These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

News on free to play

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#81 - 2016-01-05 07:26:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Double delete.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#82 - 2016-01-05 07:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ok, we can start from that point.

Links to the literature to support your claim?

If true it shouldn't be hard to point to the research that backs it up.


Sure, start with reading a few books by Dale Carnegie (and that institute) and get back to me once you're done

So no links then?

I've read quite a bit of Carnegie already. Must say, I've never seen anything to support your claim. Which book and which passage provides evidence that the #1 motivator of all humans is to feel important?

Any credible evidence (eg. Anything in a peer-reviewed journal, any research study)? If it's true, there must be plenty of evidence to support it, in which case it will be easy to link.
Sub Decay
Doomheim
#83 - 2016-01-05 10:53:00 UTC
Someone give Remiel a hug.
Solecist Project
#84 - 2016-01-05 11:05:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ok, we can start from that point.

Links to the literature to support your claim?

If true it shouldn't be hard to point to the research that backs it up.


Sure, start with reading a few books by Dale Carnegie (and that institute) and get back to me once you're done

So no links then?

I've read quite a bit of Carnegie already. Must say, I've never seen anything to support your claim. Which book and which passage provides evidence that the #1 motivator of all humans is to feel important?

Any credible evidence (eg. Anything in a peer-reviewed journal, any research study)? If it's true, there must be plenty of evidence to support it, in which case it will be easy to link.

I haven't read his post, but it's not completely off.

I ask you to spend a day watching ads and thinking about the meta.

Marketing attempts to reach people who feel incomplete and need things to feel better about themselves. They sell you IDENTITY! Children grow up in social environments that make them believe that, to be someone, you have to own something. What do you think why f2p games sell stuff that make you better than the rest? Why do you think does even CCP sell us stuff that does nothing else but helping people to "individualise" (aka promoting your identity) ? Why are there people out there who believe that wearing Nike, Puma, Adidas, Prada, etc makes them better than others?

Why do people boost their killboards by station hugging, killing easy prey?
Why do people uselessly buy officer mods for their mission ships?
Why do people care about evergrowing their wallets?

It's not wrong per se, but people as a whole aren't degenerated enough yet that it applies to everyone.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2016-01-05 13:26:36 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Aradrox Jinn wrote:


Now your being nationalist..... not all Americans are fat nor am i...


True enough. Only about 30% of your kids (We're number 1 *fist bump*) and 70% of adults (Woot! number 1 again).

Mr Epeen Cool


Funny the middle east is considerably more overweight than Americans. One of many studies on the subject


Socialist it's a gross overcomplification of the issue to say they sell an identity. That's honestly just marketing post level justification for a marketing trend. I will challenge any study that claims human behavior revolves around "easy". Opportunity yes easy no.

Even with your examples..
Why do people scramble to kill a titan? It's often like getting a pack of spear wielding barbarians to kill a mammoth. The prize is worth the risk. Opportunity > Ease.

There is no social degeneration. There is the product of social and cultural experiences applied to our youth. The "degeneration" we see is a product of several "popular" social choices that have had unintended consequences. Like free access to google reducing general levels of competency and memory recall. Things like childhood tablet usage reducing motor coordination and manipulation(this ones newish though we could have told you that years ago). Finally even things like facebook devaluing and commercializing friendships leading to imbalanced social norms.
Bluntly.. we became bad parents.. so we get a bad generation of children.
Note: That's not a knock on personal parenting. It's just a mark of social and cultural shifts yielding a result. Personal parenting can still be top notch and your child will still have some or all of these issues due to the simple truth that society raises our children more and more these days.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#86 - 2016-01-05 14:05:35 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Welcome to capitalism. It kind of sucks when you look at it but we haven't found a better system yet so we keep on trucking with that one.


Capitalism works because of the other person's greed. Sure one gaming company might want to squeeze every last dollar out of their customer base, but greed is also what keeps the team of five friends working until 1am on nights and weekends to make the next biggest game.

Working the job I do, I have spent a lot of time around companies pushing to get investment money. Most of them in the gaming space are in their mid 20's and convinced if they work 90 hour weeks making this game in their free time, they will one day be the next world of warcraft. Without greed, most of those developers wouldn't work as hard as they do.


Because there's no such thing as passion for your career, amiright?

Look mate, don't even start that crap about greed being the only motivational factor. I worked as a chef for 11 years, and I can tell you it wasn't greed that kept me in that job that long. Your pessimism does not refute the passion some games developers have for their projects, and to be honest, it's quite presumptuous of you as well, not to mention insulting.

Capitalism works because a free market economy works. That's it, no greed required. See, a greedy chef, what he does is counts his ingredients very carefully, in order to save money on stock. A chef with passion, like me, just makes sure that people are enjoying his food. And they do it for 11 years with **** pay, and not care, because people are enjoying my food. And that's what mattered to me.

I can't be the only one who goes into a business with an actual passion. Sure, you still have to make money, but that happens naturally if your product is good because you care about it.


You are not the only one who goes to work with a passion but making games now-a-day is not about passion as much as it used to be. Unless you are willing to go indie, you will need financial backing and that financial backing will come with strings attached to it. Those strings will be in the form of return on investment. The guy lending money to game devs and such don't have a passion for gaming, they have a passion for money and financing game devs is only a mean to an end. That mean the devs have to present a workable plan that will turn a profit and since nobody can really read in the future, those plans will usually align with what works right now. That mean F2P with cash shops. Limiting games like that is just removing one financing scheme that was acceptable to those who could provide the seed money to work on a game. Devs will have to find other way to convince fat cat to lend them money or go indie/early access and hope they can get a product ready in time before the funds go dry.

The real decision makers are not in the industry for the industry itself anymore.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2016-01-05 14:10:48 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The real decision makers are not in the industry for the industry itself anymore.


I know, we see that clear as day with EA, Activision, et al. But are we seeing that with EVE? I don't think so. One need only spend time getting to know and understand the devs here to understand their passion for this game, it's development, and its community. That documentary reveals a lot.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#88 - 2016-01-05 14:48:50 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The real decision makers are not in the industry for the industry itself anymore.


I know, we see that clear as day with EA, Activision, et al. But are we seeing that with EVE? I don't think so. One need only spend time getting to know and understand the devs here to understand their passion for this game, it's development, and its community. That documentary reveals a lot.


The devs at EA, activision et al could have the same passion but you would never know because they are not decision makers. Depending what you passion is, you can still be able to live it even if you are in a broken industry. If the guys at EA working on the battlefield serie for example have a passion of pushing the limits of FPS, then working at EA gives them a shot at it because the money is there to push the envelope while going indie would make this endeavor an absolute impossibility. Of course, it means working for a company that release season pass, unlock shortcuts and other stuff like that but sometime, you accept some stuff you might not like because you want to work on something that isn't really available elsewhere.

Everything at CCP is still in the hand of the guy who control the check book at the end of the day. If the devs have to be praised for one thing on this subject, it how they probably demonstrated that staying on the current course is good because at the end of the day, the final decision is taken at a higher level. They can work their ass off to lead the decision maker away from that train of though but they can't say "NO" by themself.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#89 - 2016-01-05 15:42:58 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
People need to fulfil their fundamental needs for survival to 'feel important'?

You ever asked someone on disability, who's pretty much just fulfilling his basic needs, how important he feels? How greedy he feels?

Dale Carnegie is not an academic authority, he's a self-help 'guru'. Guys like him are a dime a dozen, and I could cite any number of people that contradict him. Without academic verification, none of their claims hold any real water. Cite something academic, even if it's just social 'science' by a communications major, if you don't mind.


Once you have actually read what I wrote, respond again champ. I addressed that already. You seem good at reading a single line out of three paragraphs of text, and ignoring the rest. Good god....
Adunh Slavy
#90 - 2016-01-05 21:00:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Capitalism works because of the other person's greed.


Non-sense. Capitalism works when transactions are voluntary. When fraud or force are involved, it is no longer voluntary and it inevitably fails.

The solution to such fraud and force is not to add more fraud and force into the picture, read government. Simply stop buying things from shysters - Evolution will handle the rest.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#91 - 2016-01-05 21:05:21 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Non-sense. Capitalism works when transactions are voluntary. When fraud or force are involved, it is no longer voluntary and it inevitably fails.

The solution to such fraud and force is not to add more fraud and force into the picture, read government. Simply stop buying things from shysters - Evolution will handle the rest.


It's obviously more complicated than we can do justice in a video game forum thread, and a degree of regulation is absolutely needed to keep unethical actions from happening, but greed is absolutely part of it.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#92 - 2016-01-05 22:46:50 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Capitalism works because of the other person's greed.


Non-sense. Capitalism works when transactions are voluntary. When fraud or force are involved, it is no longer voluntary and it inevitably fails.

The solution to such fraud and force is not to add more fraud and force into the picture, read government. Simply stop buying things from shysters - Evolution will handle the rest.

Cidanel is just applying a Socialist's view to Capitalism.

He hasn't provided any evidence, but socialists (and it's a widely held view among social economists) believe that greed is the driving factor of capitalism.

It was first proposed by Adam Smith (Scottish philosopher in the 18th century), who asserted that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.(1)

It still exists today in ethics/philosophy and it isn't hard to find academics who support the core of that view. Andrew Cohen, Assoc. Prof. at Georgia State University and Prof. Michael Sandel at Harvard criticise capitalism on the basis that "actors in market societies are motivated by greed and fear."(2)

There is a much larger group of researchers that debunk what they claim even former prominent Marxists like Samuel Bowles, Prof. Emer. at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Herbert Gintis (prominent US economist and behavioral scientist) argue the opposite:

How Markets Crowd in Morals
Giving Economists their Due

References:

(1) The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759
(2) Liberalism and the Limits of Justics, 1982

It's one of those discussion that no matter how much research is done and how much evidence is collected, it's not possible to convince them of a different view, because beliefs are difficult to change.

Way off topic of course, but this whole line of discussion that capitalism is based on greed and fear and importance is the #1 motivator of capitalism are just crazy (but that's also a limited view because I'm not a socialist).
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#93 - 2016-01-05 22:49:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Cidanel Afuran
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Cidanel is just applying a Socialist's view to Capitalism.

He hasn't provided any evidence, but socialists (and it's a widely held view among social economists) believe that greed is the driving factor of capitalism.

It was first proposed by Adam Smith (Scottish philosopher in the 18th century), who asserted that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.(1)

It still exists today in ethics/philosophy and it isn't hard to find academics who support the core of that view. Andrew Cohen, Assoc. Prof. at Georgia State University and Prof. Michael Sandel at Harvard criticise capitalism on the basis that "actors in market societies are motivated by greed and fear."(2)

There is a much larger group of researchers that debunk what they claim even former prominent Marxists like Samuel Bowles, Prof. Emer. at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Herbert Gintis (prominent US economist and behavioral scientist) argue the opposite:

How Markets Crowd in Morals
Giving Economists their Due

References:

(1) The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759
(2) Liberalism and the Limits of Justics, 1982

It's one of those discussion that no matter how much research is done and how much evidence is collected, it's not possible to convince them of a different view, because beliefs are difficult to change.

Way off topic of course, but this whole line of discussion that capitalism is based on greed and fear and importance is the #1 motivator of capitalism are just crazy (but that's also a limited view because I'm not a socialist).


No, I'm not. My first post in this thread gave my definition of greed. I explained greed to be more about purely maximizing economic gain. Little of what I am saying makes sense without first reading how I defined greed in the context of this conversation.

And no one theory purely fits my views. My formal training at a graduate level was under the chicago style of economics, but that was years ago, and real life has shifted those views somewhat. I am very far from socialistic,

Once you respond to how I originally defined greed, I will take you seriously.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#94 - 2016-01-05 22:56:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
No, I'm not. My first post in this thread gave my definition of greed. I explained greed to be more about purely maximizing economic gain. Little of what I am saying makes sense without first reading how I defined greed in the context of this conversation.

And no one theory purely fits my views. My formal training at a graduate level was under the chicago style of economics, but that was years ago, and real life has shifted those views somewhat. I am strongly libertarian, and am really the last person you would think is socialistic if you got to know me.

Once you respond to how I originally defined greed, I will take you seriously. Until then, I'm assuming you can't read.

Then link to the evidence that supports your view.

That's only the third time asked now.

On assuming I can't read, well, evidence to the contrary is right here in the thread.

*We are probably running close to breaking the forum rules on discussion of politics, religion, etc. because there is a lot of relationship between this and those types of discussions. So I'll drop it on my side now, so evemail me the evidence if you don't want to post it in the thread. It's probably extremely boring for other readers too.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#95 - 2016-01-05 23:00:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Cidanel Afuran
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Then link to the evidence that supports your view.

That's only the third time asked now.

On assuming I can't read, well, evidence to the contrary is right here in the thread.

*We are probably running close to breaking the forum rules on discussion of politics, religion, etc. because there is a lot of relationship between this and those types of discussions. So I'll drop it on my side now, so evemail me the evidence if you don't want to post it in the thread. It's probably extremely boring for other readers too.


EDIT: response deleted, we are definitely way off topic, so in an effort to not derail this thread any more (sorry OP and ISD) message sent privately
ISD Supogo
ISD BH
ISD Alliance
#96 - 2016-01-06 05:12:47 UTC
Yea this thread-train fell off the tracks awhile back. I'm sure if CCP intends EVE to ever go Free-to-Play they will doubtless let us know about it. We get plenty of other patch notes, so why would we not get something like that?

Until then, locked.

Quote:

Forum rules

7. Discussion of real life religion and politics is prohibited.

Discussion of real life religion and politics is strictly prohibited on the EVE Online forums. Discussions of this nature often creates animosity between forum users due to real life political or military conflicts. CCP promotes the growth of a gaming community where equality is at the forefront. Nationalist, religious or political affiliations are not part of EVE Online, and should not be part of discussion on the EVE Online forums.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

ISD BH Supogo

Bughunter

Equipment Certification and Anomaly Investigations Division (ECAID)

Interstellar Services Department