Originally by: Col Carter

---

Well, I should slap myself for having a read on these forums, bumping into this amazing example of product marketing and raising an eyebrow or two. And this blog is an even greater insult to intelligence.


EVE's a pretty mature game these days, one where even if some of the old crowd are gone there is a visible continuation of care for the game, and not just for the product. Over the years we have seen some amazing marketing hickups, which is normal in any company, but this is getting to a point where the trend of care is taking a nosedive.

Not so much because of the dynamics of this change, though any virtual product marketeer can name a few dozen hands on examples of the high value of nurturing product bonuses beyond the basic attributes, but because of the methods involved and the rapid succession of several other critical changes.

I've spent the last 3 weeks travelling between my own country, the UK and iceland, after having been asked to come of retirement to assist as a financial auditor and advisor, and regardless of the difference in markets and niches I am a bit shocked to observe the same schools of marketing and financial prospect management which are visible in what was once this wonderful EVE as in the recently "traditional" but oh so dangerous schools of economic thought outside of this particular virtual market.

Combined with the GTC product changes, and now tapping into the value elements of the product "EVE", it's a pretty neat case of how a school of thought can initiate a grand move in the wrong direction. Almost funny, when the GTC changes were announced I predicted folks this very change, and even though personally ghost training or its absence makes little difference to me, the manner and form of the change - once more - confirms the trend of the past 11 months.

Long term product streamlining is one thing, separating the product from the subscriber is perhaps a means of crowd control, but it is a method ill suited for long term continuation of a product where the product and the subscriber cannot be seperated from a marketing perspective.

In earlier days the same attempt to remove ghost training was made, a long time ago now. A time where it would have been possible, in contrast to these days where the bonus value elements of a virtual subscription product are so essential to make the product itself both stand out as well as keep the subscribers at an extremely low treshold to always come back.

I can see the financial prospects, such projections are not too difficult nor is the reasoning behind it. I can also see the short term view, as well as the long term view, and I think CCP is very wise to not explore those two topics too much and instead take it on in a step by step fashion.

But these and coming changes will make EVE a game among a sea of others, without the low tresholds that lets people come back, without the foundation for trust of subscribers in the product they come to adore and appreciate alike over time, and the company making that experience in the same breath.

This is hardly a change made because of a distorted view of equality or balance, providing that as an argument is an insult to the intelligence of any subscriber with a little bit of economics education I must admit. In financial terms this will not damage CCP, far from, it will be another step to a changed service model, unfortunately just not the type of service model which people value so much. But a model far more in tune with the rest of the industry, away from the EVE as it is in many, many aspects.

---