Thank you! As I said, you don;t play the game, you have no right to be on it’s forums, slagging it off, giving the gms/devs what for, hell even a CSM member agrees
It’s okay mate, when people do the whole “split the text up” just to make a point. I tend to zone out. Opinions are like ass holes, we all have one and we tend to spew them.
Thanks tho, made me smile
Well, I trust Brisc only slightly more than the politicians I see on TV, but I will say this for the man. He has maintained a heavy presence on the forums, and it’s really easy to get his ear. So, thanks for be accessible.
I should bow out of the CSM because I believe it’s the point of the CSM to talk to the Devs?
No, it isn’t. In the sense that one does not preclude the other. Dev interaction is perfectly fine, in spite and because of certain restrictions.
But CSM members quite simply are not a gateway. CSM is a buffer and control mechanism with gateway functions, which is something quite different, but for entirely different purposes.
I’ll happily agree that interaction has gone down severely, particularly after several attempts to break community continuity with forum replacements, fracturing community messaging streams and bumping into reddit and other, well, challenges. But that doesn’t mean that the dev component of such interaction is bad or reserved for non-dev representation.
Truth be told, strictly from a professional perspective, the current state is starting to add entropy to the mix, no initiatives in preparation (consideration) are equiped to compensate for that particular challenge.
Which is changing the functional model in accordance with strategic goals and venture roadmaps As already decided upon and put in place well before investor relations finally connected PA.
If you had any tangible experience on this level of venture management you would know that this is exactly the kind of communicative contaminant one has to avoid on a strategy / interest level
You’ll never hear about it unless a scenario develops where CCP’s internal cohesion fractures to a point where the studio management faces severe internal turmoil.
Outside of any such (unlikely) scenario, there’s very little potential, marginal even. Primarily because venture management doesn’t play office games or politics. The stakes are too high, the interests too intrinsic, the level of professionalism too great an integral requirement. Hence no interfering, no micromanagement, no subverting - just managing exposure / interaction, formulating goals, definitions, concepts and targets, and as long as required results keep coming it’s just that. Business.
Look, it isn’t as if CCP does not have its own historic experience with such turmoil scenario’s. Remember when Torfi was having ball partying on top of the world celebrating the PI delivery while staff were working their behinds off to deal with the horrific drama of that deployment? That was a buildup culminating in turmoil which bled over predictably and as such both staff and customers knew the ■■■■ that was coming. Or the Incarna / WoD madness à la Einstein’s definition of insanity applied to micromanagement? The same. That was a different CCP, a connected product level with its own exposure. These are different times, different conditions, different circumstances, and let’s be honest - interesting decision points with high personal stakes.
Please, we all know that the devs are where the heart is, because they have it. But it is a segregated organisation structure under conditions of change. As such, don’t impose assumptions which are very human, but flawed. Sadly, I too wish it were different.
You don’t think you are special yet you cannot resist emphasising a special relationship which provides you with a position of standing in contrast to the other person who has no such incurred special standing.
My dear Brisc, if your aim is to have a serious discussion in a constructive manner, it is bad form as well as counterproductive to resort to such simple tricks. It doesn’t help. If it’s unintentional, well it still doesn’t help. CSM as an instrument by default faces perception challenges, it is worth considering how this kind of approach is constructive at all in service of that.
That doesn’t discount the level of access through the CSM, it also doesn’t discount the strong limitations of that access. It was just an approach which simply reinforces negative perception. I know, it’s not unlike a typical dev pitfall, damned if you, damned if you don’t, but that’s always something to quite simply step over.
Look, let’s be honest. CSM is not a stakeholder. You’re a buffer and selection mechanism in CCP’s community management for marketing scopes with limited acces to product level information in line with derivative goals for product management. It’s not a relation of equals, it’s a relation of use.
Again, CSM can be used as a gateway in a limited manner, but always remember the nature of the relation. On a consumer level a CSM member quite simply isn’t the same as the CSM as instrument.
CSM as is has definite use, but limited use. You’re CCP’s creation. They define and decide on scope.
None of this means that it is impossible for non-CSM customers to get the same or even more information than CSM members. And not just from or on a product level. Or have you forgotten how for years CCP had customers who just for the challenge ran their financial statements through accountacy reviews (yes, even now that CCP no longer carries the legal requirement of publication those crazy people still do the math with the actual data, I know, unsettling), or how many of CCP’s customers work in the gaming industry at various levels, or how many of CCP’s customers run ventures which make investor relations like Bjorgolfsson small fish by comparison (or, seriously fun old history story, facilitated certain measures during the banking crisis for him). Just don’t open those doors, it’s simpler that way. Suffice to say to simply recognise that underestimating particularly certain types of CCP’s customers is not a best practice.
Besides, from a venture perspective he’s perhaps a little off, a little uninformed of dependancy chains and how decision points work, but he’s not wrong on the overall goal steps on the venture roadmap. So what if people discuss that, even regardless of how accurate they are. Look on the bright side, at minimum it shows care for product and sense of community.
When did that become a bad thing which warranted slapping down.
Most of CCP’s former marketing vp’s would have shot him for that comment actually In game, obviously, not that many actually played. Let me put it this way, no matter the functional model of the product, CCP always faces specific challenges in gaining retention/acquisition insights.
What people who have left think, or more importantly, what they feel around which trigger or niche, has always been and will always be of critical value to CCP. In the future even more so than in the past, because a change of model leads to different metrics and instruments required to attract/guide consumptive behaviour with (important) shorter cycles than in the first decade of EVE.
Sad as it may be in light of all too often present distorted signals, those who leave are of higher research interest than those who stay. With the distinction of certain segments identified by CCP as undesirable, obviously.
For us who play actively and also participate on these (and other) forums, that can be frustrating, I’ll give you that So, if the aim is to guide / correct towards constructive messaging, we’ll have to figure out a way to also take into account perspectives of those who don’t actively play.
Not sure how to respond to that truth be told
I emphasize the special relationship to point out my credibility when I make a statement that is based on the information and access that I have by virtue of my role in the game. I mean, I was literally challenged in the comments about how I could say this wasn’t happening.
When somebody makes a statement I know to be false and then demands to know how I know it to be false, and I say “well, they told me” - I mean, how exactly am I somehow trying to lord it over somebody?
My point was simply that emphasizing all of this in the context of the PA acquisition makes no sense, and there’s no evidence or even reason to believe that any of the stuff that was done was done solely at PA’s behest.
The reality is this is a business, and every game company wants to maximize profitability. Every game is doing this now and CCP would be engaging in malpractice if they were leaving so much money on the table. They still leave a ton of money on the table and it’s frustrating to see it, but this whole video seems to be operating under the assumption that until October 2018, CCP wasn’t a for profit company.
Their opinions matter to CCP.
They don’t matter to me. My constituency are current players, not folks who left. Why this game seems to attract people who don’t play any more but feel it necessary to share their uninformed or cynical opinions on things in the game or the health of the game is beyond me. Most people just stop playing a game when it’s not fun anymore. EVE players stop, but also need to make sure you know why they stopped, and they’ll tell you about it faster than vegan announcing himself in a steakhouse.
The only issue for me is the ethics of relying on the problem gambling mentality of some players to increase profits. For example, loot boxes are a big discussion point in the gambling regulation industry at the moment. I’d hate to see my favourite game get banned.
I would strongly oppose any kind of pay-for-loot-boxes in EVE. This most recent gala event had randomly generated rewards that came in a box, but they weren’t loot boxes as are being regulated because there was no direct rl-cash-to-loot-box connection. You weren’t buying boxes with real money, or buying keys to unlock boxes with real money. It was simply an RNG mechanic, just like rats dropping random loot of various values when you kill them.
Which is what seems to be the miss conception here, people have accused CCP of “loot boxes” when it is clearly not. Which is why I was so cross in my earlier replies. They didn’t call it loot boxes on that other thing we have with the wavvy lines (cant remember the name) but it is? So why kick off now
It’s not my truth, Ned Coker once summed it up to a few of us at a convention, mirroring what his predecessors and others had emphasised as well.
To be blunt, it isn’t easy to deal with the pitfall of “I stopped playing yada yada but I want XYZ”, but it is something of high interest because - again - it’s business.
Ok, thank you, that makes the perspective more clear. Keep in mind however that position doesn’t provide credibility, in the sense that it merely provides information. Credibility is built by managing perception as well as information. Subtle but important distinction.
Also, keep in mind that your access is limited. I’m sure you remember when, how and why CCP removed the stakeholder component from the CSM. That means you can only go by what you are told, in a relation of use where benefit is first and foremost geared to serve CCP.
Welcome to politics
It is however understandable, that people approach topics in consideration of the biggest change for CCP in over a decade. On top of that, it is an acquisition. A lot of people do have experience with the discrepancies between required marketing and the reality of such a change. Let’s be honest, the acquisition is a factor. By default an influencing factor, in many ways through many means. Whether it is an intervening factor, that depends entirely on CCP’s ability to deliver according to goals.
Personally, I don’t doubt that the current (well, changing / intended) CCP can meet those, thus limiting the likelyhood of such scenario’s. That said, aside of strategy goals of a changing EVE, no asset is ever unaffected by acquisition, even simple exposure mechanisms have impact.
I don’t think people want to deny CCP profitability, I think most seem to accept that state as a more than reasonable goal. It’s something particularly visible in the impressive patience the customer segments display in willingness to stick with waiting, aspiring, believing.
But yes, I also think that a lot of people limit their personal perspective on such matters when it comes to sending out signals of concern or discontent. Which is very human, still frustrating, but it is important to keep in mind that it complicates the signal - it doesn’t invalidate the intent or the sentiment.
Look, CCP has never been self funding, it isn’t now either, it’s a case of capital flow and while there’s changes in structures and mechanisms CCP still has to deliver and cater to dependancies of that. It has less room than under previous conditions of investor relations, but having been allowed to maintain organisation does provide sufficiently stable foundation to do so well.
Balancing two perspectives, never easy. Still, particularly these days it isn’t like in older days where someone not playing could simply not take part on the forum. As such, they are a factor, regardless of representation.
How we engage with that is a factor as well as such. You’re not asked to represent the proverbial dead But the interaction is there either way.
That isn’t an ethics question, in the sense that it is a matter of legislative debate and consideration. As I mentioned elsewhere, it does appear that CCP is allocating resources to certain goals without at minimum getting involved in industry consultations or keeping tabs on developments in that regard.
CCP is being smart about it in the sense of masking mechanisms, but the trend is quite clear and it does go beyond gamification. Which for some quite big market zones, such as the EU, is very likely to present them with complications. Masking mechanisms in the current EU Frameworks for example have been established to not be distinguishing boundaries. In other words, it’s the behavioural result which has the focus of all those consultation and advice rounds, not the mechanisms. CCP would be wise to consider this carefully, and to invest in solid briefings to PA - as one of the primary reasons for the acquisition is that of access to markets.
See above, I can’t comment on other trade or treaty zones, but for the EU the current path is very likely to end up in not judging the mechanisms, but the behavioural result as deciding benchmark. If this indeed becomes the case, CCP will have a problem. I’d advise them to start participating in the external consultation rounds of IAGR and GREF (particularly in light of amendments to the TFEU under consideration as instigated by several member states), either directly or through the EC’s Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SME services framework.
I think this kind of exploration goes rather beyond the scope of these forums however.
When sentiment is thrown on a table people resort to reductionism and simplification irregardless of accuracy of labels or terms used / adopted. For a game product that is no different as with shouting for a magic Wall or believing a Brexit slogan on the side of a bus …
As such, often it helps to slightly ignore that kind of moment or deficiency, consider where it comes from and why it is distorted, and go back to practicalities rather than abstracts - without compromising long term perspective, or mapping out long term effects of small changes.
Didn’t even get to see it, I am dissapointed
It is likely based on your responses here and in other threads you wouldn’t learn much and instead would just get all offended anyway. So I figured why bother.
See - I’m trying to be nicer.
I have been perfectly cordial yet firm all day, I don’t think those are bad traits. I apologise if that seems so, mt stance has been the same all day, stop bashing on CCP, stop[ accusing them of being run by PA and stop accusing them of abandoning the player base.
Not sure where I deviated?
Hmm didn’t people ask you to prove statements you made in this thread as facts and you just ignored them. Why can’t they do as you?
I think you’re a bit late mate. We kinda sorted this, moved on and moved to a point of conversation.
Troll attempt failed
Catch up with the conversation
Thanks for playing
Why do you think CCP isn’t responsible for enforcing their own terms of service and Eula that says botting is not supposed to be allowed?
Okay buddy, you are clearly intent on attacking me only in this thread, consider yourself, fully ignored.
Not going to do this with you, post with your main okay bud? Until then, blocked, ignored, you don;t exist, go and troll some one else you will get a rise out of.