| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (142)

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 6:08PM Raikulxox said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I hope CCP comes back from this and learns there limits.

Off topic: How is he posting this when I see him on massively :O

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 6:08PM Raikulxox said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Raikulxox Remove massively, add Gamebreaker.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 7:11PM Brendan Drain said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Raikulxox Glad you caught the Gamebreaker show :D. This article took a long time to prepare, and had to be changed several times as the controversy escalated and unfolded. I stayed up all friday night to participate in the EVE Radio show with some of the CSM dudes (worth listening to, for sure) and also missed the ast day of a convention just to get this mammoth article ready in time to go live tonight!

The Gamebreaker show was actually quite good. I didn't get to talk about the leaked email much but I tried to get the main points out there without being too negative (for my own sake as much as the audience's). Talking to people who play other MMOs about it really does make it all seem less of a big deal, and their positivity in the light in the CSM emergency meeting has restored an ounce of enthusiasm to me. Just an ounce, but it's a start. Let's see how this CSM meeting goes.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 9:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Brendan Drain

There may be more to this, or at least in the details, than you have covered.

http://eve.beyondreality.se/NeXCQResponse.html

This above is an excellent write-up I think.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 9:45PM Arsinek said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Raikulxox Has it been proven theyre going to add funtional cashshop items or is it just a rumor and all the EVE fanboys are going ape shit over nothing?
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 9:56PM Raikulxox said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Arsinek I never said they were adding such =/ I'm talking about there image and trust of players. Talking about there players in the way they did in there newsletter is dampening there relationship with said customers, and paints a very bad image in the media. Your the one overreacting.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 10:23PM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Arsinek It was stated in the Fearless newsletter that some microtransactions would be ships, ammo and faction standings players could just buy outright. CCP then came out and said that Fearless was intended as a discussion of opinion and not policy or design intent. This fits in with the tone of one article in Fearless (a Q&A showing both sides of the debate).

However, Seleene (Ex-CCP and current CSM) said that the stuff written about in Fearless was usually intended to inform people inside the company as to the direction CCP is taking. That perfectly fits with the tone of the article players held exception to about selling ships etc. That article was not asking questions or divulging opinion, it was stating intent as if it were fact.

The issue is that if CCP was trying to ready its employees for the introduction of game-affecting microtransactions they would soon be in the game and there's nothing we can do. An employee leaked the document to highlight the issue publicly before that plan went into action, and the result is the best case scenario -- the CSM is now meeting with CCP to once again hammer out a plan for microtransactions in EVE that players will find acceptable. With any luck, the plans in Fearless never come to fruition.
Reply

Posted: Jun 27th 2011 8:49AM Eric Francis said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Raikulxox I also canceled my sub because of all this mess. I was already close with CCP money grabbing the release of dust without a PC component when clearly it is an eve expansion and lots of eve players would like to play it.

The worst part for me is that im not that old of an eve player, I enjoy the game, but my plan was to play it until World of Darkness releases, and then either quit or see if i still wanted/had time to play 2 MMOs at the same time.

But seeing in that leaked document that CCP had plans for power items in pay-to-win mode destroyed all my anticipation for WoD. This should at least make the september event more interesting than it would have been otherwise.

Like the OP, i do hope CCP comes to their senses, i said this many times: "Know what your playerbase is".

Tabula Rasa should have been ultima online in space, it failed.

Warhammer online was hyped as open world pvp, it was a Battlegrounds grind, it failed.

Eve online is a player-driven sandbox, insert ending here.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 6:09PM Zethe said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I am one of the many players who have cancelled there subscriptions, not because of the latest expansion(I thought it was poor, but had no problems with it) but because of this cash shop stuff. I pay a sub, that's what im willing to pay.

If a game is F2P, add a cash shop, we're fine with that...They need to make money.

If a game is P2P, don't add a cash shop. Thats just complete crap trying to get more money from the game you run. EVE players won't put up with it, and if CCP doesn't do a U-Turn they should expect a rather large decrease in subs.

Posted: Jun 27th 2011 5:48AM RavenCries said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus

As far as I can tell, when you pay for a subscription what you are actually paying for is access to *their* content (a service). You own nothing and are entitled to only what is spelled out in the agreement you signed to obtain the service (access to the game servers, future patches, that kind of thing).

Offering an item shop over and above a subscription is perfectly legitimate. Something akin to a cable company selling a brand of TVs in their stores that provide additional features when connected to their cable service. Having a subscription to their cable service doesn't entitle you to free TVs.

Now if the company deliberately alters their cable service such that the picture will be poor on a standard TV in order to sell their exclusive TVs, that's a completely different issue. Such a case when item shops start selling things that affect gameplay (better ships, ammo, etc).

Get use to having at least a rudimentary item shop in games regardless of payment structure, I doubt they are going away.
Reply

Posted: Jun 27th 2011 6:04AM Zethe said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@RavenCries

"Offering an item shop over and above a subscription is perfectly legitimate."

It's also perfectly legitimate for it's subscribers to take there business elsewhere which is what is happening here.

"Such a case when item shops start selling things that affect gameplay (better ships, ammo, etc)."

I agree on this, it's not so much the vanity stuff most people i've spoke to are annoyed with. It's the fact that they want to sell these types of items in game, and the general rubbishness of the latest expansion.

"Get use to having at least a rudimentary item shop in games regardless of payment structure, I doubt they are going away."

This i also agree on, it makes games a lot of money. But then again if customers stand up to these companys like what is happening here we can stop or atleast attempt to stop games from adding item shops into subscription games.

I'm all for vanity items in stores but charging me for a sub and then sticking a item shop in game is just insulting.
Reply

Posted: Jun 27th 2011 1:11PM RavenCries said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus

I suppose I should have clarified that you are paying for access to their service (i.e. the game servers and content as presented by the developer) when I said server access. I thought it was an obvious thing but it would appear I was mistaken.

“There are so many obvious problems with having a mandatory subscription and charging for micro-transactions that it can make your head spin. It's not right to charge for micro-transactions in a mandatory subscription game. It is probably not even legal, but nobody has ever tested that in a court of law.”

No, there aren’t any real problems with offering a service and offering other products related to that service. It happens all the time in business. E.g. a golf club membership who also rents golf clubs. A boat rental service that sells fishing gear, these do the same thing as you describe. And I am almost positive that none of that is illegal.

“If you can't use a product without a second separate purchase of time to use it then:
1) Why is the purchase of time not included with the product?
2) Why is the product a separate purchase and not included with the purchase of time?
3) Why can you even buy a product that you are not allowed to use without paying more money separately?

Is that not obviously wrong to you?!?”

No, none of that is wrong at all. Taken by itself there is nothing inherently wrong with a cash shop existing whether the game is presented as F2P or P2P. The 3 things you list are business decisions.

“Micro-transactions need to be usable offline without paying for time or at least some time must be included with them so that they can be used or there must be no subscription ever to use them.
The way micro-transactions currently are in every subscription game is just completely wrong.”

What about something like Netflix? You cannot use it offline and you need to pay for internet access in addition to purchasing time on Netflix. You are talking again of a business decision that isn’t yours to make. You may not like how other companies are doing but that doesn’t make it wrong. You do have the option not to get Netflix though. You are basically arguing that because you purchased a subscription from your ISP, Netflix should be available to you for free. Yes I realize your ISP and Netflix are a separate company but if item shops were run buy a 3rd party, would it be alright then?

“I'm not even a fan of time counting down when I'm not even using it, not costing the company any money at that moment, but having to purchase that time just to use something I paid directly for the right to use, if not the right to own, is absolutely not right with me.”

Then don’t purchase the micro-transaction item, it’s not required to play the game. What you pay for in a subscription is the game access and the game content as presented by the developer. If a developer decides that a sparkle pony is not part of the general game but a novelty item they wish to provide separately then that is their call. Your call is whether you will purchase the item or not. If you don’t, it doesn’t affect your game so you shouldn’t care.
Reply

Posted: Jun 27th 2011 1:35PM RavenCries said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus

I agree we will probably have to disagree.

My comments are not really related to the situation in Eve or it's particular version of an item shop.

I can see the point of view that is causing the problems in eve. I also don't think that is the point of view you are pushing when you are arguing against item shops in subscription games.
Reply

Posted: Jul 2nd 2011 3:40PM Vgk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus :O I actually agree with you 100% for once, microtransactions simply shouldn't exist in P2P games, like you said the sub fee should cover all the content I understand why they happen in F2P games but keep them out of our P2P games
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 6:32PM Nhoj1983 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like the worst customer service I've seen in a long time. They're basically giving the middle finger to the players and expecting them to eat it up. It's ludicrous to ask these prices in this economy or any time really... Guess I won't be stepping into eve... ever... and if this keeps up I won't touch dust either.

Micro translations are fine... when they are micro but the way they're going about this is just stupid.

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 11:11PM Fire Walk With Me said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Nhoj1983 they are a european company. there is something to read between the lines here.
Reply

Posted: Jun 27th 2011 4:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Fire Walk With Me

No, there isn't. Iceland isn't a member of the EU, so problems in Ireland, Greece etc aren't an issue.

There might be an issue with Iceland nearly going bankrupt during the GFC but that has nothing to do with them being European.

CCP need to raise extra cash to pay for continued development of Dust514 and WoD. That is quite clear to me from some of the internal leaks.
Reply

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 6:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"There are not and never have been plans to sell 'gold ammo"

Companies don't that long to respone to a issue unless it's true, so Mr. Zulu of Eve is now just a plain liar. Talk with your subscription, nice article.

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 6:41PM DeadlyAccurate said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Excellent summary.

And if anyone is curious if this is having a ripple effect, Perpetuum was completely overwhelmed by an influx of new trial players.

Posted: Jun 26th 2011 6:50PM Raikulxox said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DeadlyAccurate Sadly, the official forum of people trying Perpetuum is less than satisfied.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW