Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
corban5
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 11:47:00 -
[391]
/signed
|
Operator alpha
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 11:48:00 -
[392]
/signed
|
Besrezen Kantos
Trade Guild Inperium
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 11:50:00 -
[393]
/signed
|
JIauk
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 11:59:00 -
[394]
/signed
|
Voltmodder
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:04:00 -
[395]
/signed
|
Vitalik vin
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:09:00 -
[396]
/signed
|
LordDagon
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:16:00 -
[397]
+1
|
DrHolliday
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:26:00 -
[398]
/signed
|
MaKuNoS
Tyumen To4ka Ru United Legion
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:28:00 -
[399]
/signed
Give 30 and 90 days back
|
Grarr Dexx
Naval Protection Corp Carpe Universitas
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:44:00 -
[400]
I agree here!
|
|
Vitalik vin
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:49:00 -
[401]
+1
|
Dirk Fallows
Galley-la
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:54:00 -
[402]
/signed -- Ceterum censeo reinforcements needs to stop shooting drones. |
Ethaet
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:55:00 -
[403]
Edited by: Ethaet on 24/05/2008 12:56:00 /signed -------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature. There you go. Now that wasn't so hard |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:56:00 -
[404]
1. I believe that having 30-, 60-, and 90-day cards makes sense logically. The 50- and 100-day cards less so.
2. The price of being a player in EVE will, of necessity, change over time and the costs of different forms of making that payment will have different overhead costs for CCP as the provider which, not unreasonably, they may need to pass on to those people using that specific method of payment in order to not cross-subsidise one method by penalising another.
3. The pricing and availability of GTCs is very much an OOG financial and PR decision for CCP and does not, I believe, fall within the remit of the CSM who are tasked with looking at ingame issues. This is not to say that I, as a member of the CSM, do not take an interest in the outcome of this topic.
IZ For self, not on behalf of the CSM
|
Reatu Krentor
Void Spiders Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:59:00 -
[405]
I'm sure many people won't be happy about this change, it doesn't just affect people buying GTC's and playing by using them, because CCP has taken up a leading position in how to deal with "gold-sellers" by allowing players to buy GTC and sell them for ingame currency. I believe many people play this game through this method, even possibly paying for 2-3 extra accounts on top(myself included). If the ingame price per 30 days increases I might be unable to afford to continue in this manner.
60 day GTC being the "industry standard" just because Blizzard has this truly baffles me, not to mention it baffles me more so that CCP actually intends to follow a standard. Eve(and CCP) wouldn't be where it is today if it had done that in the past!
-- stuff -- |
Shaddy
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 13:14:00 -
[406]
Signed
|
Tweakalvos
TalCorp Enterprises Einherjar Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 13:17:00 -
[407]
/signed i mean come on now why not tell your customers before u do things. i mean even the movie theater amc said they were raisen prices on concessions. before they did soemtin like this and limiting options for the players. is bad business.not seen many other companies that do mmos limit options that drastic. heck lord of the rings made bigger options aside from the 60 day time code they let u have it for life and pay only 10 bucks a month wit a long term spread. in the end someone has to pay to play your game ccp. and if cuttin the numbers on your server to alieviate lag like this is the way to go u just killed your loyal fans right there.
|
Ako
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 13:22:00 -
[408]
/signed
|
Iuris Proeliator
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 13:28:00 -
[409]
I respectfully disagree with the sentiment entirely. Something to realize, folks.
Up until now, the 90 day GTC have cost the exact same as the subscription cost, and this is the case for most companies.
However, keep in mind that with a GTC, a company is, inherently, losing some of the profit they could be making, compared to an ordinary subscription. The reasons include, but are not limited to: Design and manufacture cost of the card itself, design and manufacture cost of the box it comes in. Shipping costs, the extra work involved with dealing with retailers, and the fact that if they retail for the same price as 3 months subscription, that is AFTER the retailer has put their mark up on the product. And retail mark ups are often a surprising portion of the cost of a product, to those who don't realize it.
Think about it. A retailer has to buy a product, then pay for: Store, website, employees, inventory management, etc BEFORE it can sell the product. So, all that cost comes out of the profit from each sale. And once a product is in the retail store, that typically means that the developer/publisher/manufacturer has already been paid for that product.
This means that a retailer buys the product straight from the manufacturer, then they mark up the price to include their cost.
So, if CCP is making $39 for a 3-month subscription, that is going STRAIGHT to them. If CCP has a card on the retail market for $39, that means they're likely only getting about HALF of that when it's sold to the retailer.
And before I hear "Well then, why don't they offer the cards directly and then they can cut out the retail cost!" Go ahead, try that, and see how the retailers react.
Not long ago, I had the privilege of attending the Sony Online Entertainment Fan Faire (That's the EQ folks, for those who are unfamiliar) and I got to listen to a lot of seminars they held. One was preceded by a quick Q&A with the SOE CFO, and one of the things discussed was prices, particularly online prices versus retail prices, and why online prices can't be significantly cheaper. Simply put, retailers won't allow it for the PC market, because they know the PC market, for now, needs them. So, the ball is in the retailers court, really, for the moment, which affects decisions like this one from CCP. I don't know about our Euro players, but the retail PC market in the US is dismal. Companies have to beg, borrow, and steal to get their PC games displayed and sold prominently in game stores, who have taken to half-ignoring the PC game market, since they can't put it into their "Sell, buy used at low price, sell used at mid-price" model.
Now, for those who will bring up online distribution, yes, this kind of thing is EXACTLY what's pushing the digital distribution model that is starting to gain headway in PC game sales. But that model, despite Valve's Steam program, is not quite there yet. It needs more time to develop and mature. With retailers acting as they do, it is no shock that companies like CCP have deals with Valve for digital distribution, but it hasn't gotten to the point where it's given them leverage with retailers yet.
Give it some time, and you'll begin to see the effects of that leverage, but until then, CCP has to play the market game, the same as just about everyone else. This step they are taking, with GTC's costing more than base subscription, is something the MMO market SHOULD HAVE done ages ago. I fully support them in this decision.
|
Greenbolt
Un4seen Development
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 13:45:00 -
[410]
2 thoughts and a bit more warning would be nice.
i dont mind the price increase if thats what has to be done.. but i dont like removing options of having different amounts.
/signed
(For those who say just go play wow...well..CCP is looking at wow for business models..this isnt the best sign (battlegrounds cloneish too) --------------------------------------------------- Scordite -Who was it that said that flying minmatar is kinda like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair while firing an uzi? |
|
area51
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 14:59:00 -
[411]
Edited by: area51 on 24/05/2008 14:59:32 /signed
I do not mind if they increase the price, ADD 60d but KEEP 30d and 90d.
|
BOSSMAN69
E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 15:09:00 -
[412]
Signed
Victories are only possible if there is combat
Combat is only possible if there is WAR
|
Max Calimaris
Max Calimaris Holding Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 15:21:00 -
[413]
/signed
When this goes ahead will existing, purchased but unused GTCs become invalid?
|
Ribijk
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 15:25:00 -
[414]
The removal of 30 day GTC/ETC's will hurt many players who pay for the game with said methods. I support the continued sale of 30 day cards.
|
fire5tar
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 15:54:00 -
[415]
Edited by: fire5tar on 24/05/2008 15:54:18 /signed
Supported!
|
Loki Ascanteux
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 15:59:00 -
[416]
/signed |
Neb Adonis
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 16:06:00 -
[417]
/signed
please, CCP, keep 30d and 90d. if need, i can live peacefully with the price rising, but not with only one option in price list |
xKAU3EPx
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 16:59:00 -
[418]
/signed
|
Silvit
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 17:06:00 -
[419]
/signed
|
Montefiori
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 17:44:00 -
[420]
I disagree. 60 day GTC Must Die. 30 day GTC Forever.
p.s. Sorry, I speak english badly.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |