Thank you 
2 Likes
But that will just improve player retention
2 Likes
Well there is actually a bunch of stuff we got with the code over time, but it was always after a couple of threads popped up in the forums to gently remind them of their promise. The last thing was some SWAT skins for the concord ships and I think a body armor. But that was when Falcon was still around. The people in charge today probably don’t even know what that mystery code even is.
Looks like the “second decade” had a premature end
2 Likes
Rubbish. Limited edition business is very common, and for profit companies manage to follow its principles often with no problem at all.
The argument that all corporations are psychopathic entities that only maximise a single number and nothing more is an unsophisticated argument you only see on the popular level, no serious economist would consider it. After all this is nesting in your presuppositions that its impossible for any corporation to run a limited edition business.
This is because they will always betray the issuance and sell more later ‘to let more people have a chance to own them’ and earn even more money. This is not what happens with anyone else except CCP (unless they actually preserve the uniqueness of the original AT ships properly that is).
Isn’t the entire premise of economics that people and organizations are amoral (they call it “rational”) in their pursuit of maximum personal profit?
3 Likes
Okay, okay…strike “all” and go with “most, the vast majority” then.
umm…o…k…
I’m just an unsophisticated plebe and certainly not nearly as smart as you are, so I’m sure I’m completely misunderstanding you and you are not at all naive.
3 Likes
So who came up with the term “bottom line” then, the populace or economists? 
Don’t bother searching, I have the answer right here:
" The “bottom line” is an American phrase originally coined in the mid-1960s by corporate America to describe the physical bottom line of a profit and loss statement where the final numerical figure is placed, showing whether a company made a profit or took a loss. "
Definitely not of pleb origin.
I have worked for plenty of corporations. They all have more or less veneer of humanity painted on them, but the real decisions are always lizard-brain.
4 Likes
No one cares about clothes. I mean ship skins I get, you gotta look fly as you pod them amirite?
But clothes? No one cares.
By virtue of my caring for clothes in EVE, I make your statement incorrect.
It would seem PAccp cares…
and:
2 Likes
I mean I could support it if we could walk around or were more than a portrait haha.
I’ve bought a ton of skins for games like Apex/Fortnite/Overwatch etc.
Yes, it would be nice if we had legs, lol
Never cared for skins but clothes on character, yea.
To operate in the business of limited edition assets, a company must consistently and reliably stick to the terms of its limited edition supply, it must also have trust in place with its customers.
For some reason there are a lot of EVE Online economists in here invoking the idea that CCP is a company, and as such is correct in being amoral and putting a laser focus on its bottom line, therefore dishonouring limited edition supplies in doing so. The amoral bottom line laser focus idea is being used as an explanatory hypothesis for betraying limited edition business.
The argument is extremely bad.
There are many companies that successfully run a limited edition business, if anything they can achieve insane profit levels through doing this properly, and it involves taking moral considerations into account. Focusing on the bottom line is not mutually exclusive to considering moral factors.
1 Like
I have worked in plenty of corporations too, specifically in high end retail which approximately/essentially was partly in the business of limited edition supplies, and I can definitely vouch that customer focus and orientation is paramount.
Nobody is cruising day to day doing nothing but maximising the bottom line like an amoral lizard brain robot. Nobody exactly knows what actions to take to maximise the bottom line, or the amount they add to it depending on what they do.
What happens is people are applying the company values system and principles to the benefit of the customers, with full faith that this is the proper way to run such a business and that the bottom compounds all of this and shows a profit as a result. The right choices are made, and the invisible hand gives you profit on the bottom line.
Now thats comedy.
The rest of your posts seek to undermine anti-corporate feeling by suggesting that compaibes do not seek only to maximise profit at all other costs. Yet “this is a business not a charity” is a common refrain. “The needs of the business” another.
The customer often benefits by retaining their money and not buying an extea item they dont need.
A company, especially one selling luxury consumer items, feeds on the WANTS of a customer, not their NEEDS.
But even ignoring this extremely basic fact, you say;
As if this in itself is morally relativisticly important.
Insane profit
Insane
Just stop and think what that actually means ffs.
I feel like you ignored the main thrust of my argument to focus on the one area of generalisation that could be reasonably argued against. Let me make it more clear.
The number of players who collect limited edition assets is relatively small.
The number of those players who will stop playing the game if they re-issue once limited items is smaller than the number of players who will buy the reissued items.
Overall, sometimes re-issuing limited edition items will make CCP more money than not re-issuing them would. The vast majority of the playerbase will not even care in the slightest one way or another. There are literally no incentives for CCP to not re-issue these items, other than gradually eroding the value of those items as they first launch. As yours is the only post I’ve seen recently bemoaning this issue, they are clearly not at that point. So, for now, they will continue to do what they are doing.
I would go find examples of the countless times other companies have gone around with “limited availability” over “limited edition”, particularly in digital assets (there are whole games dedicated to this way of making money), but clearly I’m too unsophisticated to understand such things.
2 Likes
While you seem to think you are coming at me with a hard-hitting counterargument, unfortunately, sir, I must point out that you appear to be shooting yourself in the foot repeatedly.
You are describing a scam hidden under the facade of a ‘limited edition business’. You are not describing a legitimate limited edition business at all. Then you are daring to present it as a prospective optimization for how to run a limited edition business. This is exactly the sort of activity I am warning about in this thread!
A scam hidden under the facade of a limited edition business will make less money than a legitimate limited edition business. To assume the scam to be better is to make entirely implausible assumptions.
Also, you are a customer. You are not a CCP employee. Why in heavens name would you come out in defence of attempts to make you/us buy fake limited addition assets.
Sigh. I’m neither for nor against the limited edition “scam” as you put it. I fall into the 99.99% of eve players who simply don’t care.
But I AM interested in why you think there’s a scam afoot. Did CCP at any time define the exact numbers of these limited editions? Have they made any clear and unambiguous statements that things that will be “one-time only” that have since been reneged upon? Please link.
More broadly, do you think it’s possible that other companies (and I’m talking specifically about automotive here, as that’s my real life background) do very similar things? I.e. this is a limited edition of 500 cars. But next year, we will change two small things and call it a new limited edition. Or, we might just make the limited edition a run of 5000 instead of 500. This is entirely commonplace.
And yeah, you also ignored the main point of my initial argument again but I’m just not going to bother and let others infer what they like from this.
You sound somewhat fatigued, I will not ask you to restate your points I think I fully understand them. You basically are trying to justify or normalise limited edition scams, now you are using the appeal to authority fallacy by claiming you work in this industry and that it’s normal operations to maximise profits.
I gave you extensive examples if you scroll up.