These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP Deconstructs EVE Online's Microtransaction Missteps

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#41 - 2011-10-14 15:44:46 UTC
so this mean ARUM for PIZZA right?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#42 - 2011-10-14 15:44:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Astrid Stjerna
Jade Constantine wrote:

I do not buy this line that "vanity" is somehow not a gameplay advantage. And I think many people (including the current CSM) have done a profound disservice to the player base by allowing CCP off the hook on this issue.


Vanity items -- items that do not give a skill bonus or alter the playing ability of a player. Paying ten billion ISK for an ad doesn't suddenly make your pilots fly faster or better. Paying for a fleet logo doesn't somehow make your ship 'indestructible', nor does it make your ship any easier to shoot. And buying a pair of boots won't make your ship fly any faster, regardless of price.

The NeX is doing what it was designed to do: it allows pilots to buy a cosmetic appliance, or some better clothes, without giving one player an advantage over another. I mean, I suppose it could be concievable that we might shoot our old boots from our missile launchers (Nike at .5 c, anyone?) but I can hardly see how being better-dressed than someone else confers some kind of gameplay advantage.

(Edit: And before you bring up the 'People with 90 million ISK...' arguement, please tell me how someone with 90 million ISK would gain an advantage by buying a pair of expensive pumps over buying a battleship)

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....
Oberine Noriepa
#43 - 2011-10-14 15:47:23 UTC
non judgement wrote:
I thought Aurum was going to be what we used to pay Dust soldiers to do things for us or to buy them things when they are fighting?

ISK is the primary currency for Dust. AUR is the currency that is given in exchange for real currency. Items can be purchased with either currency, but AUR is the obvious shortcut for those who don't want to work for their ISK. It's pretty similar to the whole PLEX exchange thing that's currently going on.

∃
Mag's
Azn Empire
#44 - 2011-10-14 16:01:39 UTC
CCP Caedmon wrote:
Hey guys,

It was me that gave the talk at GDC that is being referred to in the quoted articles and I wanted to try and clarify CCP's plans on new uses for AUR.

There are currently no plans to introduce new uses for AUR in EVE aside from ship skins.

As Hilmar said in his blog and I reiterated in my GDC presentation, the EVE Development team understand that we made mistakes in the rollout of virtual items into EVE. We know that this means a lot to you so before making any kind of significant change to the implementation of virtual item sales or the uses of AUR we will consult with the CSM and the rest of the EVE community at the planning stage.
No plans....... sure. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#45 - 2011-10-14 16:07:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
CCP Caedmon wrote:
Hey guys,

It was me that gave the talk at GDC that is being referred to in the quoted articles and I wanted to try and clarify CCP's plans on new uses for AUR.

There are currently no plans to introduce new uses for AUR in EVE aside from ship skins.

As Hilmar said in his blog and I reiterated in my GDC presentation, the EVE Development team understand that we made mistakes in the rollout of virtual items into EVE. We know that this means a lot to you so before making any kind of significant change to the implementation of virtual item sales or the uses of AUR we will consult with the CSM and the rest of the EVE community at the planning stage.


I had written a post for this thread, but the forums ate it. Instead, I'll link this blog entry that covers most of the original points.

http://evelsthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/10/some-thoughts-with-regards-to-incarna.html

Still here? Okay. It is absolutely imperative that CCP's Monetary Transaction plans do not impinge on the capacity of a subscriber to partake in game play impacting content without spending more money. This means never offering game play relevant goods without altering EVE Online to be Free To Play. Preferably, this also means offering a direct ISK to Aurum conversion without the use of PLEX.

All that being said, I think CCP would gain more profit from restored confidence and good will through the outright removal of the NEX store than the company stands to gain from Monetary Transactions. EVE's game design and customer base are not a good fit.
Zircon Dasher
#46 - 2011-10-14 16:07:53 UTC
Oberine Noriepa wrote:
non judgement wrote:
I thought Aurum was going to be what we used to pay Dust soldiers to do things for us or to buy them things when they are fighting?

ISK is the primary currency for Dust. AUR is the currency that is given in exchange for real currency. Items can be purchased with either currency, but AUR is the obvious shortcut for those who don't want to work for their ISK. It's pretty similar to the whole PLEX exchange thing that's currently going on.



Stupid CCP making stupid connections between the two games like they said they were going to.

EVEN stupider CCP for allowing market factors to determine the exchange rates between RL cash and ingame cash (for both games) but not making a direct hard link between the value in BOTH games.

Lol

On an unrelated note: I wish to express my thanks to all the RAGE (or is that crying....cant tell) in this thread. Many laughs have been had, which has alleviated the effects of a stressful day here at work. KEEP POASTING!

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Oberine Noriepa
#47 - 2011-10-14 16:16:54 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Oberine Noriepa wrote:
non judgement wrote:
I thought Aurum was going to be what we used to pay Dust soldiers to do things for us or to buy them things when they are fighting?

ISK is the primary currency for Dust. AUR is the currency that is given in exchange for real currency. Items can be purchased with either currency, but AUR is the obvious shortcut for those who don't want to work for their ISK. It's pretty similar to the whole PLEX exchange thing that's currently going on.



Stupid CCP making stupid connections between the two games like they said they were going to.

EVEN stupider CCP for allowing market factors to determine the exchange rates between RL cash and ingame cash (for both games) but not making a direct hard link between the value in BOTH games.

Lol

On an unrelated note: I wish to express my thanks to all the RAGE (or is that crying....cant tell) in this thread. Many laughs have been had, which has alleviated the effects of a stressful day here at work. KEEP POASTING!

Meh. To be somewhat fair to Dust... it's a free-to-play game. There's going to be an initial cost, which is probably going to be around $20, but that gets exchanged to Aurum so you're introduced to the microtransaction element immediately. Since Dust is going to be a skill based game, I don't think there's much to worry about regarding pay-to-win. At least I hope not. We don't know much about the game to begin with so... yeah. Straight

∃
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#48 - 2011-10-14 16:21:15 UTC
Astrid Stjerna wrote:

Vanity items -- items that do not give a skill bonus or alter the playing ability of a player. Paying ten billion ISK for an ad doesn't suddenly make your pilots fly faster or better. Paying for a fleet logo doesn't somehow make your ship 'indestructible', nor does it make your ship any easier to shoot. And buying a pair of boots won't make your ship fly any faster, regardless of price.

The NeX is doing what it was designed to do: it allows pilots to buy a cosmetic appliance, or some better clothes, without giving one player an advantage over another. I mean, I suppose it could be concievable that we might shoot our old boots from our missile launchers (Nike at .5 c, anyone?) but I can hardly see how being better-dressed than someone else confers some kind of gameplay advantage.



Having alliance logos on your ships will allow you to publicise and recruit for your alliance better than a rival that has not paid for the feature. I don't see how this is NOT a gameplay advantage.

By your argument political advertising in the real world is "vanity" and has no impact on who gets elected.

Seriously.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2011-10-14 16:22:00 UTC
CCP still fails to learn that,

An ounce a piece from the many outweighs the pound a piece from the few.

Drop the NeX store prices to a trivial amount ($2-3 USD per item) and once you fully open Incarna you will inundated with purchases, you could be selling thousands of pairs of trousers and shirts instead of a few dozen monocles.

Better still drop the whole thing and invest those resources into expanding and polishing the game, the subscriptions will increase and some of those players will buy a few GTCs to convert to ISK. Are you really so deluded to think that new players will be encouraged to come and play EVE for Incarna and the prospect of be shafted by the current NeX prices?
Barakkus
#50 - 2011-10-14 16:38:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Barakkus
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Caedmon wrote:
Hey guys,

It was me that gave the talk at GDC that is being referred to in the quoted articles and I wanted to try and clarify CCP's plans on new uses for AUR.

There are currently no plans to introduce new uses for AUR in EVE aside from ship skins.

As Hilmar said in his blog and I reiterated in my GDC presentation, the EVE Development team understand that we made mistakes in the rollout of virtual items into EVE. We know that this means a lot to you so before making any kind of significant change to the implementation of virtual item sales or the uses of AUR we will consult with the CSM and the rest of the EVE community at the planning stage.


And this is exactly the kind of slippery slope I am referring too in my long post on NeX and Incarna here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=20208&find=unread

What I'd like to ask you CCP Caedmon is just when the ability to choose different skins for our spaceships in Eve Online changed from being a piece of nice to have core content that would hopefully lead to corporate and alliance logos on our vessels, to becoming "vanity" and thus valid material to deliver through a company store delivery mechanism inside an already subscription-based game?

Why shouldn't the ability to customize and sell paint schemes for our spaceships in Eve Online be a player profession that works within the normal market mechanics?


What they are planning with skins is already being done in most subscription based MMOs on the market, and it works just fine, actually most MMOs take it even further than just skins and it works out great. There's no reason CCP shouldn't travel down this particular path, and it would be a bad business decision to try and placate those who don't want to spend $$ on vanity items.


Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
CCP still fails to learn that,

An ounce a piece from the many outweighs the pound a piece from the few.

Drop the NeX store prices to a trivial amount ($2-3 USD per item) and once you fully open Incarna you will inundated with purchases, you could be selling thousands of pairs of trousers and shirts instead of a few dozen monocles.


I believe this is the plan actually.

http://youtu.be/yytbDZrw1jc
Zircon Dasher
#51 - 2011-10-14 16:39:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Zircon Dasher
Jade Constantine wrote:

Having alliance logos on your ships will allow you to publicise and recruit for your alliance better than a rival that has not paid for the feature. I don't see how this is NOT a gameplay advantage.

By your argument political advertising in the real world is "vanity" and has no impact on who gets elected.

Seriously.



The most sucessful corps/alliances have historically relied upon advertisement?

And here I was thinking that a good reputation was a more significant factor in the ability to attract high quality players(compared to eve-o recruitment threads, login banners, and signatures).

I learn something new everyday here

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Barakkus
#52 - 2011-10-14 16:42:10 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Astrid Stjerna wrote:

Vanity items -- items that do not give a skill bonus or alter the playing ability of a player. Paying ten billion ISK for an ad doesn't suddenly make your pilots fly faster or better. Paying for a fleet logo doesn't somehow make your ship 'indestructible', nor does it make your ship any easier to shoot. And buying a pair of boots won't make your ship fly any faster, regardless of price.

The NeX is doing what it was designed to do: it allows pilots to buy a cosmetic appliance, or some better clothes, without giving one player an advantage over another. I mean, I suppose it could be concievable that we might shoot our old boots from our missile launchers (Nike at .5 c, anyone?) but I can hardly see how being better-dressed than someone else confers some kind of gameplay advantage.



Having alliance logos on your ships will allow you to publicise and recruit for your alliance better than a rival that has not paid for the feature. I don't see how this is NOT a gameplay advantage.

By your argument political advertising in the real world is "vanity" and has no impact on who gets elected.

Seriously.



This is kind of silly, how many people do you know that sit there and stare at other people's ships to see pretty textures? There is no advantage in mechanics by having silly skin customization. If a stupid logo is that important to people, then most people wouldn't have joined half the corps and alliances they do with the absurd names of some of them.

http://youtu.be/yytbDZrw1jc
Raid'En
#53 - 2011-10-14 16:48:32 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:

Why shouldn't the ability to customize and sell paint schemes for our spaceships in Eve Online be a player profession that works within the normal market mechanics?

this.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2011-10-14 16:53:02 UTC
Barakkus wrote:
This is kind of silly, how many people do you know that sit there and stare at other people's ships to see pretty textures? There is no advantage in mechanics by having silly skin customization. If a stupid logo is that important to people, then most people wouldn't have joined half the corps and alliances they do with the absurd names of some of them.


You give people too much credit. "Nice, I'll get a logo on my ship if I join X over Y" is good enough for a huge number of people.
Zircon Dasher
#55 - 2011-10-14 17:00:49 UTC
Oberine Noriepa wrote:
Meh. To be somewhat fair to Dust... it's a free-to-play game. There's going to be an initial cost, which is probably going to be around $20, but that gets exchanged to Aurum so you're introduced to the microtransaction element immediately. Since Dust is going to be a skill based game, I don't think there's much to worry about regarding pay-to-win. At least I hope not. We don't know much about the game to begin with so... yeah. Straight


I am not too worried about pay-to-win in either game. Really what I was saying is that CCP was smart to create a situation where opportunity costs might create incentives for players to cross game boundaries. This does assume content tie-ins that are not trivial in nature (SOV). To your point, though, we do not have a lot of info about DUST yet so its all tinfoil and magic 8-balls atm.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#56 - 2011-10-14 17:13:55 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:

Having alliance logos on your ships will allow you to publicise and recruit for your alliance better than a rival that has not paid for the feature. I don't see how this is NOT a gameplay advantage.


You're misinterpreting the use of the term 'gameplay advantage'. I refer specifically to advantages gained by skills or shiptypes that can only be gained by NeX purchases.

But, to address your point:

Of course a corp that has better recruiting techniques gets a bigger market share -- that's the way any advertising campaign works, in EVE or the Real World.

But those advertisments don't somehow make your guns fire faster, or your ship fly faster, or get you more capable pilots. It's not going to magically grant domination over New Eden. All they're going to do is get peope interested in your corp.

Hell, I can put together a half-decent recruit video in two days using Windows Movie Maker, FRAPS and a microphone, should I choose -- and I won't even spend an ISK to do it. Will I get tons of recruits? Possibly not. Teraa Matar is a fairly new corp, after all, and we're not particularly well-known.

Does someone with a six-hundred dollar budget and an expensive editing suite have an advantage over me in terms of recuiting? You bet your biffy they do. But that's the way it's always been in advertising. Having a logo on your ship makes you more visible, but it doesn't stop someone else from raising the ISK or Aurum to purchase a logo of their own, any more than putting, say, a McDonalds logo on a box makes it impossible for A&W to afford a box with a logo.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....
Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
#57 - 2011-10-14 17:23:35 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:


Having alliance logos on your ships will allow you to publicise and recruit for your alliance better than a rival that has not paid for the feature. I don't see how this is NOT a gameplay advantage.



It's the new EVE - pay up; or get out.

C.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#58 - 2011-10-14 17:23:51 UTC
Got to admit I really do not understand the motivation of the people here who want content delivery via NeX rather than traditional sandbox techniques. Perhaps CCP were right by introducing this stuff and shortcutting player industry.

But then.

What happened to the subscriptions this summer?

Something doesn't add up.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Barakkus
#59 - 2011-10-14 17:24:07 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Barakkus wrote:
This is kind of silly, how many people do you know that sit there and stare at other people's ships to see pretty textures? There is no advantage in mechanics by having silly skin customization. If a stupid logo is that important to people, then most people wouldn't have joined half the corps and alliances they do with the absurd names of some of them.


You give people too much credit. "Nice, I'll get a logo on my ship if I join X over Y" is good enough for a huge number of people.


It's still a really weak argument.
More than weak, it's just grasping at straws to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

http://youtu.be/yytbDZrw1jc
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#60 - 2011-10-14 17:31:10 UTC
Barakkus wrote:

What they are planning with skins is already being done in most subscription based MMOs on the market, and it works just fine, actually most MMOs take it even further than just skins and it works out great. There's no reason CCP shouldn't travel down this particular path, and it would be a bad business decision to try and placate those who don't want to spend $$ on vanity items.


So what went wrong for CCP this summer?

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom