EVE General Discussion

So you're comparing a game that was built from the ground up to support microtransactions to a game developed when nobody thought of using them?

another useless **** thread that will reach 20+ pages

I have to say, you're very good at deflecting anything you don't want to hear.

Unfortunately for you, marketing is not just PR.

David Reid has a lot of experience launching games with various payment models, from subscription to F2P. That's why CCP brought him on board. He knows that he can't do his job well unless the business model of the game and the design of the game are in sync. You should spend some time listening to him--skeptically, as you will, but at least then you might learn something. He doesn't say anything the company doesn't want him to say, of course, but he's a pretty smart guy.

Even if you want to dismiss him out of hand, I challenge you not to see the logic of his argument as given: the payment scheme and the game itself have to come out of the same fundamental design principles, or the game is consigned to irrelevance, if not failure.

like DUST, why should i have to pay an extra 300 bucks to be able to play something that supposedly is in and effects the EVE universe? thats supposedly an important part of the game i cant even touch without investing large sums of real money.

DUST is a failure on console, having to compete with 6-month cycle shooters already entrenched in the amrket, shoudla been on computer as part of EVE and your 15 a month account.

I thought RMT ment real money being traded to NOT CCP for eve in-game goods?

I can see the complete lack of comprehension about real-world, profit-oriented business culture is still a mystery to most gamers, EVE patrons included. Sigh.

Yet again in the discussion of selling PLEX being trading rl money for ingame money or not I miss the following point:

You do buy game time for rl money. You may then sell that game time for ingame money.

However there is only so much need for game time. That's why there is also only so much available ingame money to be "bought with rl money".

Even more interesting about it is the fact that the closer you get to the demand of game time the less you get in ingame money. It's supply and demand as it is with pretty much every item in the market. That means it's nicely self regulatory.

You can't just buy as much isk as you would like to. Why not? because you do not buy ingame money to begin with .

Btw. you could as well say you're buying CCP more customers when selling PLEX ingame.

Not like everyone have to bow to a unique, dominant, model, there's room for niches.

The F2P/microtransaction model works for games intendeed to have a large/easy starting diffusion and then being put in mantainence state reducing employees, devlopments and so on. And consuming fast.

EVE is slow, and based on players long term commitments and investments.

To add a viable microtansaction model in EVE you couldn't rely on mere "vanity" items. To be profittable you should sell: skill points packages, special implants and boosters, golden ammo. And re-adjust the game to become faster and more item-oriented. Try this, and in less than one year the game becomes trash.

If EVE need more income to survive then CCP should try to expand the gameplay and the playerbase instead.

I actually agree with him on some points. However, we have RMT currently in game. I think it's burying one's head in the sand to assume that it will not be built on. I thin that it behooves us to actually have a serious discussion about this issue rather than all the fit throwing, rage quitting, drama posts that go on and actualy find some middle ground with CCP.



Consider though at the same time WG produced two games that had not yet shown a profit, bought three other companies, and donated two million dollars in financing museums preservation and recovery efforts on historic military vehicles. All while continuing to produce content on their flagship title at a higher rate than CCP did.



"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

Interesting note: Ford motor company, between 1921 and 1926 saw it's market share shrink by half playing it safe and doing what they had always done, while GM innovated. After all, such insane ideas as trading in used cars, installment plans, and enclosed automobiles were a fad that would never last. It ended up costing more than 1 million dollars, at the time, for Ford to catch up with 'the bandwagon'.

Yes, but not in the time frame CCP was examined in, which was 2010.



Yes, but neither of the companies bailed out was the same as the one in the time frame refereed to. I might point out that, in fact, in the intervening 80 years the positions have reversed (mre than once) with Ford (supposedly) innovating atm and GM not.

Also,minor detail, according to factcheck.org, while Ford did not receive TARP funds, they did get a totally different 5.9 billion dollar check from the government, with an additional credit line of up to 9 billion dollars. They were also, following Toyota, one of the primary beneficiaries of 'Cash for Clunkers'. So, yes, Ford was bailed out by the 'US Taxpayer' as well, they just didn't take a lump sum.