

---

The NeX code has to be:
* secure, since it's essentially engaging in RMT,
* accurate, since it's essentially engaging in RMT,
* multi-platform: Dust is on PS3 and WoD/Eve are PCs,
* maybe bandwidth friendly, and
* flashy in order to entice buyers.

The LP store is probably too old and krufy to be safely, easily, and quickly overhauled to meet those goals.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

That meant in my post, your quote plus the following quote had the same reply, or better said, the two quotes were linked.
The "+" was not an answer to your quote, the answer was after the following quote from a different person (including the context in which the quote from that person was taken from).

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

That meant in my post, your quote plus the following quote had the same reply, or better said, the two quotes were linked.
The "+" was not an answer to your quote, the answer was after the following quote from a different person (including the context in which the quote from that person was taken from).

---

I see. perhaps stating, "in addition too", "related to", "also", "along with", instead of "+" would have been better understood by me. The plus usually implying an affirmative, an agreement. Such as "+1". A "+" lacks context, but is flavored, in my mind, by the proliferation of "+1"s.

The "+1" context is how I read it, so understood all of 7.5% of why you agreed.

Perhaps though an openly obfuscated attempt to claim a 7.5% of your PLEX market manipulation attempt. Had you agreed and paid me off, I would have fallen silent.

---

Originally by: Spookyjay

---

I think CCP are over confident over ambitious developers nothing more. The cash grabbing is a symptom of that.
Fact is CCP are in financial trouble. Now proof is in the pudding that CCP are not the best managed corporation. Not only this there is a clear split opinion within the company. Fact is that if they had done either of what you suggest then it got leaked like the internal documents have. They would be in for it even more.
Besides the fact there seems to be a element within CCP that has no interest in hiding the money grabbing. I can not imagine for a second they expected internal documents to get out. So would not of considered needing to keep the need for money hush hush.

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.
In the End it comes down to one simple fact. Poor management. No company should be looking into TWO new product lines well making a slim profit, having debts due for payment and being in the current world wise economic climate. Risk VS reward. Funny concept for CCP I am sure.

---

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

---

Bounties make isk out of thin air... sure people rat for the bouties but moving a bounty from 500k from a battleship to 800k or vice versa is an elective decision to pump more or isk into the game "POOF" .. no different in effect than their direct buying or selling of plex on the market.

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

---

Bounties make isk out of thin air... sure people rat for the bouties but moving a bounty from 500k from a battleship to 800k or vice versa is an elective decision to pump more or isk into the game "POOF" .. no different in effect than their direct buying or selling of plex on the market.

---

This is false. ISK requires time and effort to go and collect from rats, agents and all the other sources of ISK. ISK doesn't just spew from space into Everyone's wallets, you have to go get it. ISK is a commodity money, it requires time and effort to collect, it is an abstraction of labor. It is the basis for all value in the sandbox and understanding its true nature is key in understanding all the little itty bitty parts of the sandbox.

PLEX doesn't create ISK at all. In fact, trading PLEX removes a little ISK in the form of station fees and taxes.

I didn't read the rest of your post, my apologies. Not understanding this key fact about ISK can lead to all other assumptions being fallacious with one word, so I didn't take the time to pursue your post any further.

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

---

Bounties make isk out of thin air... sure people rat for the bouties but moving a bounty from 500k from a battleship to 800k or vice versa is an elective decision to pump more or isk into the game "POOF" .. no different in effect than their direct buying or selling of plex on the market.

---

This is false. ISK requires time and effort to go and collect from rats, agents and all the other sources of ISK. ISK doesn't just spew from space into Everyone's wallets, you have to go get it. ISK is a commodity money, it requires time and effort to collect, it is an abstraction of labor. It is the basis for all value in the sandbox and understanding its true nature is key in understanding all the little itty bitty parts of the sandbox.

PLEX doesn't create ISK at all. In fact, trading PLEX removes a little ISK in the form of station fees and taxes.

I didn't read the rest of your post, my apologies. Not understanding this key fact about ISK can lead to all other assumptions being fallacious with one word, so I didn't take the time to pursue your post any further.

---

Originally by: Xaelix Sativa

---

I've commented for years how all MT-based MMO games are lousy. The Noble Exchange, as explained by CCP will not ruin Eve Online.

A major difference between games that are F2P/MT-based and Eve, with its optional vanity MT's, is that the strictly MT-based games give you barely ANYTHING for free that distinguishes yourself from other players. Eve has an absolute TON of content and customization options that's available with your subscription. So again, it's not the traditional MT-based game and never will be, and plenty of us will love it whether we're buying our game bling with real money or not. Have a little faith that CCP won't inject more powerful ships/items that can only be paid for with real money - until the day it happens, chill the *** out.

If CCP becomes really cash-strapped, they can always do what others who charge subscription fees do - charge $60 for a license key (per account) and $40 for expansion keys. Let's give the Noble Exchange a chance - there are far worse methods they could resort to.

---

Originally by: Jenn aSide

---

Edited by: Jenn aSide on 29/06/2011 16:12:35

Originally by: Takseen

---

I don't think they're cash grubbing monsters. Just a bit full of themselves thinking that Incarna is the best thing since sliced bread when the actual reception ranges from rage to indifference. And foolish enough to think they could sell those custom items for so much when so few people can see them.

---

I agree, but I also think CCP has gotten big headed in other areas. They made ONE hugely successful game and haven't really experienced the kind of tragic end other companies have.

In short, because EVE rocks CCP thinks they are invincible (like we say in my part of the world about a drunk, "10 feet tall and bullet proof") and it concerns me because I know what happens to people and companies when they get convinced of their own fallabilty....

---

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

---

I was replying to AKITA (the op) contention that CCP was in fact buying plex with isk they made from thin air. True, they made the isk first.. but they put it into circulation by buying the plex if it is what he alleges.

---

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

---

Edited by: Diomedes Calypso on 29/06/2011 20:28:45

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

---

Bounties make isk out of thin air... sure people rat for the bouties but moving a bounty from 500k from a battleship to 800k or vice versa is an elective decision to pump more or isk into the game "POOF" .. no different in effect than their direct buying or selling of plex on the market.

---

This is false. ISK requires time and effort to go and collect from rats, agents and all the other sources of ISK. ISK doesn't just spew from space into Everyone's wallets, you have to go get it. ISK is a commodity money, it requires time and effort to collect, it is an abstraction of labor. It is the basis for all value in the sandbox and understanding its true nature is key in understanding all the little itty bitty parts of the sandbox.

PLEX doesn't create ISK at all. In fact, trading PLEX removes a little ISK in the form of station fees and taxes.

I didn't read the rest of your post, my apologies. Not understanding this key fact about ISK can lead to all other assumptions being fallacious with one word, so I didn't take the time to pursue your post any further.

---

If you read what i said, it is the edit(delta) between the two bounty rates that is created out of thin air.

People will do missions.. out of habit or whatever.. how much they get can change .. if the change is elective to developers they decided to up the bs payout for a day, thats like deciding to just throw another how many hundred billion into circulation out of thin air based upon expected activity

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

---

I was replying to AKITA (the op) contention that CCP was in fact buying plex with isk they made from thin air. True, they made the isk first.. but they put it into circulation by buying the plex if it is what he alleges.

---

That CCP COULD HAVE created ISK out of thin air to some purchase PLEX if they wanted, and that this would have been an easier way to make RL cash out of the general population rather than bother with the NEX.
At absolutely NO POINT was I saying that they ACTUALLY did any of that, quite the opposite.

Just to make sure we have no misunderstandings.

---

Originally by: Skex Relbore

---

Still not the equivalent of spawning isk to buy plex to then destroy. Plex bought by a player will always represent a potential months worth of game time, plex purchased by CCP via currency spawned on demand and then destroyed erases that value.

Since it is that real world value as game time that is being traded on removal of isk via alternative means that do not result in CCP having to give face value to someone distorts the market.

And of course CCP wants to destroy Plex, each plex in existence is a $15 dollar liability on their books. Because it can always be redeemed for $15 worth of play time or donated resulting in CCP having to make an actual cash donation to what ever cause they are doing plex for at the time.

The NEX allows them to kill two birds with a single stone as it were, One it allows them to erase that $15 liability from their books for essentially nothing. 2 it creates a greater demand of those $15 plex's that can then be destroyed.

No wonder all the finance people are pushing it so hard and are so reluctant to limit what they can do with it. It's a masterstroke of design if they can just get us to accept it.

---

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

---

snippy

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Smagd

---

You must be better at economics than CCP, and they got a professor!

---

I'll say ! They should be, shouldn't they ?
You'd think it would be normal to be so, but then again...

---

Originally by: Zinyai

---

Akita T never has anything useful to say. Just a bunch of conspiracies.

---

Originally by: Elrica bloodbane

---

Originally by: Zinyai

---

Akita T never has anything useful to say. Just a bunch of conspiracies.

---

Where you never say anything useful period.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

---

I was replying to AKITA (the op) contention that CCP was in fact buying plex with isk they made from thin air. True, they made the isk first.. but they put it into circulation by buying the plex if it is what he alleges.

---

That CCP COULD HAVE created ISK out of thin air to some purchase PLEX if they wanted, and that this would have been an easier way to make RL cash out of the general population rather than bother with the NEX.
At absolutely NO POINT was I saying that they ACTUALLY did any of that, quite the opposite.

Just to make sure we have no misunderstandings.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Rodj Blake

---

Who's to say that haven't already been doing this, but want even more money?

---

I'm going to need a second T3 tinfoil hat, my first one appears to do nothing.
Should I upgrade to a T4 tinfoilhat ?

---

Originally by: Elrica bloodbane

---

Originally by: Zinyai

---

Akita T never has anything useful to say. Just a bunch of conspiracies.

---

Where you never say anything useful period.

---

Originally by: Zinyai

---

Akita T never has anything useful to say. Just a bunch of conspiracies.

---

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

---

I was replying to AKITA (the op)

---

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

---

LOL ok, Akita and Akita's hypotheticals, mine fields.

---

Originally by: Skex Relbore

---

Actually Akita usually has very good arguments and valid points even when I disagree.
This is just one of those rare occasions when she/he's wrong.

---