EVE General Discussion

The F2P model is why MMO gaming is in the state it's in.

Pop in. play a bit, then leave.

No loyalty. No commitment. No sense of society. Just transience.
No. We're done with that. While F2P has it's place, give a few more years, and the model's fad will lose its shine.

Subscriptions games also have their place. The more niche a game is, the better off it is being a subscription game.
A game like EvE needs a core of committed players, otherwise the whole concept breaks down.

You're not going to control any type of space by just playing over a holiday break.

EvE allows a player to pay for the subscription via actions in the game, so there's a way for players that are strapped for cash to still participate and even thrive if they're dedicated enough. This participation helps other players, so it's not just busy-work either.

CCP's decision to initiate an infinite trial is not a full F2P model. Good. CCP needs for a portion of Alpha's to eventually subscribe. That's why the Alpha state is set up as it is. It's the teaser. The promise of better skills/SP rate/equipment is the carrot. Not being able to keep up with Omega's in many parts of the game is the stick. Also, while it's nice for a returning veteran to be able to log in again and see the changes or just check in with old peeps, The carrot and stick still apply...in this case more stick admittedly due to a perceived loss of skills.

The returning vet has three choices:

• Turn EvE off and leave (quietly or in a huff).
• Stay in an Alpha state and deal with the limitations, make a new toon, or just ship-spin and engage in the community again.
• Re-sub back to Omega and return to being a full member of EvE society.

No. The F2P "world" is coming to a close in the next few years. F2P will still exist, but it won't completely knock out other pay plans. F2P will gravitate to games that are dsigned to be temporary and make a quick buck, or to games where community is less important. Games that require players to work together to accomplish anything more than an hour's worth of playtime at the 'end-game' will still need to entice players to stay. Making the game fully free loosens any ties that the player has to the game community.

There will always be low ebbs while playing any game. Maybe this week you really just don't want to log in, or you're too busy, or you're just tired of mining/ratting/hunting whatever, maybe a specific game rule was tweaked in a way that you don't like. What's to stop you from walking away? Nothing but the ties to other players in the game - your community. Subs enhance the community, F2P doesn't.

Camelot Unchained is being designed with subs in mind in order to foster the community aspect. So, while F2P will still be around, subscription based games will also.

--Gadget - wishing y'all a Happy Holidays

I listened to the you tube video.

While it was interesting, it wasn't what I was referring to with my use of "core".
I was referring to the Core-periphery model for social networks.

In short, I wasn't meaning the gamers themselves or their playstyles, but the core of a community.

In order to accomplish tasks beyond what a single person can effectively do (such as building a monument, defense, controlling of resources), communities form to collect the efforts of the many towards a single purpose. This core of the community is what generally decides what task is to be done and how to do it. An effective leader helps, but the community will decide to follow said leader or not. The core of the community are those important to the decision process... and accepted to the community. They will get the full benefits and their opinions will be weighed by others. This is opposed to the periphery. Those who may engage with the community, but are not of the community.

While good communities can prosper in either F2P or subscription games, F2P gives less of an incentive to become (or remain) part of the core of a community. This community is important for niche style games where players either control territory or need to put together resources to accomplish tasks beyond what a single player can do. Trust becomes important, and Johnny-come-lately needs to earn his place in the community - join its core - to get the full benefits or influence decisions. The F2P model removes one element of the commitment package that the core community will want to see in order for the community to decide whether Johnny should be part of the core or remain outside the walls.

My apologies for the earlier unexplained jargon, and thanks for the link.

--Gadget

I wish they'd keep this daily gift thing going, just for all the new "stuff."

Perhaps you can use another layer of subscription that gives access to vanity items CCP? [Subliminal suggestion begin: Battle Pass Battle Pass Battle Pass Battle Pass Battle Pass ]

Aura would be a nice pet. Everyone who would pay $20 / month to have Aura in your CQ across all your accounts say Aye lol

I don't think that video exposes a particular fallacy. It just talks about one approach to game design. An approach to game design that is not generally applicable.

Games don't need sales volume at all. Games, like everything else under the sun, need profitability. CCP needs to figure out how to be profitable, and I think it--as a company--has cracked that code.

Market share is not a good measure of success. There are more android phones sold than you can shake a stick at. Yet Apple sucks up more than 90% of the profits in the smartphone market.

The PC market is overall declining, but sales for Apple branded computers are beating the market, and also beating the profit margins for commodity PCs.

CCP is really good at the Apple model of stuff: make something that people care about and they will pay for it.

CCP is really bad at the commodity PC model of being cheap and doing stuff in such a way that no one will pay for it.

I enjoy and applaud the way that CCP is doing things right now. It's a rough balance, but it's a good one.

CCP is banking on the fact that they have a better game than anyone else on the market. That it's so good that people will be willing to pay for it,

I don't think that's wrong. Bold? Yes. But not out-of-bounds-crazy.

Every business is always for sale, and every business owner has an exit plan. Even if it's not a conscious plan, but more a stumbling along into shambolic chaos plan.

Any business wanting to own EVE would do it for the prospect of more money.

That they can see some opportunity that CCP hasn't.

There's probably a few things like that, aside from the usual plug in some sort of online gambling.

The move to Alpha is probably part of this sale process, boost the numbers a bit and all that good stuff, to show prospective new owners.

New owners wouldn't be catastrophic, they want to make money is all.

^this, lulu made a point in a thread I brought this very same subject up in. Then I stopped to take a look at the amount of people actually signed into the game when I logged in.

With alphas included, there are anywhere between 20-30k players online at any moment depending on peak times. I don't know the statistics of how many alpha accounts currently take up what percentage of the population.

Having said that, with the plex situation (players buying and selling on the market to the older veteran crowd that has more ISK than they know what to do with) there seems to be a constant influx of capital coming into the game at any one time.

After doing just a bit of speculating, I'd have to say the game isn't going anywhere at the moment and for some time to come . Keep in mind it's just conjecture I'm offering up. Even alpha accounts could get lucky, pop an omega pilots transport and run off with a plex. That's still paid for content to ccp. Any plex purchase that ends up in the hands of veterans in the outer reaches of null, still provide for a supply and demand situation.

There's enough of an economy here that I really doubt it's going to be sold. I should have thought about it in the post I made.

Like lulu said before, enjoy the game while it's still here, do what you're wanting to do with it now.

Well. So did EA with Ultimate Online.

But to be honest, the tears of rage if they ever made a non-PVP server would be worth it.

I don't care about non-consensual pvp either way.

I just thing trolling thousands of players and crushing their hopes and dreams would be worth losing a viable game.

You have to be meta about this.

Bloomberg, eh

If it's not on Buzzfeed it ain't real news

Maybe under the "impersonation" rule. Who knows.