|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 16:47:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Vandrion on 02/07/2011 16:51:51 Edited by: Vandrion on 02/07/2011 16:47:38 "It is CCPæs plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only. There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store."
You said the same thing last year about ALL forms of micro transactions.... What is the expiration date associated with the above statement??
http://i.imgur.com/f5Cq5.jpg
Edit to add the link for the actual forum thread:
Original statement of no MT by CCP
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 16:54:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Taedrin Edited by: Taedrin on 02/07/2011 16:52:28 /very satisfied
Highlights: -CCP confirms that there are no non-vanity items in the NEX, nor were there ever any real plans to introduce them.
-CCP promises to improve communication
-CCP promises to reintroduce ship spinning in the future.
EDIT: resubbing two accounts
They said no MT at all last year.....Original NO MT statement by CCP
What they say doesn't matter.. Its what they do........
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 17:26:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Taedrin
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Taedrin Edited by: Taedrin on 02/07/2011 16:52:28 /very satisfied
Highlights: -CCP confirms that there are no non-vanity items in the NEX, nor were there ever any real plans to introduce them.
-CCP promises to improve communication
-CCP promises to reintroduce ship spinning in the future.
EDIT: resubbing two accounts
They said no MT at all last year.....Original NO MT statement by CCP
What they say doesn't matter.. Its what they do........
Notice that there is a difference between saying there will be no microtransactions, and saying that there are no plans for microtransactions. Last year at this time, CCP probably DIDN'T have any plans to introduce microtransactions.
As for myself, the only thing that I care about is clear and honest communication between the players and CCP. I could care less about microtransactions, so long as the game is fun to play.
So next year or next patch if some game altering MT comes into play you will still assume CCP had no plans for it?
What is the expiration date for this statement:
"It is CCPæs plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only. There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store."
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 17:53:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 02/07/2011 17:34:41
Originally by: Vandrion
They said no MT at all last year.....Original NO MT statement by CCP
What they say doesn't matter.. Its what they do........
Notice that there is a difference between saying there will be no microtransactions, and saying that there are no plans for microtransactions. Last year at this time, CCP probably DIDN'T have any plans to introduce microtransactions.
As for myself, the only thing that I care about is clear and honest communication between the players and CCP. I could care less about microtransactions, so long as the game is fun to play.
So next year or next patch if some game altering MT comes into play you will still assume CCP had no plans for it?
What is the expiration date for this statement:
"It is CCPæs plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only. There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store."
As you are so fond of posting links to that thread, perhaps if you look at it closely you will see that each and every statement is given specifically as a response to questions concerning skills for micro transactions.
Even if we overlook your taking specific sentences out of the context of the discussion that was happening, MT weren't even a blip on the radar back then. It is highly likely that there was no internal discussion going on about them at that time.
Currently there is plenty of discussion about the topic, in very specific terms. Statements made by CCP are completely within the proper context and there can be no misunderstandings on what is being discussed.
This means that if CCP changes their minds on the issue, the DEV blog and video will instantly be brought up again to crucify them.
Time to stop beating the dead horse.
The thread with CCP Shadow's statements is about reimbursement of skillpoints however there were a fair amount of other threads and comments in those threads regarding MT as a whole. Shadow's statement says no MT at all which is inclusive of the skillpoint issues. The context is correct Ranger... If he was specifically discussing skillpoints he would have said 'We have no plans to have micro-transactions for skillpoints". See the difference?
As far as what discussions CCP was or wasn't having at the time Shadow made his statement last year we will never know. However, the amount of time that it takes to totally design WIS and incorporate all the changes that just adding vanity MT entails is a rather large project. I am willing to bet that MT was on someones drawing board when the statement was made. If it wasn't then it was only a short time after the statement was made that the process would have begun to include MT in Eve.
Once again I ask:
What is the expiration date of your statement in regardes to having NO PLANS for $$$ for advantage in Eve?
The horse needs more flogging TBH... Damn thing isn't quite dead yet. Plus I need some more I told you so Ammo....
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:10:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: CCP Navigator Return of ship spinning
This is something that a lot of players are curious about and what I can tell you is that we will implement a form of ship spinning but we are not returning to the old hangar view. This new variation will be similar and, while you can spin your ship, it will not be exactly how it was before. The time line for designing, testing and implementing this new variation of ship spinning has not been finalized but we will bring you more information in a future dev blog.
But you missed the point entirly. We wanted the choice of when to disembark.
You've basically said, 'sure you can have spinning back, but we've left the door open so we can pull it asap.'
They want you to have no choice but to look at the PANTS....
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:28:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Kitsune Sakai
Quote: It is CCPæs plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only. There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store.
Not good enough. Why the heck use an adjective like "game breaking" when you don't have to? Obviously CCP did this to get some wiggle-room.
So my 3*15Ç won't reach CCPs pockets next month.
Because it's impossible to cover everything in one statement, had we tried to enumerate someone would have found we had forgotten and gone "well, they obviously left room for *this one*"
There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win".
_____
Ship Spinning:
There's 2 things people want ship spinning back for: 1) we like to spin ships, it's fun. 2) ship spinning took less performance than the current avatar view.
CCP is going to add as a replacement for the door wallpaper that addresses both concerns. It will not be the same old hangar view, but will be similar in terms of functionality and performance.
How about you share the definition of game breaking and p2w???????
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 18:52:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Vile rat Wish I could be happy with this result but I cannot.
Quote: Game-affecting Virtual Goods: We are convinced that CCP has no plans to introduce any game-affecting virtual goods, only pure vanity items such as clothing and ship skins. We have been repeatedly assured that there are no plans for ægold ammo', ships which have different statistics from existing common hulls, or any other feared ægame destroying' virtual goods or services. We have expressed our deep concern about potential grey areas that the introduction of virtual goods permits, and CCP has made a commitment to discuss any proposals that might fall into these grey areas in detail with CSM at the earliest possible stage.
While this statement is true I fear I must disagree with the overall sense of comfort in the message because I very strongly do NOT agree.
The lack of a clear concise statement declaring that they will never go in this direction is alarming, let me explain why.
Right now there is a roll out of cosmetic microtransactions which by and large the CSM, myself included, had no real issues with. I personally had no issues with it because there was an understanding that this was the far extent of what would be done. Nowhere in these statements is a determination to never cross this line into pay for non cosmetic, just an immediate desire to not pursue this goal. I can not support any MT scheme that would pave the way for even the possibility of going beyond this. I would have been satisfied if they said "we will never do this", you will notice that this statement did not occur.
I respect the fact that CCP has no plans to go beyond cosmetic and I truly feel this sentiment is sincere, but without committing to it my confidence in the future of this MT scheme is in doubt and as such I cannot support it.
Thanks for the honesty!!!!!!
Now Can someone on the CSM or with CCP please define the following statement made by CSM member Meissa Anunthiel in post 335 in this thread:
There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win".
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 19:02:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Adakis Fenikkusu To those referring to CCP Shadow's previous statement:
That was an edited forum post, not an official dev blog or statement.
At the time CCP Shadow may not have been privy to any discussion or plans to implement the NeX store in EVE Online.
If a Dev posts it in a thread well it came from a dev.. Just because it isn't in a blog doesn't mean it doesn't count... That logic would mean that POS bowling is still legal and that CCP dev closing threads is not a CCP supported activity... wtf dude...
Read the post... CCP Shadow is the one that editted and explained his edit... Not to mention the "WE" he is referring to is ccp...
LINKING THE ORIGINAL NO TO MT THREAD ONE MORE TIME FOR THE NUMPTY I QUOTED Dev posts are 7,16,20,31
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 19:10:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Adakis Fenikkusu Edited by: Adakis Fenikkusu on 02/07/2011 19:01:07
Originally by: Sarina Berghil Edited by: Sarina Berghil on 02/07/2011 18:58:14
Originally by: Ranka Mei
@ CCP Navigator: I hope you continue on your vision for Incarna. Like the man said in his leaked email, 10 years from now, no one's gonna give a hoot whether some whiner couldn't run Incarna on his laptop a decade ago. Personally, I think it's visually stunning, and it adds a whole new dimension to EVE.
I would love to know what CCPs vision is for Incarna and other parts of the game for that matter, if there is a vision. It all seems very random and unplanned at times.
Preferably a bit more detailed than "Full sci-fi simulation one step at a time".
How are microtransactions from Dust going to influence Eve? What gameplay perspectives do CCP envision for incarna? How will Incarna gameplay influence flying in space? Those are important questions, but questions that are dodged, maybe because CCP don't know, or maybe they are afraid to say because of possible backlash.
The reason for not telling about the NeX store until it went live seems to have been that they were afraid of backlash from the players, and see where that went.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mlVuLs_Nw
Enjoy!
@Zen Sarum: What CCP have said, applies only to EVE-Online. They may very well decide on another payment model definitely for DUST 514, and maybe for World of Darkness.
PER CCP-- dust 514 is going to impact 0.0 sov mechanics..... That means the MT based Dust players will impact the Eve world with $$ for advantage... CCP has been side stepping this question since the RPS interview here: RPS Dust interview
"RPS: So, if IÆm an EVE player, how is my game going to change after DUST is released?
Torfi: Well, you have the ability to be more strategic when you are conquering planets and solar systems, in nulsec. Those are the main touchpoints. Highsec carebears need not worry. The same for lowsec. The main touchpoint upon the launch of DUST, will be in nulsec, will be in sovereignty, will be in inflicting damage and destruction and death upon your enemies, destroying their infrastructure and their means to survive, either by means or scorched earth or by stealing their installations on the surfaces of planets. There will be more going on on the surfaces of planets. WeÆve introduced mechanics allowing people to manufacture goods on the planets, but planets will play a more pivotal role in sovereignty mechanics further down the line."
MT for advantage by proxy.... That is why some of us don't buy your current statements.....
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 19:48:00 -
[10]
The big yellow question not answered....
CCP's statement on MT: "It is CCPæs plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only. There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store."
CSM's statement on MT: "Game-affecting Virtual Goods: We are convinced that CCP has no plans to introduce any game-affecting virtual goods, only pure vanity items such as clothing and ship skins. We have been repeatedly assured that there are no plans for ægold ammo', ships which have different statistics from existing common hulls, or any other feared ægame destroying' virtual goods or services. We have expressed our deep concern about potential grey areas that the introduction of virtual goods permits, and CCP has made a commitment to discuss any proposals that might fall into these grey areas in detail with CSM at the earliest possible stage."
CCP says game breaking and the CSM says game affecting.......
Which one is it?????????????
Also, please define this statement made by a CSM member in this thread:
Meissa Anunthiel: There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win".
|
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.03 00:12:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Vile rat Wish I could be happy with this result but I cannot.
Quote: Game-affecting Virtual Goods: We are convinced that CCP has no plans to introduce any game-affecting virtual goods, only pure vanity items such as clothing and ship skins. We have been repeatedly assured that there are no plans for ægold ammo', ships which have different statistics from existing common hulls, or any other feared ægame destroying' virtual goods or services. We have expressed our deep concern about potential grey areas that the introduction of virtual goods permits, and CCP has made a commitment to discuss any proposals that might fall into these grey areas in detail with CSM at the earliest possible stage.
While this statement is true I fear I must disagree with the overall sense of comfort in the message because I very strongly do NOT agree.
The lack of a clear concise statement declaring that they will never go in this direction is alarming, let me explain why.
Right now there is a roll out of cosmetic microtransactions which by and large the CSM, myself included, had no real issues with. I personally had no issues with it because there was an understanding that this was the far extent of what would be done. Nowhere in these statements is a determination to never cross this line into pay for non cosmetic, just an immediate desire to not pursue this goal. I can not support any MT scheme that would pave the way for even the possibility of going beyond this. I would have been satisfied if they said "we will never do this", you will notice that this statement did not occur.
I respect the fact that CCP has no plans to go beyond cosmetic and I truly feel this sentiment is sincere, but without committing to it my confidence in the future of this MT scheme is in doubt and as such I cannot support it.
Thanks for the honesty!!!!!!
Now Can someone on the CSM or with CCP please define the following statement made by CSM member Meissa Anunthiel in post 335 in this thread:
There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win".
Answer please.
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.03 00:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Kitsune Sakai
Quote: It is CCPæs plan that the Noble Exchange (NeX store) will be used for the sale of vanity items only. There are no plans, and have been no plans, as per previous communication and CSM meetings, to introduce the sale of game breaking items or enhancements in the NeX store.
Not good enough. Why the heck use an adjective like "game breaking" when you don't have to? Obviously CCP did this to get some wiggle-room.
So my 3*15Ç won't reach CCPs pockets next month.
Because it's impossible to cover everything in one statement, had we tried to enumerate someone would have found we had forgotten and gone "well, they obviously left room for *this one*"
There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win".
How about you share the definition of game breaking and p2w???????
How about you share the definition of game breaking and p2w??? Answer??
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.03 01:29:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win".
How about you make sure the actual player base knows what BOTH sides consider game breaking or P2W????
Answer.... only like the 38th time I have asked.....
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.03 01:39:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win".
How about you make sure the actual player base knows what BOTH sides consider game breaking or P2W????
Answer.... only like the 38th time I have asked.....
Needs answered.....
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.03 05:01:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Vandrion on 03/07/2011 05:02:24
Originally by: Zakota Vertidei
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Taedrin Edited by: Taedrin on 02/07/2011 16:52:28 /very satisfied
Highlights: -CCP confirms that there are no non-vanity items in the NEX, nor were there ever any real plans to introduce them.
-CCP promises to improve communication
-CCP promises to reintroduce ship spinning in the future.
EDIT: resubbing two accounts
They said no MT at all last year.....Original NO MT statement by CCP
What they say doesn't matter.. Its what they do........
You are taking things out of context. There are no plans for MT in relation to paying for SP.
Stop it. They are doing what they need to do.
I recommend reading to you....
As I have said once before in this thread-- The posts by CCP Shadow speak of MT as a whole.. If it was only skill points he would have said "No MT for skill points".
I will copy and paste Post #20 in that thread so you can read it again:
"No. There are no microtransaction plans, whatsoever. I wrote "in this case" because this extended downtime was an unusual situation. It's not every day we relocate our servers to a new facility."
Whatsoever.... Skillpoints... 2 totally different words.....
I would like CSM/CCP to explain/define gamebreaking (per CCP statement) and game altering (per CSM statement). I think it is imporatant for all of us to know that the CSM, the players and CCP are all on the same page......
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.04 12:56:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Because it's impossible to cover everything in one statement, had we tried to enumerate someone would have found we had forgotten and gone "well, they obviously left room for *this one*"
There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win"._____
Ship Spinning:
There's 2 things people want ship spinning back for: 1) we like to spin ships, it's fun. 2) ship spinning took less performance than the current avatar view.
CCP is going to add as a replacement for the door wallpaper that addresses both concerns. It will not be the same old hangar view, but will be similar in terms of functionality and performance.
The bolded statement by a CSM needs to be explained..........
I have asked to have this explained multiple times.... It would appear that $$$ for advantage is still coming just not in a GAME BREAKING form.
What are you setting us up for????????
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.05 02:26:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Because it's impossible to cover everything in one statement, had we tried to enumerate someone would have found we had forgotten and gone "well, they obviously left room for *this one*"
There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win"._____
Ship Spinning:
There's 2 things people want ship spinning back for: 1) we like to spin ships, it's fun. 2) ship spinning took less performance than the current avatar view.
CCP is going to add as a replacement for the door wallpaper that addresses both concerns. It will not be the same old hangar view, but will be similar in terms of functionality and performance.
The bolded statement by a CSM needs to be explained..........
I have asked to have this explained multiple times.... It would appear that $$$ for advantage is still coming just not in a GAME BREAKING form.
What are you setting us up for????????
Still Waiting......
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 13:33:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Because it's impossible to cover everything in one statement, had we tried to enumerate someone would have found we had forgotten and gone "well, they obviously left room for *this one*"
There is clear understanding on both sides of what we (actually) both consider "game-breaking" or "pay2win"._____
Ship Spinning:
There's 2 things people want ship spinning back for: 1) we like to spin ships, it's fun. 2) ship spinning took less performance than the current avatar view.
CCP is going to add as a replacement for the door wallpaper that addresses both concerns. It will not be the same old hangar view, but will be similar in terms of functionality and performance.
The bolded statement by a CSM needs to be explained..........
I have asked to have this explained multiple times.... It would appear that $$$ for advantage is still coming just not in a GAME BREAKING form.
What are you setting us up for????????
Still Waiting......
And waiting some more.....
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 13:51:00 -
[19]
"We have communicated our intention here internally in very wide circles through the Virtual Economy Summit presentation at the GSM, our Fearless newsletter, sprint reviews, email lists and multiple other channels. This should not come as a surprise to anyone."
Qoute from Hilmar's email.........
Yep, Fearless was pretty clear that you want to add more then just vanity!
|
Vandrion
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 23:09:00 -
[20]
I'll pass thank you...
Now answer the question....
|
|
|
|
|