Ideally EVE 2.0 would be in continuity of EVE 1.0.
Existing accounts would transfer into the new version with existing assets/value intact or compensated for.
Thatās what Iām talking about brother 
Good looking out there Nana, canāt wait to get home and play Star borne. Iām just at work at the minute, is there a sub fee? Or is there any eve online pilots already there I can hook up with?
Iām realy excited.
So you mean literally every expansionā¦
Many in the EVE Online community knows about these events, cancelling of this event, and layoffs of the employees of EVE Online community support team by CCP Games.
2017.11.14
2 Likes
CCP has shown a talent for sinking Millions and Millions of Dollars in Projects that got cancelled sooner or later. False promises were made on all fronts and the community was slapped in the face more than once. Dust 514 - a whole community was built and then trashed over night. Valkyre, World of Darkness, Walking on Stations.
you could fill a book with countless errors and acts of mismanagement by CCP over the years.
my point is: where would Eve be now if CCP had not wasted Millions and Millions of dollars with their side adventures? we could probably land on planets to walk, drive and fly through the empire cities by now.
it is clearly not the fault of the staff that got fired now. maybe its time to fire the right people - those who are responsible for the mismanagement and for wasting huge amounts of money and human resources over the past 10 years.
2 Likes
Hilmar isnāt going.
no. of course not 
And thatās why this company and its games are continuing to fall into the shitter.
4 Likes
Thatās the common factor in all those decisions. Which boil down to a couple of facts: EVE was not Hilmarās idea, and he haves no studies on business management. Hilmar is a graphics artist who took over EVE after the former lead designer and CEO had a meltdown. So far Hilmar has proven to be able to take risks, miss the target and have no backup plans for failure. When he goes in, he goes with everything and when it fails, people are fired.
CCP was a 600 hands ship back in 2011. Now itās down to 270 after firing people because Incarna, because World of Darkness and now because VR. Incarna left CCP with a liability of some 12 million $, WoD left a hole in the 21 million and now VR is about the poor performance of 30 million (probably theyāve been recovered, but no profits are to be seen).
Taking risks is part of the business and flops will happen. But it makes wonder why Hilmarās CCP is a company that has made one big game right, one tiny game done well and has wasted millions in 4 wrong or disappointing games.
EVE online: success (approaching end of life)
Gunjack: success (in a tiny market)
World of Darkness: disaster
Dust 514: failure
Valkyrie: disappointing
Sparc: shall we call it DOA yet?
Would you hire this man?
8 Likes
An expansion and a new release are two distinct things.
EVE 2.0 can be built so that it makes things possible that cant be done in EVE 1.0
Clean, structured code rather than spaghetti code all tangled up after 10yrs.
You can see that other games that are made in series are based on the same engine as the previous one and offer basically the same content but different textures or models, big work on engine is rather rare and doesnt look like clean job at all, code is rather full of bugs initially. EVE graphic engine and structure looks like it was worked on for some time already, some changes accompany release of new stuff like citadels or agency content finder. I doubt its easy thing for CCP also. 
I donāt think that Fallout 3 -> 4, Deus Ex, Battlefield 1942 -> 2 and some others keep the same engineā¦
When they are outdated, there are new versions, but usually game companies just take what works and build a game using it, there may be some upgrades on the way.
Nothing worth doing is ever easy.
When I speak of an EVE 2.0, I am talking about rebuilding the game in a new edition, such that it allows for future-proofing, clearer coding and options which the previous version made impossible.
It will still be EVE, but an EVE that isnt bottlenecked by its own construction and implementing advances created since its inception.
yeah but that failure to failure can also take you under too.
whats a few million to a 1b company. reminds me of my robotics company I worked at. we were considered a $1b company, and 1 small piping job led to a lot of people getting fired because of a few days setback by other companies on the projects.
CCP should focus on EVE and EVE alone.
Their track history shows that is the only thing they know how.
wrongā¦ they cant even get eve online right anymore since its founding devs are goneā¦ matter of fact only one of them is left and the other founders have been very critical of eveās direction ever sinceā¦
Yeah, it is a strange situation.
In the Real Worldā¢, people who have an idea for a game title need to pitch that concept to folks who know what it means to burn down a big pile of capital for nothing.
That is true even for people who have a track record of building successful profitable titles. The due diligence side of things means that commercial analysts and ethics folks get involved, just to make sure someone hasnāt gone power crazy and begun to build corporate monuments to themselves.
At CCP, if the track record is anything to go by, the way people got clearance to burn down a pile pile of capital on a game idea was to know the right people on the board of shareholders.
I mean, that is always a good place to start. Iām not an anarchist. Well, I am, but not in this instance. What I mean is, Iām not suggesting that owners ought not do what they want with their capital.
But in this case, I understand that there were multiple folks who owner shares in the capital, and so corporate fair play rules necessitate a reasonable amount of due diligence on the way capital is wasted by the cocaine addled freaks (board of directors) who appeal to the frivolous tastes of the shareholders.
If you were a minority shareholder, you would be looking at the track record of miserable failure and wondering who was doing what kind of due diligence.
In fact, I begin to see the clouds of litigation forming in my crystal ball.
The path to a structured buyout may well come through litigation that threatens the long term brand value. That seems to be the only language the original owners understand, anyway.
1 Like