Selling an asset is not “getting rid of it” in the same was as firing everyone and dropping their project. Starting a new project and getting it to a state where someone is willing to pay money for it is a success, not a failure.
You are both really good at ignoring the part about the community team
Then feel free to admit you were wrong about the side projects and take your community team discussion to another thread where it isn’t off-topic.
1 Like
It was always something more.
Thats only a bit of history.
4 Likes
If you believe the marketing hype. The reality is that EVE doesn’t have the player density to support WIS, especially once you take out all of the people who won’t be interested in spending time on irrelevant side mini-games.
People complaining about Valkyrie’s profitability:
Speaking as someone that followed Valkyrie closely, there were multiple reasons why Valkyrie failed. Some of them could have been avoided if different decisions were made by Newcastle (fighter progression, EVE tie-in, matchmaking, voice services, balancing, bringing in competitive modes far earlier) but most of them were a calculated risk. Valkyrie was largely a test and a proof-of-concept piece to see if market penetration into VR was profitable, and never intended to be a long-term investment.
Speaking as someone that had a passion for Valkyrie and could think of dozens of different paths forward they could have made, I’m convinced that if CCP truely threw their weight behind it in a meaningful way that would “divert” from EVEs development in the slightest it would have been a much more put-together game. As things stand though, it was made and operated by a skeleton crew to test VR’s viability.
In that regard, Valkyrie was not a failure. It did exactly what CCP needed it to do as an R&D project, and it broke even in the process all while providing a year’s worth of steady free content. Calling it “another failed CCP” project isn’t honest, and shows a weak understanding of how the industry operates. Do I wish it was handled better or had more longevity? Yeah. But I also understand how these projects work and why it went down the way it did.
All this is to say, while NOVA’s development is having its internal struggles comparing it to Valkyrie is unwise.
2 Likes
I for one welcome the FPS overlords as I am here solely waiting for Project #Novawen
Just look where you are now, on EVE forums, because Valkyrie forums were closed.
Risk that brought them nothing but what people were already saying on these forums. Disappointment thet VR will not catch. They became victims of VR hype, like many generations before them.
Its about long term profitability, not tests. Look EA. Or Blizzard. Or Bethesda.
2 Likes
Nothing but cash. Please stop ignoring the fact that the VR games did make a profit even if they didn’t last as long as some people had hoped.
1 Like
Harldy returned on investment. Thats not how its done right.
Spoken like someone that clearly never took a class on R&D or market penetration with a healthy dose of hindsight bias.
If you’re really looking towards EA, Blizzard, or Bethesda as a model of how a company should operate I don’t know what to tell you that wouldn’t be wasted on you.
Others believe that out there are still tribes of humans searching for a shining planet called Earth.
1 Like
I knew VR will not catch, I knew Console was bad. CCP said that after they checked. I knew that before. Tech industry have its rules.
Not how they operate but what kind of games they invest into.
Xbox, PS4, and Switch are doing incredibly well. PS5 is even coming out soon. 
Do you actually “know” or are you just spouting pcmasterrace memes to pretend like you know things?
1 Like
PC was always better than PS3. EVE was always better than DUST 514. Just look at it that way, you dont have DUST 514 now, but there is still EVE online.
They advertised DUST as having meaningfull ties to EVE Online, while developing it as part of EVE they would have it x100 from get go. But no, somewhere they strayed. But its now history…
Same with NOVA, it should have been part of EVE from beginning.
This is incredibly debatable, but since you used the word “better” as a vague catchall, I reckon you actually have no idea what you’re talking about. Better in what sense?
So you want CCP to develop a new FPS game using the same engine that EVE is running on? Something CCP developed over 16 YEARS ago?
PC tech is different than consoles, its working in ties with the games played on them. EVE is a good example, your playerbase doesnt die off while the previous generation of console dies off. You dont have to develop another version of EVE, you upgrade it. Thats what EVE is about, permanence and continuation. Reflecting PC architecture in that. And when the consoles are things you cant put together, but buy as is, you will always come to a point where it will be considered obsolete for developers to pay atention to it. That is why you have so many console games you have to repurchase again on consoles for nth time, nintendo comes to mind.
1 Like
It evolved greatly. Its not what you used to play 16 years ago, but you cant see it. Thing is, you still play it on PC, not on console. How is that even possible.
You’re telling me that the engine that EVE Online currently runs on has “evolved greatly” to the point where you’re expecting CCP to create an FPS game inside EVE Online? Is that what you’re saying?
I say they can always change it even more. Programming, you know. New features.
Actual game engine with internal tools.
How else it was even possible to put walking avatar in the game and still have that character creator. 