These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Wait Hellmar what?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#21 - 2011-10-06 00:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ong
Heh most of you retards seem to have read a blog that was mostly bs and saying "im sorry I was wrong" "but we might do pay to win anyway" and started sucking Hellmar 's man sausage.

Please do try to remember why pay to win is bad any why people rages/unsubbed/protested.

Then post again ty
Jita Alt666
#22 - 2011-10-06 00:37:35 UTC
My reading between the lines:

We understand just how much you guys dislike MT. Every one else is doing it. We don't plan on doing it. But hey if we look like we will go broke, or our market share is getting snuffed by a better game, we want to keep the door open so we can implement them.
Mai Kusoni
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2011-10-06 00:41:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mai Kusoni
Well if they are losing money then what would the alternative be? Close up shop? Maybe charge a subscription for these forums? I'm sure many would pay Roll
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#24 - 2011-10-06 00:44:33 UTC
Mai Kusoni wrote:
Wll if they are losing money then what would the alternative be? Close up shop? Maybe charge a subscription for these forums? I'm sure many would pay Roll



Increase subscription, stop developing stupid games on the funds eve bring in and should be spent on the further development of their flagship game maybe?
Mai Kusoni
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2011-10-06 00:50:05 UTC
Ong wrote:
Mai Kusoni wrote:
Wll if they are losing money then what would the alternative be? Close up shop? Maybe charge a subscription for these forums? I'm sure many would pay Roll



Increase subscription, stop developing stupid games on the funds eve bring in and should be spent on the further development of their flagship game maybe?


And you know for certain that EVE subscriptions are being used to fund WoD, not investors? And you really think it is fair to dictate that an MMO company not use it's revenue to develope new games? Better cancel Guild Wars 2, Star Wars TOR, Diablo 3, EQ Next, etc etc etc.
Amonestos
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2011-10-06 00:57:39 UTC
Mai Kusoni wrote:
Ong wrote:
Mai Kusoni wrote:
Wll if they are losing money then what would the alternative be? Close up shop? Maybe charge a subscription for these forums? I'm sure many would pay Roll



Increase subscription, stop developing stupid games on the funds eve bring in and should be spent on the further development of their flagship game maybe?


And you know for certain that EVE subscriptions are being used to fund WoD, not investors? And you really think it is fair to dictate that an MMO company not use it's revenue to develope new games? Better cancel Guild Wars 2, Star Wars TOR, Diablo 3, EQ Next, etc etc etc.


Yeah seriously. These people who complain about assertions regarding where "their" money goes are beyond ignorant. Let's just close down every Jack in the Box, chain store, cancel all sequels and tell all music artists they must continually reinvent their first major single and not come out with new music. Seriously people, are you even half educated?
Darth Skorpius
352 Industries
#27 - 2011-10-06 01:04:24 UTC
Ong wrote:
Removing subscription from the game would mean that they have to make a metric **** ton of money from microtransactions. The only way other games have done this is by doing pay to win.

What Hellmar is saying is that if the industry mostly goes that way (which it is) ccp will also do this. Which is what all the forum hurf durf and protests were about.


im completely forgot that turbine has starting offering lvl capped characters in thier ingame cash store and that you can buy the best gear possible with rl cash.

oh thats right, they dont offer either of those. and yet their revenue from lotro has increased by something like 400% since the introduction of a cash store. f2p and cash stores do NOT mean pay 2 win, turbine has proven you can make a shitload of money from selling virtual clothes that have a different colour pattern, so long as the prices are reasonable. and yes they offer some convienence items like travel skills but nothing that gives anyone an advantage over someone who invests time in actually playing.

ccp should take some notes from turbine, they could learn a lot about how to run the nex store

Follow my Adventures in New Eden!
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#28 - 2011-10-06 01:07:31 UTC
Of course company's invest revenue into side projects. But when more revenue is invested in these side projects then the main product there is something wrong, and the main product often pays the price.

For example which do you think Sony music spends most money on the new Beyonce album or Daddy Yankee album?
Mai Kusoni
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2011-10-06 01:30:30 UTC
Ong wrote:
Of course company's invest revenue into side projects. But when more revenue is invested in these side projects then the main product there is something wrong, and the main product often pays the price.

For example which do you think Sony music spends most money on the new Beyonce album or Daddy Yankee album?





How do you know more money was invested in side projects? Do you have proof of this or is it pessimistic speculation. As far as I can tell from previous posts awhile back, CCP did take out at least one large loan for this.
Jita Alt666
#30 - 2011-10-06 01:41:44 UTC
Ong wrote:
Of course company's invest revenue into side projects. But when more revenue is invested in these side projects then the main product there is something wrong, and the main product often pays the price.

For example which do you think Sony music spends most money on the new Beyonce album or Daddy Yankee album?






And as far as CCP are concerned which is the main and which is the side? CCP may not be thinking what you are thinking.
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#31 - 2011-10-06 01:55:26 UTC  |  Edited by: EVE Stig
Mr Epeen wrote:
Ong wrote:
Removing subscription from the game would mean that they have to make a metric **** ton of money from microtransactions. The only way other games have done this is by doing pay to win.



These forums are bad enough as it is.

Stop making **** up. Someone might actually take you seriously.

Mr Epeen Cool


yeah cause DDO doesnt have anything like that oh no wait
well Star Trek Online, theyre going free to play, they dont have ships in their store that you cant get in game... oh damn... OK well they surely dont have time based skill boosters that make you level faster... oh damn again

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Apparently the only acceptable statements from CEO's are concrete promises that can never be violated under any circumstances.

And why not? It's completely reasonable to expect all corporations to be able to predict the future, tell you exactly what will work and what won't, promise their customers a blanket course of action irregardless of changing external factors, and than deliver their products on time, in exactly the form customers demand, at their price point, and still beat their competition.

How dare you admit the possibility of changing your plans, Hellmar, how dare you. :-P


Oh yes, totally, they should have "stayed the course"

Mai Kusoni wrote:
Well if they are losing money then what would the alternative be? Close up shop? Maybe charge a subscription for these forums? I'm sure many would pay Roll


lol there are non official EVE forums that you have to pay to post on it wouldnt be as impossible as you think

"Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2011-10-06 02:02:03 UTC
Ong wrote:
Sorry did I read between the lines and take theses quotes from Hellmar's blog correctly?

"Unless the MMO business changes radically, our virtual goods strategy for EVE Online will remain limited in scope and focus on vanity items"

"Though the introduction was clearly flawed, our plans for virtual goods are intended to make your playing experience better, not to disrupt it. From a strategic perspective, we had to take these first steps because monthly subscriptions are increasingly becoming a thing of the past"

I take from these that right now you wont, but in the future you might do 'pay to win'

And I'm meant to be grateful and applaud Ugh


It's the closest you are going to get to what you want to hear.

There are a few ways you can interpret that sentence:

1) EVE will never be "pay to win" so long as EVE's subscribers are willing and able to support EVE's development
2) EVE will never be "pay to win" so long as EVE's community is opposed to it.
3) EVE will never be "pay to win" so long as the industry considers "pay to win" to be a poor business decision (which it is).
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#33 - 2011-10-06 02:05:27 UTC
Taedrin wrote:

3) EVE will never be "pay to win" so long as the industry considers "pay to win" to be a poor business decision (which it is).


I wasnt aware the industry in fact thought that for all the FTP or going FTP games that I know that have XP boosters and in game affecting items that have done better after they put that in than they did before (DDO for example)

"Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Taiwanistan
#34 - 2011-10-06 03:04:49 UTC
i read the letter, somewhat appeased unfortunately close but no cigar
you need to pull the plug on incarna, put it down like a sick dog, shoot the lamed horse in the head
incarna will "never hit it's stride" it's worthless
in short, you need to abandon this "feature" aint like it's never been done before

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."
Ramacliv
Ramacliv's IRA
#35 - 2011-10-06 03:05:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramacliv
I read the same lines and my immediate reaction was much the same as the OP. In one line he says we have no plans for anything but vanity items unless the industry undergoes drastic changes. However unquoted here was the scary part where he says the industry is changing from subscription based games. So in one place you give us what will cause you to change what is the current plan and then say later on that those conditions are close to being met???

Funny thing is I can no longer find the original of this document. I am still looking for it and when I do I will edit it and add the quote.

Found it and please read all of this I bolded the parts that make me concerned.
"
We also didn’t do enough to assure you that this wasn’t the beginning of a “pay to win” scenario in EVE. Let me be blunt: Unless the MMO business changes radically, our virtual goods strategy for EVE Online will remain limited in scope and focus on vanity items, or as we said after the CSM visit this summer: The investment of money in EVE should not give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time.

Though the introduction was clearly flawed, our plans for virtual goods are intended to make your playing experience better, not to disrupt it. From a strategic perspective, we had to take these first steps because monthly subscriptions are increasingly becoming a thing of the past. The culture of online gaming is changing, just as the notion of digital ownership did with music. If we don’t evolve our technology, our game design and our revenue model, then we risk obsolescence, and we just can’t allow that to happen to EVE or to our community."
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2011-10-06 04:10:04 UTC
uh basically if it becomes impossible to support the game via subscriptions they will go pay to win, just like LOTRO and all the other MMO's that started to fail, then they went pay 2 win
KaarBaak
Squirrel Team
#37 - 2011-10-06 04:13:31 UTC
mkint wrote:
Look at it like this... If CCP ever decides to go P2W, EVE probably won't be recognizable as it is today. And it DEFINITELY won't after.


If you were to get Mr. Peabody's WABAC machine and take some screenshots of EvE in it's current form back to 2003/2004 you'll find that EvE of today would not be recognizable to those players.

MMOs have to evolve to survive. Part of that evolution appears to be the payment system.

Evolve or die.

Dum Spiro Spero
Trainwreck McGee
Doomheim
#38 - 2011-10-06 04:46:23 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
This is called selective copy pasting and creating rumours out of thin air :)


Out of thin air??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA


wait wait lets me catch my breadth......

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

cough cough cough

HAHAHA HAH HAH HA HE HEEEE he heh ................

O **** your serious

O_O

CCP Trainwreck - Weekend Custodial Engineer / CCP Necrogoats foot stool
Jonni Favorite
Red Slice Enterprise
#39 - 2011-10-06 05:03:42 UTC
non judgement wrote:
It would be nice to be able to play without paying CCP. They could get money from other sources.


Yeah like the Salvation Army! I hear they fund MMO addicts before homeless people.. Shocked
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2011-10-06 05:12:56 UTC
Forum idiots being paranoid and bitter in a complete non-shocker.

I've said this before, if you do not like CCP or EVE, do us all a favor and quit silently. I don't need to hear your jibber-jabber about how much you think this game sucks.

Ronald Reagan: I do not like Sweden, they support communism. Minister: Sir, but Sweden are anti-communist, Sir.  Ronald Reagan: I do not care what kind of communists they are.