These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Does this now mean that Sony "owns" CCP?

Author
Graic Gabtar
The Lemon Party
#21 - 2012-03-29 06:46:22 UTC
Pahineh Amelana wrote:
Rather than get into a debate i'll make it simple.


The moment you click/clicked "accept" on the EULA/TOS to play this game etc, you are @ the will of CCP.

Meaning you could violate the EULA not even know it and if someone is watching / wants to do something they can & will OR won't.

It's way to complicated to try to explain or speculate. Want some insight, go create a company and deal with the general public.
Didn't really want a debate to be honest happy to hear your view.

Yes I'll accept that once you accept EULA/TOS your basically at the mercy of the service provider. Go and talk to a Steam account holder who was VAC banned because they account shared with a dodgy mate.

However, are you suggesting a bulk purge of griefers or do you expect tolerance levels to drop? Interesting to apply this to what has always been effectively a lawless game - in every way.

Why do I need to go and start a company to understand your point? Done that. I'm a majority shareholder in my own startup providing a range of web applications to the public that's been running successfully for years and I now run a architecture consultancy.

I think you are trying to be a bit mystical for no good reason. Blink
Graic Gabtar
The Lemon Party
#22 - 2012-03-29 06:48:28 UTC
Montevius Williams wrote:
Graic Gabtar wrote:
Old CCP continued a traditional drinking event where people would get up, swear and insult people.

Someone said something wrong.

New CCP organised a public lashing of that someone and have ended this event.

New CCP conveniently fails to admit any liability in mixing alcohol, egos, nastiness and webcasts.

So this is the new Sony flavoured CCP?



I guess you missed all the video game media coverage that this got
Which part? That Sony do or do not call the shots in CCP HQ now?
ShipToaster
#23 - 2012-03-29 06:50:26 UTC
Quote:
Does this now mean that Sony "owns" CCP


Only their souls.

.

Alain Kinsella
#24 - 2012-03-29 07:01:56 UTC
Graic Gabtar wrote:
Pahineh Amelana wrote:
Rather than get into a debate i'll make it simple.


The moment you click/clicked "accept" on the EULA/TOS to play this game etc, you are @ the will of CCP.

Meaning you could violate the EULA not even know it and if someone is watching / wants to do something they can & will OR won't.

It's way to complicated to try to explain or speculate. Want some insight, go create a company and deal with the general public.
Didn't really want a debate to be honest happy to hear your view.

Yes I'll accept that once you accept EULA/TOS your basically at the mercy of the service provider. Go and talk to a Steam account holder who was VAC banned because they account shared with a dodgy mate.

However, are you suggesting a bulk purge of griefers or do you expect tolerance levels to drop? Interesting to apply this to what has always been effectively a lawless game - in every way.

Why do I need to go and start a company to understand your point? Done that. I'm a majority shareholder in my own startup providing a range of web applications to the public that's been running successfully for years and I now run a architecture consultancy.

I think you are trying to be a bit mystical for no good reason. Blink


I believe the suggestion is a bulk purge, as you say. Something similar happened in Second Life a few years back, the old-timers like myself were calling it 'Disnification' (or however the hell you spell that). And yes, to some degree it worked (until those devs shot themselves in the foot, but thats a different story).

Do I agree with it? Not sure yet. I have general respect for the SA folks, since I fought them during their 'war' in SL back in '04-05. So if one does happen here, I'll likely sit it out during the opening shots. Big smile

"The Meta Game does not stop at the game. Ever."

Currently Retired / Semi-Casual (pending changes to RL concerns).

Pahineh Amelana
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-03-29 07:11:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Pahineh Amelana
Graic Gabtar wrote:
Pahineh Amelana wrote:
Rather than get into a debate i'll make it simple.


The moment you click/clicked "accept" on the EULA/TOS to play this game etc, you are @ the will of CCP.

Meaning you could violate the EULA not even know it and if someone is watching / wants to do something they can & will OR won't.

It's way to complicated to try to explain or speculate. Want some insight, go create a company and deal with the general public.
Didn't really want a debate to be honest happy to hear your view.

Yes I'll accept that once you accept EULA/TOS your basically at the mercy of the service provider. Go and talk to a Steam account holder who was VAC banned because they account shared with a dodgy mate.

However, are you suggesting a bulk purge of griefers or do you expect tolerance levels to drop? Interesting to apply this to what has always been effectively a lawless game - in every way.

Why do I need to go and start a company to understand your point? Done that. I'm a majority shareholder in my own startup providing a range of web applications to the public that's been running successfully for years and I now run a architecture consultancy.

I think you are trying to be a bit mystical for no good reason. Blink


I am not suggesting anything except the obvious, and the obvious is flexible and dependent on to many factors that I do not personally control, no one really does, not CCP, not SONY. It's just part of a natural flow.

Mysticism, no. But if you are really involved directly with a business, as in running it directly, you would know that Business in a sense, is mystical. Sometimes you might even wake up and wonder how the heck you own/run/operate a company in any regards. No offense but holding shares isn't running a business from the ground up. I hold shares, partnership contracts, government contracts, doesn't mean I run a darn thing directly from their ends, I have no idea how they run their companies, nor do I speculate, I just expect them to deliver, and ultimately get my $.

I personally know I wake up wondering that very thing. Some days you absolutely hate running your own company, some days you love it, and once you add the general public to that mix, all hell within your own little "bubble" of mentality breaks lose. I despise the public, because at the end of the day, I am the public just like everyone else, and I know what I want, I know that I don't understand how everyone runs their companies, I don't understand nor care for their rules, I just want MY product. It's a cycle. Smile

Hate CCP/SONY over enforcing, taking actions on some players? No, praise them, praise them for stepping up to the plate whether you agree or disagree.

If I was CCP however, I'd enforce my rules against anything that is a danger to my new partnerships, and profit scaling at this point, Now is the very time to do just that. This is the best excuse of any for a crackdown, and rule enforcement. Singling out certain groups isn't illegal, it's not un-ethical, it's business. Sounds funny, but that's life... I used to disagree, infact scratch that I do disagree, but it's business, it's the way of life. You can't say you accept one right and another wrong and call yourself right, you have to learn to compromise, and that's exactly what CCP should do right now, compromise.

Why? Because in this day and age, it's very rare to see. Judge their integrity all you want, in the end, it's done.
Graic Gabtar
The Lemon Party
#26 - 2012-03-29 07:23:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Graic Gabtar
Again,

Not wanting to argue the point but I think I know what you are driving at.

Yes, I have started two Companies. I only own shares in one because I got it all running set it up with other directors, employees and a years worth of booked contracts and walked away to spend time with wifey because we had baby no. 4.

And yes, we ran it down to the last dollar sometimes because "these things happened". I've lost my fair share of sleep, don't worry about that! Blink

So I think I understand what your saying from both sides. Did I sweat blood for my startup? Yes. Do I care now besides getting my dividend cheque? No. Same as any other shares.

Been through all the emotions. It's part of the reason why I did it again. 9-5 is boring.

A wild edit appears!

I have no problem with CCP having to (in their words) "grow up".

That being said, in my view the time to decide that is not AFTER you place someone on stage drunk to "be funny" and then go Corporate Suit when it turns pear shaped.

If CPP had any wang they would admit the stuff up on THEIR part as opposed to what they did.

If I invited you to a work site, provided booze then let you wander though the crowd with a nail gun who would be at fault when somebody lost an eye?

I think my point is that simple.
Pahineh Amelana
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-03-29 07:40:58 UTC
Graic Gabtar wrote:
Again,

Not wanting to argue the point but I think I know what you are driving at.

Yes, I have started two Companies. I only own shares in one because I got it all running set it up with other directors, employees and a years worth of booked contracts and walked away to spend time with wifey because we had baby no. 4.

And yes, we ran it down to the last dollar sometimes because "these things happened". I've lost my fair share of sleep, don't worry about that! Blink

So I think I understand what your saying from both sides. Did I sweat blood for my startup? Yes. Do I care now besides getting my dividend cheque? No. Same as any other shares.

Been through all the emotions. It's part of the reason why I did it again. 9-5 is boring.

A wild edit appears!

I have no problem with CCP having to (in their words) "grow up".

That being said, in my view the time to decide that is not AFTER you place someone on stage drunk to "be funny" and then go Corporate Suit when it turns pear shaped.

If CPP had any wang they would admit the stuff up on THEIR part as opposed to what they did.

If I invited you to a work site, provided booze then let you wander though the crowd with a nail gun who would be at fault when somebody lost an eye?

I think my point is that simple.



I respect your devotion to yourself, and agree with your points.
On that note, we both know this is still fresh, and CCP has plenty of time to present themselves, right now they are in damage control mode. Once they get their on-board fires under control, I wouldn't expect them not to make some sort of statement in reflection to the situations @ fanfest, afterall their investigations are still open, and you and I both know what that's used for. Time.

Time being the business aspect of human patience. Gives CCP time to formulate plans, backup plans, statements, scenarios, projections, so on.

However during this time I wouldn't, not expect some interesting things to happen.


If this "was" my company(CCP) I'd take my time, this is a unique business opportunity, it's rare you get situations in which you can adjust your entire model to. It's almost like the ("Goons") helped CCP, when all they want to do is ruin CCP. Like that joke I see on the internet "It's a trap!" and they walked right into it... All CCP did was provide the live feeds, and the EVE-O forums, the community and involved parties did the rest. CCP just has to sit back now and pick & choose where to position.

The war is over, the battles rage on, but the victor is cleansing the field.
Graic Gabtar
The Lemon Party
#28 - 2012-03-29 07:52:44 UTC
I will subscribe to that!

I used to do some work for a large game developer (I've done lots of stuff) and I used to ask them, "Why don't you release a statement on {insert crisis here}?"

The response I most often got we, "We don't know WTF to say!"

These days I spend a lot of my time working with companies on strategy etc. and I cannot believe how poorly CPP have presented themselves. I know the Mittens ban etc. is to appease the masses but it's clumsy - and set's an interesting precedent.

Shouldn't the EULA/TOS be applied on the forum as well? Last night on the forum someone told me to go kill myself - so what's the new standard.

Clumsy, clumsy, clumsy. It *may* turn out OK as it appeases financial partners but if you boil it down I raise serious questions about the judgement of the people running CCP. No question their game is awesome, but the people running the company act like amateurs.

Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#29 - 2012-03-29 08:17:41 UTC
Aiden Andraste wrote:

CCP calls the CSM democratically elected and tosses out 10000 votes afterwards. No thank you sir, I'll take it up with CCP.

INB4 post #3956263 that compares RL politics to spaceship politics.



I voted for a CSM that got tossed out last time and I didn't get my vote back, why should you.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Previous page12