These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

EVE's Bait & Switch Design Philosophy

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#221 - 2013-07-16 03:13:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ace Uoweme wrote:
That PLEX is F2P?

[factually incorrect and unrelated quote]
Yes, please show that PLEX means that accounts somehow keep running without an active subscription. Because if there is one thing EVE isn't, it is an “unlimited trial with the potential to turn into a completely free game.”

Quote:
But CCP doesn't provide that break down between actual humans playing vs multiple accounts.
…so in other words, there is no evidence that the average number of accounts per players is on the rise.

Quote:
Just like the F2P model with their ingame coins/tokens.
No, because the point of the F2P model is that those coins and tokes are not required to playe the game. So it's not just like that.

Ace Uoweme wrote:
Correct.
No, it really isn't, because he thinks it's a matter of real vs. virtual cash, when it is nothing of the kind. It's a matter of what keeps accounts active: subscription games (such as EVE) require a currently paid subscription to play the game; F2P games do not, by very definition.

Quote:
I don't object to these pay schemes, but I do prefer them to be labeled for what they really are.
So why do you keep trying to incorrectly label a subscription game as F2P? PLEX is just subscription — it does in no way turn the game into F2P since you categorically cannot play the game without a paid-for subscription
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#222 - 2013-07-16 03:18:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
This is contradictory. Either they cover their operation with the cash shop, as I claimed, or not.
There is no contradiction. It just points out that Ace's description is incorrect. Yes, the game company has to cover their costs through the cash shop or they'll shut down, but this does not mean that “someone pays more so others can play for free”. It means “everyone plays for free as long as the company makes enough money from ancillary services”. No-one “pays more” because there is “more” to pay — it's free for all. That's what a F2P game is, after all.

They sucker people into the cash shop with the game. The individual is irrelevant, and accounts are not even a factor — all that matters is that enough cash flows through the shop to pay for the advertisement for the shop (i.e. the game).

This is approaching semantics so I'll stop after this. You are saying that they hope someone pays and thus open the doors for everyone, and thus it is not someone paying so others can play. This is only true if you limit the term "someone pays" to direct, subscription like access. That isn't explicitly stated. It's an interpretation of intentionally broad words. Words designed to be spoken broadly enough to encompass both F2P models and PLEX. And as used they DO apply to both.

Your point only becomes reality by narrowing the definition. Specifically by picking which criteria doesn't count as far as by how users can loose access to the server. His broadly covers individuals loosing access and the game shutting down collectively. Too broad? I think so too. He doesn't. But by the absolute definition of the words used they can both count.

As far as the no one pays more because there is no more to pay, this again restricts definitions. There are cost associated to running these games as well as advertising them. "Free" players, players who are not participating in the cash shops, are not contributing to covering this. Players who pay are. They are realistically paying for others play. The degree to which this happens is again, not direct as it is within EvE with plex nor is the value of investing player driven. But I can tell you that aside from an initial investment, my ability to log into GW2 is being subsidized by someone else' gem store purchases. My one time purchase doesn't cover the continued cost of my gaming experience. A collective contribution to a store from users other than myself handles that.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#223 - 2013-07-16 03:24:10 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Ace Uoweme wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
1) You make the claim, the burden is on you to provide evidence to back it.


That PLEX is F2P?


Nope. We're still back here, and here, and here. You do not get to simply keep throwing crap out at random hoping something sticks.

As for your claim with regards to the massively article, the writer is simply uninformed about the nature of PLEX. He appears to think that he sold the PLEX to CCP for ISK rather than to other players.

Quote:
But CCP doesn't provide that break down between actual humans playing vs multiple accounts. They counted all accounts.


So, are you admitting that you have no earthly idea how many accounts are alts, and what you've been crowing about is entirely bullshit? What other claims have you been pulling out of your, well?

Quote:
Just like the F2P model with their ingame coins/tokens.


Nope. F2P model games, by their nature, do not require payment in order to have an active account. EVE does.

Do you even know what the acronym stands for? I'll help. It means "Free to Play" not "Have someone else pay my subscription for me so that I can play." The whole "subscription fee" that has to be paid every single month pretty much kicks the idea that EVE is magically Free to play in the head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#224 - 2013-07-16 03:30:03 UTC
Verunae Caseti wrote:
I assure you, there is such a thing. Ask 10,000 people in the games industry if EVE meets even a fleeting definition of F2P and 10,000 of them will tell you no. F2P has a specific meaning, and EVE does not fit that meaning.


Or even 4...

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134789/the_fwords_of_mmorpgs_fairness.php?page=2

That article is priceless.

Quote:

The utter distillation of ease of play in World of Warcraft gave birth to the term Faceroll, sheer numbers in EVE Online gave birth to the Blob, and all of them have given birth to a huge multi-million dollar industry of gold farming and power leveling.

The math is simple. Time = progression. Time = money. So, logically, money = progression, right? Yes. Absolutely. Anyone who tries to rationalize otherwise is just plain wrong. So why the outcry about gold farming?

On a fundamental level, it points to a major flaw in the game design. If you're willing to pay someone to skip through a game for you, that's a good sign that you're not enjoying the game, and if you're not enjoying the game, then the game is bad. To a game's developer, buying gold or leveling is akin to telling them their game is so bad, you'll actually pay money to avoid having to play it.


Verunae Caseti wrote:
Ace seems to value knowledge of the "gaming industry" very highly, yet holds very little of his own.


lol

My knowledge of the "gaming industry" doesn't include brash statements about "10,000 people in the games industry" agreeing with your viewpoint, because that doesn't exist.

A lot of projection to say the least, worst trolling.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#225 - 2013-07-16 03:33:03 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
You are saying that they hope someone pays and thus open the doors for everyone, and thus it is not someone paying so others can play.
Who are you referring to by “they”?

I'm saying that, under the F2P model, the game company has opened the doors for everyone. Period. They remain open for everyone until the game shuts down. The game will probably (but not necessarily) shut down if the cash shop doesn't bring in enough money to cover the running costs. I'm saying that access is not tied to anything — least of all a subscription — since that would defeat the purpose. The individual and their accounts don't matter, because it's free for all, equally.

Quote:
Your point only becomes reality by narrowing the definition. Specifically by picking which criteria doesn't count as far as by how users can loose access to the server. His broadly covers individuals loosing access and the game shutting down collectively. Too broad?
You've got those two mixed up. My definition covers that perfectly; his does not, since he's talking about the (irrelevant) individual.

That's where he goes off the rails: if PLEX were F2P, then PLEX would not be needed since you could play for free — i.e. without PLEX.

Quote:
As far as the no one pays more because there is no more to pay, this again restricts definitions.
Eh, no. It simply highlights the “free” part. It doesn't restrict anything. There is no “more” to pay because you can either pay nothing to play, or you can pay nothing to play (because it's free regardless). Yes, players can pay for other things, but not for playing the game.

Oh, and the really interesting fact about F2Ps (which some companies get wrong and destroy their game over) is that free players do contribute to making the cash shop pay for the game. They provide the liveliness that makes the servers a fun place, and they provide the “other” against which the shoppers can compare themselves.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#226 - 2013-07-16 03:37:03 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Ace Uoweme wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
1) You make the claim, the burden is on you to provide evidence to back it.


That PLEX is F2P?


Nope. We're still back here, and here, and here. You do not get to simply keep throwing crap out at random hoping something sticks.


...Like I said 10 pages of wordsmithing, trying to bury it now...

All forum discussions, Ruby.

Let's see your industry review, not more personal opinions to gnaw on. True cites.

Then this can be an debate, not more tomfoolery.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#227 - 2013-07-16 03:42:36 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
...Like I said 10 pages of wordsmithing, trying to bury it now...
Indeed you are. So you can't provide any kind of supporting evidence for your claims, again.

Quote:
Then this can be an debate, not more tomfoolery.
Maybe if you stopped trying to cover up your unsupported claims by throwing out even more unsupported claims. Until you do, the tomfoolery will only keep piling up, and the rest of us will only keep calling you out on it.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#228 - 2013-07-16 03:45:06 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Your point only becomes reality by narrowing the definition. Specifically by picking which criteria doesn't count as far as by how users can loose access to the server. His broadly covers individuals loosing access and the game shutting down collectively. Too broad? I think so too. He doesn't. But by the absolute definition of the words used they can both count.


It's called moving guide posts.

Tippia loves wordsmithing, but in the end it's quite simple how she debates. She sets up strawman arguments and then tries to get someone to disapprove a double negative of her own design.

S/he deserves the /ignore.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#229 - 2013-07-16 03:48:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ace Uoweme wrote:
It's called moving guide posts.
No, it isn't. Since you love google so much, look it up.
And no, even if it were, that's not what I'm doing.

Quote:
She sets up strawman arguments and then tries to get someone to disapprove a double negative of her own design.
Prove it.

Until you do, maybe you can provide some kind of supporting evidence for your claims…?

Quote:
S/he deserves the /ignore.
That's usually how it ends when people keep failing at proving their points or providing any kind of supporting arguments. They get tired about me asking for them and (falsely) believe that not answering those questions will somehow make them seem right, when all it ever does is the exact opposite. So please, do /ignore me. Lol
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#230 - 2013-07-16 05:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Ace Uoweme wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Ace Uoweme wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
1) You make the claim, the burden is on you to provide evidence to back it.


That PLEX is F2P?


Nope. We're still back here, and here, and here. You do not get to simply keep throwing crap out at random hoping something sticks.


...Like I said 10 pages of wordsmithing, trying to bury it now...

All forum discussions, Ruby.

Let's see your industry review, not more personal opinions to gnaw on. True cites.

Then this can be an debate, not more tomfoolery.


Are you saying that you did not make those claims? Because your name and portrait are sitting there, right next to them. Was it a ghost possessing your keyboard that made those claims? Those pesky ghosts.

A debate requires that you provide evidence to support your claims. You not done so, despite claiming that said evidence was easily obtainable.

My data comes from the page I linked to when I first referred to it.
Since I actually have a source for it (made easy because it exists), I can link it.
http://mmodata.blogspot.com/
And for the SWOTOR only needs 500,000 subscriptions to be "substantially profitable" (which handily disproves your claim that an MMO requires 1 million subcriptions to be profitable):
http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/7/31/3207521/star-wars-the-old-republic-subscribers-fall-to-under-one-million

Now it's your turn. You've made a number of wild claims. You've further claimed that the evidence to support those claims is easily accessible. Why haven't you been able to provide one single shred of evidence to support them?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
samualvimes
Brothers At Arms
#231 - 2013-07-16 07:01:14 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Your point only becomes reality by narrowing the definition. Specifically by picking which criteria doesn't count as far as by how users can loose access to the server. His broadly covers individuals loosing access and the game shutting down collectively. Too broad? I think so too. He doesn't. But by the absolute definition of the words used they can both count.


It's called moving guide posts.

Tippia loves wordsmithing, but in the end it's quite simple how she debates. She sets up strawman arguments and then tries to get someone to disapprove a double negative of her own design.

S/he deserves the /ignore.



Yeah Ace I kind have to say a lot of what you're saying is vapor. Just try and answer some of the questions for once!

If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#232 - 2013-07-16 07:30:20 UTC
Cutting to the chase, as this is just wordsmithing...

RubyPorto wrote:
My data comes from the page I linked to when I first referred to it.
Since I actually have a source for it (made easy because it exists), I can link it.
http://mmodata.blogspot.com/


And did you bother to read the disclaimer on the actual site?

Quote:
Despite being careful and doing the necessary research, MMOData.net cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here as it is based on various sources which could be incomplete, inaccurate or otherwise unreliable. Furthermore, all estimates are the opinion of MMOData.net and should be treated as such.


So don't bet your house on that data.

RubyPorto wrote:
And for the SWOTOR only needs 500,000 subscriptions to be "substantially profitable" (which handily disproves your claim that an MMO requires 1 million subcriptions to be profitable)


Or you can look at another EA game and learn otherwise...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Warhammer-40-000-MMO-Does-Not-Need-Millions-of-Subscribers-141653.shtml

Then...
http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/07/01/war40k-courts-1-million-users-wow-players/

Finally...
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/forums/thread/368681/What-are-the-fundamental-flaws-with-Warhammer-online.html

http://playervsdeveloper.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-mmos-financially-sustainable.html

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#233 - 2013-07-16 09:15:10 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
So don't bet your house on that data.
It's a safer bet than the complete lack of numbers and data you've provided.

Quote:
Or you can look at another EA game and learn otherwise...
…and in doing so not particularly prove the claim that MMOs require 1M subscriptions to be profitable, since there are plenty of examples to show that this is not true. WAR shows that a) a poorly done game is not substantially profitable (rapidly declining numbers + huge upfront investment = no ROI); b) that EA has higher demands on instant profitability and ROI; and that you don't know the difference between Warhammer and WH40k…

Also, you did note that none of your articles point towards 500k subscribers not being profitable, right? Only that, at most, the ROI is too low and too slow for most investors.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#234 - 2013-07-16 13:03:17 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:

PLEX aren't free. There is no way for a subscribed account to play Eve for free. Someone paid the subscription cost, even if it isn't the account holder.


That's untrue. I can play for free whether you or someone else paid for the plex. Me not paying the plex is what justifies "free".



If you want to argue the semantics of it, the best you can say is that PLEX are free to you (assuming you only paid ISK for them). The PLEX itself is not free, in any way, shape, or form (discounting the vanishingly small percentage that CCP spin out of thin air to award as prizes for things).And even if all you paid was ISK, there's an opportunity cost associated with acquiring them, so calling them free is a bit like saying you got your grass cut "for free" when you spent all afternoon pushing a mower around your yard.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#235 - 2013-07-16 13:15:02 UTC
I'll happily call PLEX a specialised variant of "F2P" if it makes anyone happy. Indeed, I'd go further and say that it's the best form of F2P. (You can't say that "it's not free because someone else pays"; in a scarcity economy "someone else pays" is what free means)

The PLEX system is what it is, though, and people trying to claim that because rocks are grey and elephants are grey, therefore rocks must be elephants are just making themselves look even sillier than normal.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#236 - 2013-07-16 13:16:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Tippia wrote:
Ace Uoweme wrote:
So don't bet your house on that data.
It's a safer bet than the complete lack of numbers and data you've provided.

Quote:
Or you can look at another EA game and learn otherwise...
…and in doing so not particularly prove the claim that MMOs require 1M subscriptions to be profitable, since there are plenty of examples to show that this is not true. WAR shows that a) a poorly done game is not substantially profitable (rapidly declining numbers + huge upfront investment = no ROI); b) that EA has higher demands on instant profitability and ROI; and that you don't know the difference between Warhammer and WH40k…

Also, you did note that none of your articles point towards 500k subscribers not being profitable, right? Only that, at most, the ROI is too low and too slow for most investors.


It's even easier than that. CCP publish their numbers

EDIT: this forum code won't let me post the direct link but you can readily google them up on "CCP hf financial 2012"

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#237 - 2013-07-16 13:21:18 UTC
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#238 - 2013-07-16 13:27:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Eve is not F2p.

If you spend isk for gametime through purchasing plex, the best analogy would be that you work off the dinner you ate with no money by washing the dishes.

You didn't get free food, you just didn't pay for it out of your wallet.

"Free" is such a volatile term for some people apparently lol.

Just because you don't need to spend your money on it, doesn't mean it doesn't cost you anything.

What I was trying to say, is that I do not have to pay for my own account out of cash because of the plex system. It means that my own enjoyment with the game can pay for itself.

My apologies for not clarifying that.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#239 - 2013-07-16 13:29:36 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

Just because you don't need to spend your money on it, doesn't mean it doesn't cost you anything.


That's a pretty good description of F2P games in general.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#240 - 2013-07-16 13:33:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Malcanis wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

Just because you don't need to spend your money on it, doesn't mean it doesn't cost you anything.


That's a pretty good description of F2P games in general.



Yea when I played DCUO, it was (and is) F2p, but I had an upgraded account by using the soe points left over from playing a different game (3for1 sales etc also).

As the game was F2p, with perks and bonuses for being an upgraded account, I had an upgraded account for "free" but that's because of the economical benefits I received from other purchases from the parent company.

Even though I was not required to "pay" (noone is), I was receiving the same benefits as someone who was paying the full price for upgraded membership.

That was F2p in a nutshell.

Eve is not that.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.