As mentioned elsewhere, but as it appears things are still kept in a format of divide & conquer, I figured I’d repeat here what I said elsewhere.
One thing which keeps getting tossed around is P2W, or Pay to Win. It is thrown around so much that it confused the issue.
In truth, the term “P2W” is not just inaccurate, it makes it easier for PA/CCP to establish a narrative where any sort of critical observation is the hallmark of unfounded negativity. In other words, the more people say “P2W”, the easier it gets to write off those people as dumb haters and to reaffirm the validity of PA’s directives and CCP’s roadmaps - where the methdology of boiling frogs is rewarding.
PA does not do P2W. What it does, because it is a publicly traded investment management company operating in the games industry, is prioritise the bottom line of venture rewards, using products, participations and acquisitions.
What PA does do is use a very broad concept of P2A, Pay to Accomodate. Time, resources, ability - you name it. It’s the concept that any gameplay action possible is required to be available to both regular players and those who wish and are able to pay for the use of shortcuts, which requires the regular gameplay to favour the use of shortcuts.
In other words, it dances on a very very fine line of segregation between those who pay extra and those who do not, while triggering players pur sang to pay extra as the regular gameplay is at minimum in terms of perception and emotion not valid in terms of competitive or goal driven perspectives.
As said, this is dancing a fine line.
CCP has done this since introducing F2P. They have done so well, even if it up to the point of the decision to move towards establishing CCP/EVE as for sale this started to cross lines at certain points in terms of effects on gameplay / game dynamic for longer term projections. Simply put, until that moment CCP was boiling players as frogs, but they did so without crossing lines of P2W or P2A. So, CCP has kept their word in this regard.
The argument can be made however that in order to present the best possible packaging and presentation towards sale CCP has made some decisions and implementations which in certain ways a) give the impression that EVE as an emergent dynamic is going to die (let’s be honest, this concept already died with the introduction of F2P since that has completely different functional requirements) and b) introduced instabilities which will need to be addressed from that traditional perspective, but which in a commercial reality are not a topic whatsoever. For CCP this has created what is known as a perception problem, it has nothing to do with watching what people do versus what they say (retention), it is the kind of thing which over time introduces the equivalent of negative idea / emotional contaminants which impact acquisition.
I’m sure that at the level of CCP’s upper management they’re well aware of this. It isn’t rocket science after all.
It is however an issue which has already become a challenge because it is combined, regardless of whether proper, desired, appropriate, valid or not, with the general perspective on PA’s established commercial (venture, product, publishing) and community (relations, communications) practices.
So when you do an AMA, it requires a bit more than “guyz tis gonna be awezome”. It requires getting people focused on what they really care about, without marketing. Which in the case of CCP/EVE really comes down to the center point: practical planning and implementation points for content and features of EVE and what people can or cannot do with XYZ.
This AMA has unfortunately utterly, and massively, failed as a messaging excercise for constructive purposes. While it has provided easy metrics which can be used with creative statistics to demonstrate the exact opposite, it doesn’t take a genius to go beyond the fracturing CCP introduced to community streams following F2P and look at the patterns among customer narratives and media reception of those.
All in all it reminds me of the the very same bad media/community management prior to the Summer of Rage. Which is a damn shame. Fortunately, and this is a good thing, while the excercise has failed, it has not aggravated matters. Honestly, this is the least worst scenario, so this is a good thing.
What comes next depends on tweaking narratives CCP sees popping up are divided in followers / supporters / haters, using the last one as a catalyst for a binary divide favouring and stimulating the first two.
As such, P2W as a term thrown around isn’t a good idea. It isn’t valid, it isn’t accurate, and it isn’t the point.
So what is the point?
Boiling frogs. That is one definite thing. The realisation that a) direction and b) implementation cannot be changed or deviated from and that any change will be gradual but it will follow conditional requirements. Now as mentioned by plenty others, here and elsewhere, as long as CCP achieves its goals it will retain the conceptual maneuvering room to introduce change without crossing the lines towards P2A.
Even if CCP were to have issues, there is still is a lot in the acquisition which at first and for a while keeps the new commercial relationship driven by not just revenue goals but also experience and tech transfers. Leaving CCP room to not be forced to cross those lines.
As such, it would be really sad to see CCP pop up and use fear tactics. If you do not support, CCP will not make goals, and then you the customer will have killed your own EVE as you like it. It’s a bad tactic. It’s bad business. And it is methodology which taints subjective perception of those using it, undermines reception of those adopting it in their own communities, and most importantly it aggravates perception problems already present.
So cross your fingers CCP stays smart enough to not go down that road. And for, as example, CSM’s to not be stupid enough to come up with it on their own.
To keep it simple, P2W isn’t the issue. P2A is the problem. CCP managing to not get influenced through exposure to PA for ideas as contaminants so they can keep balancing the effects of directives given to CCP by PA, that is the real challenge.
It’s still CCP, but it is a lesser CCP. Not for its staff, but for its circumstances. It had long distance investors. It now has short-cycle & short-distance investing owners. If anything, this requires feedback and communcation towards CCP to be constructive and accurate, both in terms of advocating and in terms of correcting. As long as CCP remains open to feedback (this is not CSM, that is their tool) that will be fine, and truth be told this is part of CCP’s culture. It is definitely not PA in this regard, so for players it is really easy to determine if CCP were to deviate from that.
So please, no more tossing around of P2W. It’s more complex than that, it’s too easy to turn tables with that. It distracts from more practical challenges. And it also increases distance between staff and customers. Perception challenges are contaminants too.
