True.
That’s what happens when everyone, without restrictions or proper moderation keeping up high standards, has access to a forum. Every single online community suffers from this once they reach out for the mainstreamers without actively upholding standards. In just a single year I’ve found a dozen subreddits talking about exactly this and how the masses ruined everything, and i bet there’s tons more i never came across.
See also: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EternalSeptember
You’re missing a few vantage points in order to analyse the business perspectives present, also keep in mind that EVE is (still) in a transition period between different venture and product models.
Quantity is its own quality. Factors as speed appear to be overlooked as well, just as spin and pull.
The quality focus is present, in allocation of resources related to acquisition. Think art, appearance, attraction, affinity and so forth.
That it is much less present in relation to retention is visible in the back-and-forth between product and venture level focus impact on the example of NPE. Where a quality focus unilateral the NPE would continue to be reinforced to further retention. Instead efforts supporting that have been deprioritised and the NPE is set to be brought in tune with simplification and the rather resolute niche focus where slowly the sand is put out of the original sandbox 
Similarly it is visible that post-acquisition focus emphasises the quantity focus with triggers that instigate push and pull to increase accounts and consumption as opposed to increasing players. What to product level was a struggle to deal with limiting unintended consequences of the reward/refer mechanisms was to the venture level a rather known method to diminish the dependancies on these, lowering the treshold required to formulate a subtle change in targets set for product level more in line with the venture model.
Do CCP want a quality focus on the experience? Yes. Naturally. It is a factor. But one which is connected to the acquisition box. For retention the book has been replaced with a different textbook. Doesn’t mean the experience will have less quality, it’s just a different priority and implementation model.
CCP cannot care about the individual player. They can only care for the abstracts of types and groups, where the player as prime variable was replaced by accounts. It is easy to assume from this that a player might carry more weight, but this doesn’t take into account the changes in policies on both retention and acquisition.
Which is why CCP’s efforts are to a high degree focused on guiding both behaviour and actions towards internalisation of the new model. Why they invest in methods to get players to move themselves into abstracts and niches which we - from an immersed perspective - equate with groups and groupings.
As an aside, never draw conclusions from corporate activity that follows from customer perception problems.
Tippia? Is that you?
You didn’t really read my post, did you? It is not about CCP creating a quality experience, it’s about CCP attracting higher quality players, which are important in EVE because they act as multipliers binding to, and keeping people in the game. I’ll address the rest.
You know, it’s hard to disagree with you. You don’t even seem to try hard making your sentences complicated. I don’t think they’re still in the transition period. Their transition peiod was pretty much the whole last year plus, but it started much earlier, at Rubicon.
NOW they’ve figured out enough. They’ll still keep improving, but they’ve proven they can bait and milk, and that’s a milestone they can built up upon. Still doesn’t change the fact that, in EVE, continuously attracting low level people is unsustainable … and proof is clearly visible.
So are you saying someone would spend money again knowing the server could be reseted some day?
You’re applying value labels. An influencer, attractor or binding actor is not the same as a quality player, it’s a different paradigm as well as a different context.
Yes, CCP seeks out individual, group and entity variants based on such qualifiers for exactly the point of influencing ratios like conversion and multiplication. With an interesting shift demonstrated the past few years, a shift which due to its consistancy is indicative of focus: multiplication > conversion.
It’s a well established model, one which is relatively low maintenance (and low key) in terms of advertising / marketing requirements. It is however also indicative of assigning less priority to retention beyond identified variables.
I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that CCP’s available focus (amidst resource allocation) for such variables can provide a more streamlined experience. But it isn’t the same as a qualitative focus. It’s just the hole in the boat Hilmar commented on. And as he’s said, it isn’t about fixing the hole. But moving the ship.
On a more serious note, for CCP the player types who create narratives have become a lot less interesting, even risky. They are far more interested in the types who overcompensate in niche based behaviour, in accordance with triggers provided.
I’m not sure we can apply a term like “quality” in connotation with any such types. This strikes me as a bit of a trap of label bias which too easily can distort our perspectives. Suffice to say there’s different types and categories, and CCP has moved on over the years in identifying those and weighing prioritisation.
The proof is in the pudding. CCP has put many more resources in catering to types less, transitioning to triggering (conditional and impulse) much much more.
I’m inclined to agree that any virtualised dynamic based on emergent behaviour where priorities are less on player narrative / story creation and more on triggered consumptive behaviour has limits in economic sustainability. This from a venture capital management perspective. But two comments on this. First, EVE carries a lot of passive subscription income and an increasing amount of transactional income - whether CCP’s venture level has created a dependancy there already is not a public matter. Second, CCP is transitioning EVE away from emergent behaviour to a very different model.
The benchmarks for sustainability are changing as that transition continues. As Hilmar said, moving the ship to a different ocean.
Why are you convinced their business model is changing completely, instead of assuming the best of both worlds? They don’t actually have much of a choice not to, and it seem you’re not actually seeing it.
Because I don’t “do” assumptions. To clarify, I’ve been in VC for decades, mapping / investing / buying / selling / splitting / transforming business and operational models. A decent chunk of that in this industry. Admittedly that gives a bit of a network based viewpoint, so to speak, but even from a more straightforward business management it’s been clear for quite a while that CCP’s venture partner perspective changed years ago, that CCP’s studio model underwent changes and that the venture directives changed - including a transitioning effort to a different operational model.
To give a few blunt examples, on a different forum I called PA as the prospect buying entity. Together with someone else, we put together the policy change link tot injectors / rorquals as intended effect motivators. Incidentally, that guy managed to point out the indicators of rng transform elements to follow from decision points.
Look, don’t get me wrong here. EVE is and will continue to be a variant on the general sandbox concept. That means that in terms of functional operations you would be able to recognise EVE as EVE five years from now just as the EVE from 5 years ago. It’s the commercial model that has been changing, related and unrelated to the venture management, and while that will not mean the end of that sandbox it is a different set of venture directives which have been and will continue to adapt the operational product level output in accordance to the balance between opportunities, requirements and owner directives as applicable.
This isn’t a new thing. When CCP was confrontend with the so called Summer of Rage CCP’s venture level did a few very smart things which continued the already identified as required course, but altered the format and forms of implementation. To make a long story short, at the time a lot of customers regard that Summer of Rage as a sort of war over EVE’s operational model, CCP won. By listening to venture partners, by being smart, by doing some house cleaning and by figuring out how to boil frogs. That Newsletter thing was just a little tumble, the roadmap was already set. Since then CCP have been careful and smart in its implementation.
It wasn’t until the PA announcement that some players started to wonder about where the roadmap would end. Not unsurprising, but EVE’s customer dynamic had already gone through a heck of a lot of normalisation. I do not doubt that CCP doesn’t just have the confidence that they can continue the roadmap, complete with here and there some detail level resource allocation to deal with little glitches and perception issues which might spill towards the old dangers of brand damage before it ever gets to such a point again, but that they also have the metrics supporting their efforts.
Let’s be honest. CCP established that some of its own historic “oddities” (not going to rehash old trauma) in combination with player behavioural inertia were the biggest stumbling blocks towards being able to expand upon venture directives. So they dealt with that. It’s business.
But all these things over the years demonstrate completely that the CCP as it was in the early days did become a professional agency. It went from a dream to having to run after the customer to wanting to do their own thing again but stumbling and having to meet directives and ipo’s to a process of professionalisation under pressure. That makes the business perspective dominant for any type of agency in such circumstances. It stops being about the customer, it is about the bottom line. And if the optimisation process requires exchanging the customer, you do it. Heck, a little point of honesty, after the Summer of Rage I could understand why CCP would consider that a necessity in combination with changing ocean by boiling frogs. That they were able to transform a problem group dynamic to an enabling dynamic by making use of the ego of a back then CSM candidate was just one indicator that they were no longer chasing tails, but had set business perspective as sole priority and were being smarter about it than ever before - and smarter than that player, and the customerbase alike.
The model has already changed, it changed some years ago. Partly because CCP decided it wanted to, but also in great part because they had to. In fact, were told to. CCP was and is a studio, its always had owners, share structures and investor relations.
I do not doubt that at a product level CCP strives to make ends meet and at each step end up with the best of both worlds. I am however also familiar with the limitations set for any kind of product level, as well as with the dynamic of how a venture level management controls product level targets and evolution of those, for both type and form of implementation. Not to mention the interaction (and nature of this) between such levels. Add to this a third one, with a new owner which is its own active investment management agency with strategic interests in use of CCP for reach and acces, and you get an extremely strict strategic format.
To what extent that making both worlds meet is possible, what options for form and focus are available, is largely determined by the studio’s venture ability to provide what the new owner requires and what the devs on a product level apply in terms of blood, sweat and creative tears. But it is the first which sets the maneuvering room and attention points for the second.
None of this means that CCP is going to screw up EVE or screw over its customers. That isn’t up to CCP anymore, if CCP were unable to meet directive requirements. In this I have confidence that CCP can function quite well, and if need be, be very aptly Icelandic about any stumbling in such.
But let’s be honest. The moment CCP introduced the Alpha concept was the moment they confirmed the formal intent to change EVE’s commercial operational model. Which requires a different product level design and methodology model. None of this is new, or unknown, companies and enterprises have done this for a long, long time, long before CCP ever existed and a few crazy guys mortgaged someone else’s house to help fund a dream.
Most (i guess about 90% of all players in todays mmog) are compeltely satisfied if there is an update with “new” content every month…
The quality of it is irrelevant as long as it is “new”…
THAT’S the sad fact you do not get…that your “quality” opinion is outdated and not modern in todays mmog…
“New” and even more “New” is the only thing that matters…
Oh but that’s been obvious for years. It’s been a short track profit optimisation focus for years, following from CCP’s venture level figuring out that it doesn’t matter how much they spend per user on a product level with the return being the same. Increasing the return meant changing the model. Quite simple.
Doesn’t mean there weren’t alternatives. There were decision points however. Part of the sad truth is that on the venture level CCP quite simply stopped caring about EVE, and to a degree (although house cleaning has removed most of those who willfully created problems through personal delusions and/or uninformed aspirations) actively started to dislike it.
I think you are misunderstanding something here. I’m not saying CCP has a focus on quality, I’m saying they have a very limited amount of room for that because they decided it doesn’t pay enough to have more room for quality over time.
In simple terms, CCP made the choice to not engage in long term investment paths but in the short track focus with a model change. It’s not like they could walk away from EVE the cash cow, and every other venture failed - brutally so. They were unable / incapable / unwilling of determining the right kind of long term investment and their preceding efforts to increase userbase (roadmaps of Ascension, Incarna, to a lesser degree Rubicon) were used as evidence of that method not yielding required results to match venture directives.
In a nutshell: CCP’s venture level states that it serves no point to spend more on quality / depth of content and after 3 experiment cycles complete with old and current trauma plus the signals from venture relations it became clear even more that a model change was a necessity.
Now 2 of the 3 efforts were arguably undermined from within, Jon Lander’s departure didn’t help as his insights into the cost of technical debt and the long term risks of asset sweating and minimum product viability as operational directives went out the door with that, Torfi finally leaving cleared a lot of air as even in a parked state the old internal oddities kept instigating internal negative spin, external consultation uppend the ante in making clear what direction was expected of CCP, integrating said external consultation gave that momentum - and so forth.
At the end of the day, do not expect any quality focus from CCP. That door was closed quite a while ago. Doesn’t mean the product level doesn’t strive towards delivering quality, they’re just extremely limited for what they can do.
It all bleeds through in everything. Choices in directives for game design, choices in restrictions imposed on services and infrastructure, even in how CCP approaches challenges players signal as problems. Like feature creep, technical debt derived bugs and content faults. Decrease of content depth, the move away from emergent behaviour to niche guided play, etc.
Heck, even how CCP handles the bots issue follows from it. For players who can’t pull up CCP’s financials now they don’t carry publication requirements that’s maybe the simplest exploration to figure out the underlying changes at CCP. Getting rid of bots potentially resulting in decreased profits is not a relevant argument for CCP, it’s just that getting rid of them through any possible options would not increase profits in relation to the investment required. As such, the investment required to get rid of bots is determined as something between unnecessary and unworthy of attention.
Unnecessary because every few months you can do a bit of marketing and buy some media bias. Unworthy because it isn’t about the game, the player or even about the dev, but about the bottom line.
you do not play EVE.
your opinion doesn’t matter.
Ridiculous…
This is not even worth an answer…
what’s Ridiculous is you coming on here and whining about a game you do not play.
correct me if i’m wrong.
you don’t play EVE do you?
Simply keep your mouth shut and your fingers away from the keyboard…it’s too much of a timeloss to even react to you…
And whoever told you i would not play is obviously not your best friend… 
Too much time lost yet you replied, but not with a simple yes or no answer which would have taken you even less time.
so let’s try again.
do you play EVE ?
" Getting rid of bots potentially resulting in decreased profits is not a relevant argument for CCP, it’s just that getting rid of them through any possible options would not increase profits in relation to the investment required. As such, the investment required to get rid of bots is determined as something between unnecessary and unworthy of attention.".
I regard myself as one of CCP’s biggest critics on botting. But your statement here blew my mind.
Their short sightdness is the fact that botting is hard chained to RMT which does effect profit and CCP’s only effective strategy has been to crash the real dollar cost of their in game currency via plex sale and free sp which does cost them irl dollar.
They have relented in Nov with ISK trading at $5 but they did being the hammer down again wuth thw christmas gifts of sp.
A lot of words to say its not worth it.
But at some point it will be, right?
Surely they are aware of the damage unrestricted boting has on the playerbase?
If CCP managed to completely eliminate bots you’d probably see an active player drop of between 5,000-10,000 players (or accounts) at any given time. Many bots run 24/7 (or close to), so their removal would have a very noticeable (and immediate) impact.
It’s probably the primary reason they only make selective culls, as anything more wisespread would reveal the true state of EVE. Once the active player count drops below 20k you’re going to see a mass exodus of players.
That so many long-term EVE players have been and continue to leave in droves should be a huge red flag, yet nothing is being done.
And that is why a server restart will be so interesting. CCP should start a region in TQ accessible only via pod. On the other side botting would be actively prevented. For a star k space delayed local. Lets see if this new region flourishes. My bet is 100% it would.
Reading through the discussion I noticed the terms quality of players and Content have to be defined more clearly.
As content may mean player created interaction or stuff designed and introduced to the game and quality of player being even more open to guessing it’s meaning as quality basicly means “owning characteristic x”.
(Player that exists? Player that can do something? Player that is online? Player that owns specific item in game?)
Too bad we can’t have an opportunity to start over on a new server. You get to take a single capital ship along with everything you can fit to begin anew. I seriously wonder how many players would jump at the chance?
No alts, no bots - just a single character.