| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Poetic Stanziel
Gallente
The Scope
   |
Posted - 2011.07.13 08:01:00 -
[1]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2011/05/03/bc-moore-cbc-funding.html
"We have no plans to cut funding ..."
Two months later, they are cutting funding.
As much as I don't think CCP will ruin the game with game-changing microtransactions, "We have no plans" is not a promise of anything.
|
Cebraio
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 08:14:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Cebraio on 13/07/2011 08:14:33
In Germany we have a well known example of this:
"Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer zu errichten!"
(Nobody has the intention of building a wall!)
Was said by Walter Ulbricht only two months before they began building the Berlin wall.
Anyway, we will judge them by their actions.
|
Khamelean
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 08:49:00 -
[3]
Who said they promised?
|
Cashcow Golden Goose
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 08:50:00 -
[4]
It's why medicines "help reduce" instead "reduce" symptoms etc.
You cannot accuse them of being cynical bare faced abject liars of the highest magnitude with no regard for the people that put them there if they didn't tell you a lie.
We have the power of language to ask very explicit direct questions about very specific concepts and equally the power of language is invoked to make a person think the question was answered. Politicians are the Jedis of this, they might as well start every sentence with "That's a great question, let me start by answering the question I wish you had asked,".
We have now mastered language so precisely there are few reasons to actually tell the truth about anything when an obfuscation can be fitted into the exact same hole, truthlessness is a skill and every opportunity to practise it should be exploited.
|
Illwill Bill
For a fistful of Veldspar
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 08:51:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf
I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad.
|
Darian Nystrom
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 08:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Cashcow Golden Goose
It's why medicines "help reduce" instead "reduce" symptoms etc.
You cannot accuse them of being cynical bare faced abject liars of the highest magnitude with no regard for the people that put them there if they didn't tell you a lie.
We have the power of language to ask very explicit direct questions about very specific concepts and equally the power of language is invoked to make a person think the question was answered. Politicians are the Jedis of this, they might as well start every sentence with "That's a great question, let me start by answering the question I wish you had asked,".
We have now mastered language so precisely there are few reasons to actually tell the truth about anything when an obfuscation can be fitted into the exact same hole, truthlessness is a skill and every opportunity to practise it should be exploited.
Stephen Colbert calls this truthiness
Yes this was posted with an alt. |
Jumpman 23
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 08:57:00 -
[7]
I was actually thinking to myself that Eve devs are more like politicians, in that they do things they say they won't and how they use the guise of a big patch or feature to pass through something that changes the game balance that was never discussed.
glad I'm not the only one lol
|
Khamelean
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:01:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Cashcow Golden Goose
It's why medicines "help reduce" instead "reduce" symptoms etc.
You cannot accuse them of being cynical bare faced abject liars of the highest magnitude with no regard for the people that put them there if they didn't tell you a lie.
We have the power of language to ask very explicit direct questions about very specific concepts and equally the power of language is invoked to make a person think the question was answered. Politicians are the Jedis of this, they might as well start every sentence with "That's a great question, let me start by answering the question I wish you had asked,".
We have now mastered language so precisely there are few reasons to actually tell the truth about anything when an obfuscation can be fitted into the exact same hole, truthlessness is a skill and every opportunity to practise it should be exploited.
You also have the power of language to understand what is being said to you. No one is trying to trick anyone here.
|
Cashcow Golden Goose
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:15:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: Cashcow Golden Goose
It's why medicines "help reduce" instead "reduce" symptoms etc.
You cannot accuse them of being cynical bare faced abject liars of the highest magnitude with no regard for the people that put them there if they didn't tell you a lie.
We have the power of language to ask very explicit direct questions about very specific concepts and equally the power of language is invoked to make a person think the question was answered. Politicians are the Jedis of this, they might as well start every sentence with "That's a great question, let me start by answering the question I wish you had asked,".
We have now mastered language so precisely there are few reasons to actually tell the truth about anything when an obfuscation can be fitted into the exact same hole, truthlessness is a skill and every opportunity to practise it should be exploited.
You also have the power of language to understand what is being said to you. No one is trying to trick anyone here.
Well, CCP Zinfandel, when a person engages in truthlessness, they are absolutely trying to trick somebody. To engage in truthfulness is to not try to trick a person.
|
Prince Kobol
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:21:00 -
[10]
That is because unlike some people who live in a fantasy world, in the world world things changes.
When I was 7 I planned on being a racing car driver.. guess what my plan changed a few months later when I wanted to be astronaut.. how evil of a child I was !!!
**** happens, things change, get use to it.
FFS this community is going down the drain quicker then last nights curry
|
|
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:26:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Khamelean
Who said they promised?
They didn't promise. What they did do, however, was to make statements that were designed to curb the fear of people that believed they were going down a certain route. Those statements were made in such a way as to encourage those who have goodwill towards CCP to take the statements as some sort of guarantee. Because if they didn't provide a guarantee then they didn't really say anything at all to address peoples' concerns, did they? As far as I'm aware, no CCP rep has stepped in to correct the misconceptions of those who have taken their statements for some kind of guarantee which suggests that CCP is happy for this (mis)understanding to be perpetuated.
My question to you: did CCP say anything at all that did legitimately address the concerns of those players who worry that the game is no longer worth investing time in because it may change to an anti-emergent model within the next few years?
|
Khamelean
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:16:00 -
[12]
Originally by: RAW23
My question to you: did CCP say anything at all that did legitimately address the concerns of those players who worry that the game is no longer worth investing time in because it may change to an anti-emergent model within the next few years?
My understanding of the primary contention of whole vanity item issues was that players were worried that CCP was planning to introduce non-vanity items for micro transactions. Turns out they weren't and aren't. They never implied or tried to imply that they would never do non-vanity items for micro transactions.
This satisfied most of the player base. This does not mean that CCP tricked them. It means that most people are able to understand the realities of life and that things can change. Who knows what the game market will look like in 10 years time, or even 50 years time.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:32:00 -
[13]
Edited by: RAW23 on 13/07/2011 10:34:55
Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: RAW23
My question to you: did CCP say anything at all that did legitimately address the concerns of those players who worry that the game is no longer worth investing time in because it may change to an anti-emergent model within the next few years?
My understanding of the primary contention of whole vanity item issues was that players were worried that CCP was planning to introduce non-vanity items for micro transactions. Turns out they weren't and aren't. They never implied or tried to imply that they would never do non-vanity items for micro transactions.
This satisfied most of the player base. This does not mean that CCP tricked them. It means that most people are able to understand the realities of life and that things can change. Who knows what the game market will look like in 10 years time, or even 50 years time.
Or, indeed, in 6 months? The point is, 'we have no plans' is essentially meaningless when it comes to players attempting to decide whether to continue to commit to the game as it provides no information at all about how things may change in the medium to long term (and can even be disavowed in the short term). The 10-50 year time frame is really a complete blind and trying to frame the discussion in these terms is entirely disingenuous given that we have had 'no plans' turn to 'plans' previously in a period of less than six months. So, to return to my question, which you side-stepped, what have CCP said that can reassure someone who was worried that eve might change in this direction within the next few years?
Edit - Also, do you think that those players who were happy with CCP's response would be equally happy if CCP had said 'We can't guarantee that there will be no non-vanity MT within the next year'? Bear in mind that this statement is entirely consistent with the statements that have been made insofar as nothing said so far rules this out.
|
ChaeDoc II
Gallente
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:36:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Poetic Stanziel
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2011/05/03/bc-moore-cbc-funding.html
"We have no plans to cut funding ..."
Two months later, they are cutting funding.
As much as I don't think CCP will ruin the game with game-changing microtransactions, "We have no plans" is not a promise of anything.
Who said it was?
Also, are we ever going to see the end of these kinds of topics?
|
ChaeDoc II
Gallente
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:38:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Cebraio
Edited by: Cebraio on 13/07/2011 08:14:33
In Germany we have a well known example of this:
"Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer zu errichten!"
(Nobody has the intention of building a wall!)
Was said by Walter Ulbricht only two months before they began building the Berlin wall.
Anyway, we will judge them by their actions.
There's a massive difference between "plan" and "intend". The US has plans to invade Canada but unless they find oil i doubt very much they intend to march on Montreal.
|
Tiven loves Tansien
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:43:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: RAW23
My question to you: did CCP say anything at all that did legitimately address the concerns of those players who worry that the game is no longer worth investing time in because it may change to an anti-emergent model within the next few years?
My understanding of the primary contention of whole vanity item issues was that players were worried that CCP was planning to introduce non-vanity items for micro transactions. Turns out they weren't and aren't. They never implied or tried to imply that they would never do non-vanity items for micro transactions.
This satisfied most of the player base. This does not mean that CCP tricked them. It means that most people are able to understand the realities of life and that things can change. Who knows what the game market will look like in 10 years time, or even 50 years time.
CCP Zinfandel, have you read your newsletter and your CEO's email? Only an idiot or a body of lies would think/claim that CCP did not want to introduce non-vanity.
|
Gurgeh Murat
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:47:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Khamelean
My understanding of the primary contention of whole vanity item issues was that players were worried that CCP was planning to introduce non-vanity items for micro transactions. Turns out they weren't and aren't. They never implied or tried to imply that they would never do non-vanity items for micro transactions.
This satisfied most of the player base. This does not mean that CCP tricked them. It means that most people are able to understand the realities of life and that things can change. Who knows what the game market will look like in 10 years time, or even 50 years time.
Has this been the CCP plan all along? Deliberately leak fearless so they can manage the initial outrage with a planned cave in "oh, we have no plans" then massage the forums through Devalts like khamelean until weve been "managed" to the stage ccp can finally follow through on their plans? I particularly liked
"This satisfied most of the player base"
Excellent CCP damage control there.
Tinfoil hattery or uncannily accurate? time will tell.....
|
Cebraio
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:47:00 -
[18]
Originally by: ChaeDoc II
There's a massive difference between "plan" and "intend". The US has plans to invade Canada but unless they find oil i doubt very much they intend to march on Montreal.
Hm, you have a point.
(However, in regards to the Berlin wall they probably had both, the plan and the intention to build it, two months before starting it.)
|
Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:50:00 -
[19]
It's simple. Anyone who says, "there are no plans", "we have no plans", etc. are leaving themselves a way out.
Any company, government, CEO, or politician who uses the word "plan" in the same way as the above is simply leaving themselves a way out so they don't have to be called liars. If they were really serious about it, they would say something akin to, "There will never be..." instead of "There are currently no plans to...".
|
Ts'ao Ts'ao
Soldiers of Irn Bru
OMEGA.
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:59:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Poetic Stanziel
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2011/05/03/bc-moore-cbc-funding.html
"We have no plans to cut funding ..."
Two months later, they are cutting funding.
As much as I don't think CCP will ruin the game with game-changing microtransactions, "We have no plans" is not a promise of anything.
Which is best, say a lie and say they will never do it?
Or just say the truth? no plans currently...
You know what if suddenly these game changing microtransactions became the done thing and would make CCP millions / billions?
Point is, no-one can predict the future, so why risk creating a lie? no plans, means, they have no plans yet, but only a fool would not leave it as an option, even if that option is tucked away in some near forgotten corner in a padded cell, within a bomb proof safe etc etc
In short, its best to keep your options open, all your options
|
|
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:25:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ts'ao Ts'ao
Originally by: Poetic Stanziel
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2011/05/03/bc-moore-cbc-funding.html
"We have no plans to cut funding ..."
Two months later, they are cutting funding.
As much as I don't think CCP will ruin the game with game-changing microtransactions, "We have no plans" is not a promise of anything.
Which is best, say a lie and say they will never do it?
Or just say the truth? no plans currently...
You know what if suddenly these game changing microtransactions became the done thing and would make CCP millions / billions?
Point is, no-one can predict the future, so why risk creating a lie? no plans, means, they have no plans yet, but only a fool would not leave it as an option, even if that option is tucked away in some near forgotten corner in a padded cell, within a bomb proof safe etc etc
In short, its best to keep your options open, all your options
The problem is, if you sell a game to your customers that is predicated on providing an emergent, dynamic, player controlled environment and market the game on that basis but then refuse to rule out the possibility of changing this to an MT driven anti-emergent model (in whole or in part) you undermine the confidence of the player-base that they can rely on you to maintain the design philosophy that the players were sold on.
I can't speak for everyone but my own attraction to eve derives from its emergent qualities and I would be unwilling to invest further time and effort if I knew it was going to have future features that were anti-emergent deliberately built in for the purposes of making money (I am happy to accept some anti-emergent features when they are necessary evils though). Given this, what I look for from CCP is a commitment to not introduce such features for at least some fixed period of time. I would be happy to be told that CCP guarantee no such features within the next two years but that they will revisit this commitment every year, thus giving players a minimum of a year's advance notice if they intend to change their approach. Without such a commitment it would be silly of me to start any long term projects in this game when I could be looking for a more stable platform for me to indulge my gaming interests in. The current raft of communications from CCP have sought both to deny any current plans but not to rule them out for the future, with no future time-scale being given. I suspect that CCP are unwilling to explicitly admit the extent to which they are open to anti-emergent features precisely because if they were open about it then all those players looking for a stable platform with emergentism as an inviolable design principle will look elsewhere.
|
Florestan Bronstein
draketrain
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:57:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 13/07/2011 12:00:48
edit: have to think some more about this...
|
Portmanteau
Gallente
CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 12:16:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Prince Kobol
That is because unlike some people who live in a fantasy world, in the world world things changes.
When I was 7 I planned on being a racing car driver.. guess what my plan changed a few months later when I wanted to be astronaut.. how evil of a child I was !!!
So your argument is that we should should expect the consistency and reliability of a 7 year old child from CCP ?
Well played, I prostrate myself before the genius of Eve's debate team captain 
|
Khamelean
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 12:21:00 -
[24]
Originally by: RAW23
The problem is, if you sell a game to your customers that is predicated on providing an emergent, dynamic, player controlled environment and market the game on that basis but then refuse to rule out the possibility of changing this to an MT driven anti-emergent model (in whole or in part) you undermine the confidence of the player-base that they can rely on you to maintain the design philosophy that the players were sold on.
I can't speak for everyone but my own attraction to eve derives from its emergent qualities and I would be unwilling to invest further time and effort if I knew it was going to have future features that were anti-emergent deliberately built in for the purposes of making money (I am happy to accept some anti-emergent features when they are necessary evils though). Given this, what I look for from CCP is a commitment to not introduce such features for at least some fixed period of time. I would be happy to be told that CCP guarantee no such features within the next two years but that they will revisit this commitment every year, thus giving players a minimum of a year's advance notice if they intend to change their approach. Without such a commitment it would be silly of me to start any long term projects in this game when I could be looking for a more stable platform for me to indulge my gaming interests in. The current raft of communications from CCP have sought both to deny any current plans but not to rule them out for the future, with no future time-scale being given. I suspect that CCP are unwilling to explicitly admit the extent to which they are open to anti-emergent features precisely because if they were open about it then all those players looking for a stable platform with emergentism as an inviolable design principle will look elsewhere.
Every choice involves risk. When you get in a car you take the risk that you could be in a car accident. When you play a more traditional MMO, you take the risk that your class might get nerfed.
What it ultimately comes down to then is whether or not your willing to take the risk. There are no guarantees about the future of eve or the direction it will take. The best you can do is make a judgment call based on the game as it is now.
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 12:41:00 -
[25]
Companies make changes to their operations every 3 months. So effectively their promises don`t carry much weight since there is every possibility they will go back on them quickly if they feel like it.
Don`t like where company is going? Stop being their customer immediately and stay that way until you think they`ve straightened up or something.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 12:49:00 -
[26]
Edited by: RAW23 on 13/07/2011 12:50:09
Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: RAW23
...
Every choice involves risk. When you get in a car you take the risk that you could be in a car accident. When you play a more traditional MMO, you take the risk that your class might get nerfed.
What it ultimately comes down to then is whether or not your willing to take the risk. There are no guarantees about the future of eve or the direction it will take. The best you can do is make a judgment call based on the game as it is now.
Your statement about willingness to take a risk is a trivial and irrelevant platitude. The question at issue is how to assess the risk involved. The suggestion that one make a judgement call on the basis of how the game is now is also more or less empty as the state of the game now is no indicator of its future state precisely because of the unwillingness to offer any guarantees. Your position amounts to suggesting that players should flip a coin whereas, in fact, a considerable number of players will be unwilling to commit their time and energy, not to mention money, on such a basis. In addition, I should note that your answer here more or less provides a response to my previous question to you, which you sidestepped. If you accept that CCP's communications do not provide a viable source of evidence for the future evolution of the game then you accept that they are valueless beyond an undefined short-term period covered by the period it takes to switch from having no plans to having plans. This also answers my question about whether such an undefined response would have satisfied those players who were satisfied if it had been made explicit that this is what the communications amounted to. And given the effective emptiness of such communications combined with the fact that CCP chose to put out non-explicit versions we can probably assume that they were deliberately miseleading, contra your previous assertion.
|
Jimmy Duce
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 12:50:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Juliette DuBois
Companies make changes to their operations every 3 months. So effectively their promises don`t carry much weight since there is every possibility they will go back on them quickly if they feel like it.
Don`t like where company is going? Stop being their customer immediately and stay that way until you think they`ve straightened up or something.
You do understand that quite alot of people are doing this right?
And those of us still complaining are hoping against hope that CCP will change its direction
The big yellow question was a simple question which deserved a simple answer. I specifically said, and others agreed, that any answer along the lines of "we have no plans to implement ..." was insufficient.
The protests in game and on the forum has mostly died down as people don't give a damn anymore. Those who were waiting for a concrete answer said F-this and left.
Tell me you don't realize that about 10K people less are online now than just a few weeks ago? That maps closely with the 5K publicly saying they're done with this mess.
Defending CCP is pointless, why? The people who are staying don't really care, gold ammo isn't so bad for them atm. The people who are leaving are seeing Eve change in a way it has never before, and CCP as a company not acting as the CCP we all came to love.
|
Jackson Millenius
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 12:51:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Poetic Stanziel
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2011/05/03/bc-moore-cbc-funding.html
"We have no plans to cut funding ..."
Two months later, they are cutting funding.
As much as I don't think CCP will ruin the game with game-changing microtransactions, "We have no plans" is not a promise of anything.
Cbc.... oh the lolz
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.' |
Jessica Shape
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 13:11:00 -
[29]
the guy lurking outside your house thats going to steal your telly wont tell you beforehand.
the waiter in the kitchen ****ing into your soup wont tell you what hes serving up.
ccp isnt going to announce they intend to screw up the game.
it doesnt matter about the wording in the press release.
it doesnt matter what they say to us, weve allready been told how unimportant we are.
we dont matter to ccp. 1000 vets who wont buy items in the nex store are worthless next to 1 new player who will buy everything then unsub after a week. |
Phelan Votronski
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 13:50:00 -
[30]
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: RAW23
...
Every choice involves risk. When you get in a car you take the risk that you could be in a car accident. When you play a more traditional MMO, you take the risk that your class might get nerfed.
What it ultimately comes down to then is whether or not your willing to take the risk. There are no guarantees about the future of eve or the direction it will take. The best you can do is make a judgment call based on the game as it is now.
Your statement about willingness to take a risk is a trivial and irrelevant platitude. The question at issue is how to assess the risk involved. The suggestion that one make a judgement call on the basis of how the game is now is also more or less empty as the state of the game now is no indicator of its future state precisely because of the unwillingness to offer any guarantees. Your position amounts to suggesting that players should flip a coin whereas, in fact, a considerable number of players will be unwilling to commit their time and energy, not to mention money, on such a basis. In addition, I should note that your answer here more or less provides a response to my previous question to you, which you sidestepped. If you accept that CCP's communications do not provide a viable source of evidence for the future evolution of the game then you accept that they are valueless beyond an undefined short-term period covered by the period it takes to switch from having no plans to having plans. This also answers my question about whether such an undefined response would have satisfied those players who were satisfied if it had been made explicit that this is what the communications amounted to. And given the effective emptiness of such communications combined with the fact that CCP chose to put out non-explicit versions we can probably assume that they were deliberately miseleading, contra your previous assertion.
Zinfandel you just got owned big time!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |