Point 1 taps into a little bit of a behavioural and organisational weakness in CCP, combined with a very common Asian focus. Form over function. If it looks good, it is good.
I am certain former CCP and oldtimers will recognise the exact quotes … Younger players won’t get it. Suffice to say that CCP has its own character. For an Asian mindset on product development, it is a match, as well as an influencing opening.
Point 2. Heh. It would be nice if loads of new customers showed up. But this is not the focus. First, PA needs quite a bit from CCP. Hilmar is absolutely right when he says that CCP can provide a lot of technical expertise, as well as a few other things for commercial perspectives. This while EVE provides decent income, and in spite of decreasing warm bodies has compensted well enough in terms of subs + mt income.
I think you’re confusing some assumptions here. PA picked up stuff adjusted for a readily available market, hence their volume of customers. Which has been going down as well, which for them is irrelevant, as long as market reach expands, available income streams are increased and so forth. CCP produced a niche game, which is fine with PA, if CCP can expand that, nice, but the point is increasing income streams following the transfers from CCP to PA.
If you’ve done some reading by now it should be clear that PA is focused on investment management first and foremost. It operates in this industry, but that industry is a tool in service of this. PA doesn’t think twice about doing what is necessary for that, even if that requires doing things which in EU and US business mentality would be considered risky, not-done or only very very carefully to be considered. Look how their community management policies and decisions. It is a non-factor. The bottom line defines and decides.
It isn’t about the volume of customers primarily. It’s about what the volume generates and what access it provides to further streams and as a bonus volumes.
The idea that a customerbase is relevant is flawed. It isn’t. It is a calculation. Nothing more, nothing less. Circumstances are ideal for this. Normalisation does the rest.
Point 3 is accurate. If you look at how PA engages publisher/studio elements, it is quite clear that through financial and resource targets they are very good at creating development pathways according to the holy grail of the bottom line. They have consistantly reworked BDO for example. They have not deviated or allowed any deviation from the mantra that they operate by. In practical terms that comes down to simplified niche based gameplay without community dependancies (like EVE’s old emergent behaviour footprint) rooted in a strictly mechaninistic perspective on targets and steps for gameplay constructs. Technically PA have not made BDO P2W, but they have quite simply reworked gameplay to increase the tresholds for regular non-shortcut gameplay so tremendously that in reality a customer doesn’t have much room at all to stay away from shortcuts.
The important bit is that every interaction with publisher/studio, no matter how gradual or messy, has been kept in those bottom line boundaries. Publisher/studio is a set of concepts which for PA has no input. It is an execution instrument, a tool for delivery of income streams and mechanisms. Nothing more, nothing less. Look at how they deal with the NA publisher of BDO, strung it along, played on shared DNA, gave them just enough rope to hang themselves, and now they can only stick to PA’s directives for the bottom line.
PA consider time as resource. In the old EVE time was training + experience + expertise + ability. CCP has already removed this. EVE is ready in this regard for PA. Time is money, pure and simple.
Do not make the mistake from our mentality here that point 2 is a requirement. It is not. PA have demonstrated quite consistantly that it is diversity of income points that matters. Volume of customers is not a variable at that point of the calculation. It is one at very different points.
PA are buying experience, expertise, and access to income points and streams. Once done with the first parts, the rest will follow. Because that has been their business model from the start. It is the foundation of their operational model. I can honestly understand how the respective CEO’s were able to find and strike a match. The consistancy of thinking, the recognition of behaviour, the awareness of there only being a relation with shareholders and not company, the responsability of managing change as a resource and a further tool.
It is a match. It makes perfect sense. It does however also make the direction of change inevitable and impossible to deviate from.
There is no rage, there can be no rage. Wait until you sit through the AMA. Take note of response timing and who pops up with questions that get responses and what the focal points for repetition of messaging those will be.
Honestly, do you think this is coming out of the blue? This is all well worked out, well crafted, well executed.