EVE Search - A Reminder to CCP: We do not want microtransactions period.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

A Reminder to CCP: We do not want microtransactions period.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.26 21:37:00 - [1] Originally by: Written Word Originally by: Sullen Skoung Edited by: Sullen Skoung on 26/08/2011 15:06:01 Originally by: Written Word Lets see, despite being proven all across the industry that it makes a lot of money and has no tangible effect on player retention outside of forum screamers (you in this case).. they should stop it doing it right? You aren't going to quit. You'll whine but you'll go back to playing. an when the Greed is Good thing was leaked noone protested in game right? That was just rumors? A nice talk about that subject Take note in the part where the biggest community whiners ending up paying more in the cash store than a non-whiner. Hugely unpopular PR, nasty articles being written, claims they have killed the game but they all kept their jobs and they are making more games. Apples to Oragnes There is a big difference between a Free to play game where a subscriber who leaves over Micro-transactions wasn't paying anything anyway, and one from a subscription based game where that same player was paying $15 a month or more. In the first case if they leave who cares they were a free loader anyway. In the second that's $180 in actual real revenue per year for each account they cancel that is lost. This is why when 3000+ accounts clicked cancel CCP changed their "stay the course" plan and paid full fare to fly the CSM out to Iceland for their "Summit". You think "who cares that's only 3000 of 300,000" CCP's accounts went "hmm that's 1% of our accounts and 30001512... $540,000 real dollars per year lost. hold the presses lets rethink this" Actually if memory serves it was closer to 6k accounts so 2% of their revenue threatening to go buh-bye.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.29 18:28:00 - [2] Originally by: Ildryn Originally by: BehindDOORNEX*** Originally by:** Ildryn Less than 5% of the active accounts were protesting. So it was a fail. The idea of a protest was a fail. But fail enough for CCP to shat it pants and call an emergency CSM meeting?? If was a fail no matter how you look at it alt noob. They didn't ** themselves. They wanted to talk to the csm for damage control purposes.** A few statements were taken way out of context. You do realize there are people from many more countries than yours that play. You notice i am also posting with my main. Not a trolling alt. :) You kind of contradicted yourself there. If damage wasn't being done they wouldn't have needed damage control.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.30 14:03:00 - [3] Originally by: Cipher Jones "You don't take a plea bargain if you're not guilty." . While I think we're on the same side of this debate the statement above is not true. Innocent people take plea bargains all the time. Plea bargains are most often offered when the prosecution is less than certain they can make their case. The accused often take them because while the odds of conviction may be low the consequences are huge(up to and including death). I'm not claiming that this is the case in Goldman Sach's case but your statement is one of those bits of conventional wisdom people believe that simply isn't true.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.30 14:43:00 - [4] Originally by: Ranger 1 They needed damage control because they didn't communicate the plan well, not because the plan was bad to begin with. The better communication resulted in much of the wild speculation being shown to be just that. As a result, things calmed down significantly. The plan did not change as a result of the CSM summit, only the level of transparency. Now the only thing still getting a rise out of people are the trolls playing "what if" games, or those making unsubstanciated claims that all the protesters were doing so because they objected to MT being brought in at all (despite thousands of posts from said protesters stating otherwise). They needed damage control because of the leaked documentation. First we had the PR debacle of the monetization debate. Which was then followed with the leaking of the Fearless Magazine (anyone who believes that was just "internal discussion" send me isk and I'll send you back double what you sent me) which despite all the protestation about it just being internal discussion read more like a propaganda campaign. Everyone acts like the only thing in it was the pro-con between Soundwave and Turbefield, which is bull** they had multiple articles about how to monetize their product via micro-transactions and it wasn't written in a should we do this rather it was in a this is how we do it mode. Remember the only voice of dissent in this "debate" was half of one article out of several. Of course they aren't going to admit that they really want to sell in game advantage publicly they by soundwaves own admission know they'd be crucified by the playerbase. Anyone who believes this bull** about how objection to MT is a minority opinion need to let that percolate for a minute. CCP doesn't believe that to be a minority opinion or else they would have done as Hilmar said and stayed the course. Now it is entirely true that much of what people are bringing up is based on conjecture but it's conjecture based on some pretty sound reasoning and evidence. If you think CCP claim that they have no intention of selling "gold ammo" has any weight what so ever need to go back and read the debates from 2010 when they claimed they had no plans for implementing Micro-transactions. Anyone who's ever worked for a corporation should understand that there is no way they weren't planning the Nex by that point they had to have been or they'd never have been able to launch it for Incarna. Credibility is an interesting thing. Hard to gain easy to lose and next to impossible to regain once lost.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.30 16:09:00 - [5] Originally by: Cipher Jones Quote: If they loose even 5 percent of the playerbase, it can be bad enough to spiral out of control and actually hurt EVE. That five percent can quickly turn into ten percent, that ten percent can turn into twenty... so on and so fourth. And I'm sure that theres more than five percent that are unhappy about microtransactions. -- So if I have five dollars in my wallet I can buy a 15 dollar item once it spirals out of control. I am sure a lot more than 50% of the players are unhappy about mt as almost 100% of people oppose change. The question is will enough people stay too keep the franchise running and healthy, and right now the answer is yes. Actually I think the answer was no; which is why we had the emergency summit. I think CCP wanted to test the waters and see if they could ease MT in. This is why we had the "stay the course" email say that they should only pay attention to "what they do". They tested those waters and found out they were full of **ed off piranhas, hopefully that will be enough of a lessen to hold the bean counters off for another year. The biggest problem they have now is that they blew away their credibility in the process so no one really believes them when they say "we have no plans for any non-vanity items for Aurum". The thing is yeah we're talking about things they haven't done yet. But you have to object before they do it if we wait until after they actually do P2W it will be too late to influence the situation. Micro-transactions made it in because after the commitment in May 2010 that there were no plans for MT people took them at their word and didn't pay attention to the issue. Hell CSM in May 2011 just kind of ho hummed the NEX store when it was announced to them when they should have been raising holy hell going "WTF?!?! you guys said you weren't planning anything like this just a year ago, Do you have any idea the kind of storm this is going to stir up?" Hilmar needs a "no man" around to counter all the "yes man" sentiment someone to say "are you out of your **ing mind? that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard" when some bonehead comes up with something like the Nex store.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.30 16:29:00 - [6] Originally by: Sullen Skoung Originally by: Skex Relbore Hell CSM in May 2011 just kind of ho hummed the NEX store when it was announced to them when they should have been raising holy hell going "WTF?!?! you guys said you weren't planning anything like this just a year ago, Do you have any idea the kind of **** storm this is going to stir up?" When they do that, they get NDAed and told that if they talk about it theyll get sued. The NDA only prevents them from reporting information to the public before it's been cleared it does not prevent them from telling CCP that something is a bad idea.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.30 17:22:00 - [7] Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: Anyone who believes this bull**** about how objection to MT is a minority opinion need to let that percolate for a minute. CCP doesn't believe that to be a minority opinion or else they would have done as Hilmar said and stayed the course. Perhaps you could tell us where CCP changed their course. The Emergency CSM summit. Obviously they weren't planning on that they expected after a short bit of grumbling we'd settle down and they could move on to the next step. I admit what we got out of them fell far short of what was wanted but no one who was reasonable expected the Nex store to be tore down after development dollars have already been spent. Beyond that your are right we don't know what happened internally with CCP's plans. The hope is that enough hell was raised to derail any thoughts of P2W for the foreseeable future but only time will tell. Maybe they were telling the truth and they never intended to sell game-play affecting items and services (yeah right) maybe they were ready to roll out a whole host of additional services. The fact that they implemented the NEX in the first place is pretty damning evidence against them. Particularly given the pricing strategy they seem to have settled on (The M in MT is supposed to stand for Micro no Macro). No way enough idiots are buying enough horribly designed vanity items to pay off the development time they put into it. While I think they are arrogant and suffering from extreme confirmation bias fueled by visions of giant piles of greenbacks, I don't think they are completely stupid so the question becomes where do they really expect this to pay off? Remember they have to sell 12 plex worth of items to make up for the revenue lost from each canceled account per year.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.30 17:54:00 - [8] Originally by: Sullen Skoung Edited by: Sullen Skoung on 30/08/2011 17:27:24 Edited by: Sullen Skoung on 30/08/2011 17:26:15 Edited by: Sullen Skoung on 30/08/2011 17:25:45 Originally by: Skex Relbore No way enough idiots are buying enough horribly designed vanity items to pay off the development time they put into it. 52 monocles in the first 40 hours Quote: Naturally, we have caught the attention of the world. Only a few weeks ago we revealed more information about DUST 514 and now we have done it again by committing to our core purpose as a company by redefining assumptions. After 40 hours we have already sold 52 monocles, generating more revenue than any of the other items in the store. They might not be YET but they WILL BE Lets see so there most successful item only generated sufficient revenue to replace the yearly revenues from 15 canceled accounts. This was in the earliest days when demand for the item would be highest. Yeah that's really successful, lol. BTW just for some context that's a whoppy $2910 in plex that just about covers the cost of flying 3 CMS from the US to Iceland with advanced notice; probably barely covered the cost of flying Mittens out for the emergency summit.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.30 18:32:00 - [9] Edited by: Skex Relbore on 30/08/2011 18:36:12 Originally by: Ranger 1 I really don't think that calling a meeting to clarify what their "course" is qualifies as "no longer staying the course". Um considering part of the course obviously did not include taking efforts to affect such clarification then yes I'd say it most certainly does qualify as "no longer staying the course". Quote: I also think you are making a lot of assumption. Starting with your assumptions that the NeX store items aren't selling well. We have zero data on that. It's also a pretty safe bet that the NeX store item sales will increase dramatically once other people can see your Avatar. I'm not making any assumption I'm stating a simple economic fact on how many Plex have to be converted for aurum to make up for a lost subscriber, I"m also giving my opinion that, I don't think what they are selling; at the prices they are selling it for; will be sufficient to cover the development costs associated with the project. As such it is my belief that there are and have always been plans to move beyond "vanity" items. Particularly in the form of services as described by CCP Soundwave in the Fearless Mag. Quote: @Sullen: Of course I saw the memo, and the news letter. More importantly, I understood them. You need to learn the difference between a discussion of a controversial subject and a plan of action. You also need to learn the difference between a remote possibility and a probable outcome. I'd suggest that your position in this debate is evidence that no you did not understand them and you quite frankly do not understand the difference between discussion and a plan of action. Fearless was not a discussion if it was a PR piece to sell the MT concept to the rank and file and get their buy in and get them thinking about how else to monetize the game. Anyone who's actually worked in the corporate world is familiar with such pieces. Note how all the articles talking up the concept of Micro-transactions were written by department heads and various leaders in the organization while the one bit opposed was from some grunt in the research department. That's not a discussion that's propaganda. Quote: Only politicians and journalists are allowed to make a habit out of taking anything they like out of context and spinning a theoretical discussion to sound like certifiable fact. Everyone else is simply called a liar or a fool. Why would Politicians and Journalists get a pass? We know most of them are already liars and/or fools or at least paid to be such. No one is taking anything out of context, the argument is about what the context actually is. If someone accepts the argument that the Fearless magazine which was 90% in favor of Micro-transactions and discussed specific plans and idea's on implementation (some of which we know are actual plans) with all the Pro's coming from people in leadership positions at the company, is just so much internal discussion they'll think people like myself are fools. For those of us who don't believe for a moment that the Fearless magazine was anything other than company propaganda to gain support for what they knew would be an unpopular idea we think you are being pretty damned Naive.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.31 20:30:00 - [10] Originally by: Mendolus So... if they were really planning to do non-vanity, why would they be pensive about even temporarily releasing the Ishukone Scorpion with no item exchange in place? My understanding was that the Ishukone Scorp was pulled when the CSM pointed out the uproar it would cause. As far as why they'd be so pensive about it, well it might have something to do with the fact that they recognized as CCP Soundwave noted in "Fearless" that they'd be crucified by the player base. If their primary concern had been avoiding the stench of P2W they'd never have even thought of offering the Ishukone Scorpion before an exchange was possible (And really is it that much more technically complex to deposit a 1 run BPC that requires a scorpion as a component into someone's hanger than it is to deposit a completed Ishukone Scorpion?, The ability for the NEX to require an item exchange is entirely unneeded to provide custom models to existing ships and the assertion that it was relevant to the release of the Ishukone Scorpion a red herring to distract people with poor critical thinking skills. The thing is there really isn't much conspiracy theory to seeing where this road ends, it's simply a matter of following each step to it's logical conclusion. Now that the NEX store is there with it's money making potential sitting there singing it's siren song to the bean-counters there will be a constant pressure to milk it for more revenue. We already know from EA's experience that Vanity items just aren't enough to really drive profits it's pay for in game advantage or gold ammo as it were that is the big money maker and you can be damned sure that every executive and finance person at CCP has seen that power point from EA. Sure the devs will be "reluctant" to do it but since the NEX team is generating additional revenue they'll be the ones getting the funding and being bumped to the top of the priority queue (the May CSM minutes stated quite clearly that the art department is the primary bottleneck holding up game content, so which department do you think is designing the "vanity" items for the NEC?). They'll couch it in language of "in order to be competitive" as if you gouging your customer is the best way to drive sales. and we're just following industry trends blah blah and more PR crap. The bottom line is that if the NEX generates good revenues the execs and bean counters will push to get it to produce more revenues. If it fails to produce revenues they'll push to make it generate more revenue. Leaving us players in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation of losing a hobby that many of us have invested years of our life in enjoying. To make matters worse since this is the direction the industry is going (whether the players like it or not) there won't be any good gameplay focused games left. All that will remain will be a Micro-transaction driven ad-space and the promise of a cold harsh virtual universe will be yet one more dream destroyed by short sighted MBA's who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The only hope and it's a slim one at that is that we can raise enough hell to derail this train before it gets too far out of the station by getting someone in a position of power to put the long term health of the game ahead of short term greed.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.31 20:58:00 - [11] Originally by: Mendolus Well, if it happens, we are all as good as gone aren't we? And it looks like from the previous track record with MMOs, that all the bemoaning in the world did not prevent the introduction of non-vanity items to a game, so... Let me remind you guys, I am here personally to spend time with friends, and ride this game until the wheels fall off, or until non-vanity items are introduced. Until that very day, I would prefer to just logon and have some fun, because unless someone can provide me with factual evidence of any time in an MMO where the subscriber base successfully averted the introduction of non-vanity items through their dialog with the developers, all of this is really just an exercise in futility. If it is going to happen, it is going to happen, the only thing we can do is unsubscribe from the game when it does. Obviously it's an exercise in futility doesn't mean we can't put it all out so we can point later and say "see I told you so" Ultimately as Keynes said "in the long run we're all dead" it's just a matter of passing the time until the end.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.31 21:38:00 - [12] Originally by: Stitcher Originally by: Sullen Skoung Or STO if you were there to watch that disaster. They crowed the "Vanity items only" on their forums too. The SECOND the game launched they put races that have ingame effects you cant get in game in there. NON VANITY Then ships with abilities the other in game ships cant get NON VANITY Then sp boosters that made you level faster NON VANITY hell they even made respecs cost REAL MONEY Dont believe me? Look for youeself False Attribution: You are appealing to irrelevant information. STO is not EVE, and CCP are not Cryptic (well, they can be. but not that kind of Cryptic) The fact that something was done in STO has no bearing on whether or not it will be done in EVE. No he's not he's drawing a comparison with a similar entity and event. He's given an example of another company that has followed this path and shown where they went. It is never implied or suggested that CCP and Cryptic are the same further false attribution is not what you are claiming it is. From your link "occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument" The comparison is relevant, qualified, identified, unbiased and accurate therefor this is not an example of false attribution. It's a simple statement of fact Cryptic's STO is the closest example in similarity to EVE, it's a space based MMO. That swore they were only going to go with vanity items then went back on their word. Quote: Hasty Generalization: "I can prove that one games developer has introduced non-cosmetic microtransaction items to their games after promising not to. This is proof that ALL games developers will do so." No one is saying it's proof of anything it's simply evidence that what a game developer says does not have any relationship to their ultimate actions. Quote: and finally: Mind Projection Fallacy. "I believe that CCP intend to go back on their word. Therefore, they are going to go back on their word." The problem for you is that CCP has already went back on their word simply by introducing the NEX store in the first place. CCP blew their credibility when they stated they had no plans to implement Micro-transactions in May of 2010 when it's obvious that such plans must have existed for them to have implemented the NEX a year later. Let me go over that again in case you missed it in May of 2010 CCP stated plainly that they had "no plans for micro-transactions" 1 year later they show the NEX store to the CSM. Once again a lack of faith in CCP's word is a quite rational position given past history.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 05:36:00 - [13] Originally by: Stitcher Edited by: Stitcher on 31/08/2011 22:20:34 Originally by: Skex Relbore Let me go over that again in case you missed it in May of 2010 CCP stated plainly that they had "no plans for micro-transactions" 1 year later they show the NEX store to the CSM. "We presently have no plans to..." is a very different thing from "we categorically will never..." the former simply means that, at the time of issuing the statement, they were not actively working towards implementing microtransactions. Such a statement is not incompatible with the subsequent introduction of the NeX store. It is NOT a cast-iron promise that there will never be microtransactions at all. If they had made such a promise, then you would have a point. They did not. They have not gone back on their word. What you're doing is misinterpreting their statement and then getting angry when their actions don't match your inaccurate belief about what they meant, even though their actions entirely do match what they actually said. If I say "I'm not planning to go shopping today" but then I go to the cupboard and find I'm out of tea bags so decide to pop out and do my groceries anyway, that doesn't make the first statement a lie. You really think this thing went from no we aren't going to do this to actual implementation from this company in less than a year? They've spent how many years to come out with the joke that's the captain's quarters? and you think they managed to push this out in less than 12 months? hah. Please, there is no way I believe they went from "no plans" to implementation in less than a year. And even if that's the case the only commitment we have on P2W is that same "no current plans" "promise". They showed quite clearly that such a commitment means well precisely jack all. Ergo their complete lack of credibility on the commitment to stick to "vanity" only.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 05:53:00 - [14] Originally by: Myxx I love this thread so very much. I'm getting quite the laugh out of people trying to defend the nex store. I still think it ought to be torn down entirely. Combination of denial, paid shills and unrealistic optimism. I agree that the it should be removed it's presence will continue to draw the attention of the bean counters who only understand value in terms of revenue generators and cost centers that are easily tangible yet have problems with valuing intangible assets like customer loyalty and corporate integrity.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 06:32:00 - [15] Originally by: Mokanor Lenak People are angry that prices are high because they want to buy something. People are angry that prices are low because they want to sell something. People are angry when PLEX price might go up because they buy it for game time. People are angry when PLEX price might go down because they sell it for ISK. People are angry that vanity items are out of their reach. People are angry that they can buy vanity items but it cost a lot. People are angry that they don't have new ships. People are angry that they can't get current ships fast enough. And everyone blame it on CCP. You just can't please anyone... Its a game. Its just ISK, not game breaking mechanics gone wrong. Get a grip on your nerves. Go out for a walk and take a break and a breather. Enjoy the game, not the jealousy that person X has a bionic eye in his portrait or not. People say this is not WoW, but its so much like WoW community wise. People just keep ***ing about 24/7. Seriously... P.S This is not microtransaction. Way to not understand the issue. Most of the people who are angry about the NEX store could give a about the prices of the items in the NEX store. What people are concerned about are the following The possibility of the NEX moving beyond "Vanity" items to stuff that provide actual game play advantage by bypassing game mechanics. The fact that development of the NEX store and content for it is taking resources away from other aspects of the game that need development resources, CCP has admitted that the art department is the major bottleneck for developing other game content and guess who's doing most the work for the NEX store? There is a concern that focus on the NEX store as a revenue generator will detract from future content that woudl be available for subscribers. Most the people who are angry about the NEX store could give a about the prices of the ing monocle, we weren't planning on buying any of that anyway so they could charge $1000 for the damned thing as far as we are concerned. People are angry that actual functionality was removed from the game and they were forced to either use the buggy poorly optimized resource hogging excuse for walking in station that seemingly only exists as a show place for items from said nexus store or stare at a static picture of the **ing door. This despite original assurances that the captain's quarters would be entirely optional and that people could choose whether to disembark from their ships or not. So while we're busy constructing strawmen just how much is CCP paying you to shill for them?
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 14:10:00 - [16] Edited by: Skex Relbore on 01/09/2011 14:12:13 Originally by: Forum Worrier Most people don't mind the Nex store, only the vocal minority are affronted enough to come to the forums to complain. I like using phrase like most people to support my own opinions. Note the qualifiers in the statement, I didn't say most people because unlike the OP I don't claim to know what most people believe, Which is why I said "most of the people who are angry about the NEX store" rather than simply most people. Quote: Even dropped the most people, now you're speaking for everyone. Context look it up. It should be understood in context that I'm talking about the subgroup I qualified earlier. It would be redundant (not to mention wasteful of my 5k characters to Quote: I'm worried about the possibility of China taking over the world and making me work in a sweatshop. I'm not losing any sleep over it though. Yeah because we're all red eyed from sleep exhaustion over this issue. No I'm not losing any sleep over it either. Quote: Yep, copying the model used for the LP store and releasing a few articles of clothing a month is using sooooo many resources. Apparently it is since it seems that's the only thing the art department is releasing. Also regardless of how much time it's taking it's still taking resources that many people would rather see used for more useful content. Also remember any money spent on resources to build the damned NEX store is money that wasn't spent developing content for the rest of the game. Quote: Most the people who are angry about the NEX store could give a ** about the prices of the ing monocle, we weren't planning on buying any of that anyway so they could charge $1000 for the damned thing as far as we are concerned. There's that most people again. I would like to see some statistics to back up this claim please. Once again look at the qualifier. I don't know what the statistics are anymore than you do, What I do know is that from the people I know in the game precisely one person likes the idea of MT and not one person is happy with the state of the CQ or losing the functionality that the old hanger view provided. Quote: Forgot the most people again pal. No functionality was removed. You can still achieve everything now that you could before, maybe using a different method. I prefer to use hotkeys over right clicking a ship and using a drop down menu. Seems a little bit quicker and more efficient to me. Way to ignore the whole purpose of CQ. Yeah I can see how a Carebear who might only have 3-4 ships in their hanger might not understand that this is a loss of functionality. My hanger has over 100 ships in it it's not automatically obvious which one I'm in from a glance. So no it's not more convenient. Then there is the massive performance issues involved with the CQ, not only is it pathetic to be the results of half a decade of work it's a bloated poorly optimized bit of code that should barely qualify for Beta status. In fact I actually like the idea in concept I think station environments will be good for the game, But forcing people to chose between loading this bloated piece of crap or getting anything close to acceptable performance pretty much ensured that pretty damned near everyone is disabling station environments. If they'd went with the original plan of a disembark button people would be able to keep the option of using the CQ or keeping decent performance. Which would have been a smart bit of functionality to provide when you are releasing beta code to a live environment. Quote:** So while we're busy constructing strawmen just how much is CCP paying you to shill for them? So witty. Yet probably true.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 14:46:00 - [17] Originally by: Mokanor Lenak <snip more stupid> The issue is a matter of trust and yes it is about Micro-transactions or at least P2W I suppose since technically it's hard to call CCP's implementation "Micro". Keep spinning your strawman though, I'm all for WIS and adding a station environment to the game, I actually think it is a good thing and should make the game more accessible to people who have some psychological need for an actual human avatar. Not to mention the fact that it will actually help the social aspect of the game to have a place where one can interact with other players in an environment where people don't have to constantly be prepared for surprise PVP. A case can be made that the CQ is a stepping stone to WIS this is not the case for the NEX, WIS can exist perfectly fine sans NEX the reverse is not really true. The impression I get is that the CQ was pushed out half baked simply to provide an excuse for wedging the companies foot in the MT P2W door with the NEX store. Oh yeah and it's quite rich to get this Quote: You might actually see people who killed you in space in a cantina inside a station and hide under the table in fear, but its something else entirely. From a posting alt take a look at my killboard nitwit I'm no frightened little carebear afraid of a little pew pew, PVP is the main reason I play the frigging game. Believe me if people trusted CCP to stick to Vanity only there wouldn't be a huge issue here. The problem is that CCP blew their credibility when they reversed themselves their assurance that they weren't going to implement a cash shop in EVE. We also know that they've already considered pay for advantage when they floated the idea of Plex for neural remaps. You have to ignore a whole hell of alot of context and evidence to take CCP at their word at this point. I'll grant Mendolus this much though, he's correct in stating that we're pretty much just ****ing in the wind here. CCP is going to do what they are going to do regardless of player reaction. In part because there is a substantial portion of the population who will go along and in part because the decision makers at CCP have already made up their mind on where they want to go. The only challenge they see is how to force it down our throats in a way that doesn't lead to a mass exodus. I'm simply entertaining myself arguing about it. I'm under no illusion that I'll change anyone's mind particularly not Hilmar's. I just like tearing apart bad arguments and identifying and correcting any flaws in my own.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 15:42:00 - [18] Originally by: Forum Worrier Edited by: Forum Worrier on 01/09/2011 14:23:42 Originally by: Skex Relbore pretty damned near everyone How much is that as a percentage? I have no idea (though I suspect CCP does) but I don't know a single person in game who has station environments enabled. The added delay it causes for docking and undocking is too much of a downside for anyone who PVPs, If you run multiple accounts it's also a total no go since the performance hit it creates is enough to pretty much bring any system to it's knees if you are running more than one client at sufficient settings to actually have an avatar, and if you aren't running it at that level what's the point of running it?
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 15:56:00 - [19] Originally by: Mendolus Please list for me games (please no flash or browser games) that are designed in large part (performance wise) with the intent that a single player will run two clients at once on a single machine, insofar as the company actually benchmark tests two clients at once on the industry standards and hires QA firms to test their clients not only in a singleton environment, but a multiple environment? Irrelevant, The fact is that EVE is a game that many people multi-client and the CQ simply isn't workable in that situation. Additionally the poor performance doesn't simply affect multi-client users but pretty damned near everyone. If you PVP the degradation in performance the CQ causes is simply unacceptable hence why no one I know has it enabled.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 17:30:00 - [20] Originally by: Mendolus <snip irrelevant rant> I never argued that they should or shouldn't optimize the client for multi-session use, I simply said that many people do multi-box and since the new client can't do so with acceptable performance those people have disabled the station environment. All your arguments about what programmer does what are immaterial to the point. I also understand that older computers are going to have problems and that at some point a developer has to abandon legacy support to remain relevant. Once again that is irrelevant. I don't know what the specs on your rig are but I know mine has unacceptable performance with the CQ running, it's almost tolerable when I'm only running a single client but it's still laggier than with the CQ disabled (interesting that simply having the station environment enabled is detrimental to performance when you aren't in a station). I don't know what your activities in EVE are but for what I do having the CQ enabled is a non-starter. The same goes for the people I've spoke with on the issue in corp. There is a reason why "the door" is a running joke nowadays, you know. The worst of it however is just how underwhelming the results are, Despite having the most resource intensive engine in all of PC gaming we end up with a station envirnment that for the msot part could have been lifted out of Half-life. Don't get me started with the movement controls and quite possibly the worse camera control I've ever seen. I mean really it took them 5 years to come out with this crap? Sony had better controls 11 years ago. I mean no strafe no free movement camera you can't even get a straight on view of your character. Seriously they need to go take a look at Everquest and check the camera and movement controls there (yes including the 1st person perspective which is what really makes a game immersive.)" or any of a bazion FPS's in existence. All this points to half arsed untested content that was rushed out the door to in order to support the NEX. There is no other rational for pushing such unpolished crap to a live environment. Incarna was the most anticipated addition to EVE since pretty much the day it was released, one would have thought that CCP would have wanted it to be as polished and ready as possible, How many times did we hear they'd finish it when it was finshed and didn't want to push some half baked crap out just to do it. Yet here they go pushing this buggy, poorly optimized crap down our throats. It would have been understandable if they'd been able to separate the CQ from the rest of the client and just let people load it when they wanted using a DISEMBARK button it could have been released as a teaser and shrinkwrap beta for a real Incarna expansion. Plus we know it wasn't a technical issue the original demonstrations of Incarna had that disembark button so they had to actually do more work to remove it. As such it's obviously (and they've explicitly stated) their intention to force people into the CQ environment come hell or high water. One can't help but be suspicious of their motives particularly since it was released in conjunction with the cash shop. Oh and on that irrelevant question about what developer programs and tests a program for multi-client use, if any should it's EVE considering how dependent CCP is on people paying for multiple accounts. As witnessed by the hasty addition of the door while they optimize for multi-client use.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 18:27:00 - [21] Originally by: Mendolus Originally by: Skex Relbore Lots of opinions, few facts. You didn't my question, were you around for the Classic Client? How many threads do you see about the Classic Client these days? Your questions are irrelevant. My original assertion was that I don't know anyone personally who has the station environment enabled and I explained why. What CCP supports what developers test for what happened with the move to the classic client etc etc, are all red herrings. I stated an observed fact, No one I know uses the CQ; I explained why, Performance issues. None of your arguments have any bearing what so ever on that fact. The people I know aren't using the CQ because it's a poorly optimized bit of bloatware that offers them no functionality they want and creates problems they aren't interested in dealing with.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 19:15:00 - [22] Originally by: Black Dranzer If you guys hate it so much, you need to quit. That's not the usual smarmy "herp derp you wouldn't have the guts can I have your stuff" advice, that's actual genuine advice. Companies need to be held accountable for their bull**, and the only way to do such a thing is to cancel your subscription. If you're not willing to stop giving CCP money (and PLEX DOES count as giving them your money) then your complaints are meaningless, because as far as CCP is concerned, a paying customer is a happy customer. Feel free to talk about CCP while your account expires, but still. To be perfectly frank I hope that I'm wrong about the path CCP is intending to take. I hope that the people like Mendolus are right and I'm wrong, because frankly I do like the game. In fact most of the people who are angry/concerned/whatever over the changes feel that way because they like the game, If they hated it they would have simply cancelled their accounts and found some other hobby. I'm a relative newcomer to the game, still I've got just over 2 years invested in this game, which isn't something I'm ready to just toss out; I still enjoy logging in and playing, and I still have plans of things I'd like to do in the long run. I actually did cancel my account and I'm currently debating what I'm going to do when it finally expires later this month. Most likely as long as no P2W stuff is introduced I'll renew it. I canceled mostly to send the message to CCP that yes I'm serious when I say I don't want P2W in this game. Now I can't speak for everyone but I suspect many in the "no MT" camp as it were feel the same, hell many of the people (such as Mendolus for example)who think I'm being premature in my judgement are also opposed to MT. I mostly get involved in these debates because quite frankly I enjoy arguing on the Internets, I'm in a similar situation and frankly mindset as my worthy opponent Mendolus on this matter. I don't really think anything I say on this forum will make all that much difference ultimately in what CCP does. Either they are sincere in their claim that they don't want to introduce P2W or they aren't. Time will tell. Hell these forum will be relegated to archived obscurity soon anyway so we'll have to fight all these fights all over again when the new forums go live (assuming they don't get yanked instantly again) One thing though is that I'm pretty firmly convinced that there are some paid PR shills here pushing the "MT is good" idea to soften the ground for more P2W creep. That's pretty much boilerplate PR practice nowadays. So it's not surprising. As one poster pointed out it is somewhat telling that CCP hired a PR firm and now we get all these pro-MT threads popping up with poor arguments and utter representations of why people oppose P2W. And I don't like leaving such nonsense unanswered. Silly ** like "people are mad about the prices because they're poor" While I'm sure there are some nitwits out there mad about that the most common sentiment is concern over P2W and the potential affects the Cash shop could have on developer priorities and resource allocation since bean counters, executives and investors like things that have tangible quantifiable financial returns over those that are intangible and difficult to quantify though potentially more valuable. There is also the concern about the potential affects that such MT could have on the in game economy. But hatred of the game or even CCP is not a part of the motivation.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.01 19:56:00 - [23] Originally by: Mendolus ... Hmm you don't run CQ because you multi-client interestingly enough this is one of the reasons I gave that people don't multi-client this is your argument? I never claimed to have any kind of statistic or special knowledge in fact I quite specifically stated that I don't and that my information is limited to anecdotal evidence of my personal interactions with people playing the game. CCP has this information and I'd be interested to see it but I'm not holding my breath since I suspect it won't reflect favorably on the CQ. As far as your sticking to your irrelevant arguments stop putting words in my mouth I'm not your strawman. Point where I've said the client is destroying anyone's hardware? I don't know if it is or not. I know there is a lot of ignorance on both sides of that debate both from the people who think CQ is destroying their hardware and those claiming it isn't. Poorly written software can indeed push computer components past their performance capabilities and damage hardware anyone who says otherwise is just parroting nonsense. Electromigration alone will cause problems with components that are consistently pushed to their thermal limits. Pushing a component to it's limit will shorten that components life. Is that happening here? I don't know it's unlikely that problems of the magnitude people are claiming would have manifested unless the part was already fairly degraded to begin with. There are reasons that we call stress testing stress testing after all. It's like sticking your car on a dyno sure it will probably be ok but it's possible that pushing your motor to it's limits is going to cause a catastrophic failure. Most electronic components have imperfections in their manufacture that lead to failure under sufficient stress it's why warranties exist in the first frigging place. As to performance my experience has not matched your own. I've found the CQ to be ok when run in single client mode but there is a performance degradation, not enough to cause a problem when engaged in PVE but significant when engaging in PVP. As such I leave the CQ off. Different people will obviously have different experiences depending on what they are doing, just like the folks who don't understand that it's a damned site harder to interact with the ship you are in when you have to look through 100 ships in your hanger compared compared to 3-4, or those who don't understand why I'm actually more ****ed about the 50 fit limit to saved fittings in the fitting management tool and the removal of it's ability to fit rigs than I am about the NEX. In fact the real thing that set me off about the Fearless document was the fact that even though they'd been ignoring the complaints about that change they not only were aware of the issue but were considering charging us to get that functionality back. Of course no one from CCP has yet to address that issue and I long since passed 50 saved fits even after having to start from scratch (there was no way I could figure out which of the 180 fits I had previous to the nerf were which) And yeah I understand that eventually CCP will probably get the performance issues straightened out probably even to the point where multi-boxing is possible again but none of this changes the basic fact that I don't know anyone who leaves the station environment enabled. Including by your own admission, yourself.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.