Stop complaining, it's getting old. Same old stupid posts [Updated post 18/02/19]

Communications Center General Discussion
41

I agree that it wasn’t the best executed thing. But I do not doubt that CCP got what they wanted. Another step, further metrics. Let’s keep in mind that it’s been a few years now since CCP took the decision to focus on not the pro-active messaging customer, but to first channel and divide messaging and then to focus on conformist / passive / gratification type of customers. That should say something about their focus and targets.

Truth be told, I do think that CCP should consider developments on topics such as lootboxes, gamification and such more within their strategic views. They appear to be putting quite a bit of emphasis in resource allocation to concepts which are increasingly on shaky grounds in relation to developments in governance. EVE’s recently even popped up in a comparative analysis study at an EU Institute (not the one I am attached to, reference by network), both in terms of the broader China subject and in terms of examples for consideration in legislative advice structures. But, that is an entirely different topic the entire gaming industry which has an economic activity footprint in the EU is waking up to.

Anyway. It didn’t look good, but only so on the inside, and then in a fragmented manner. In other words, low risk assessment. As long as CCP does these things carefully and spaced apart impact is manageable in accordance with strategy goals and requirements. Regardless of outings of those types of customers which are less interesting to CCP than those types where calculating gain is more easy because the patterns are more subject to guidance.

It’s the old schism really. Do you want to chase after both product and customer, or do you want to have predictable consumer patterns following a guided product development. CCP has made its choice.

Nobody here really hears from the conformist, triggered, passive, quicker gratification user types. But, to paraphrase one of Hilmar’s statements, CCP measures what customers do, not what they say. They focus on those that are measured and measurable, the other types are the cause of the hole in the ship (demonstrably wrong, but this is the dominant perspective as formulated for a few years now).

I’ll agree that there’s risks attached. But again, as messaging is divided and distributed, with strong tendencies to get lost in detail drama and polarisation, those risks are manageable for CCP. It isn’t as if this event has caused a flow of industry review, comments or anything like that. This is the bottom line, no impact on brand / venture perception or value. The only priority and potential risks are those of meeting or not meeting directives and strategy requirements.

As such, while I agree that it wasn’t optimal, I see no real risks following from this event.

42

Thanks mate

Deffo open to debate, what i am aiming for is for people to make constructive posts offering solution’s instead of of saying “you broke my fav toy”

43

@Zachri addressed this quite well (qouted for emphasis):

Quit trying to regulate how people express themselves. It’s a waste of your time - not necessary or constructive.

44

Ironic xD

45

I think this is the only point I am still stuck on (possibly due to my own ignorance on many related factors).

What exactly necessitated this model change? I believe an assumption that a model change was needed is a crucial point in many of your claims.

(If I simply missed this in one of your posts feel free to point to that post or quote yourself)

46

Don’t do that, agreeing with some one is not regulation.

You have trolled three posts I have been in today and this is no better. Stop trying to pick fights and take part constructively. Otherwise, please, go away.

47

I’m confident you missed my point…

48

I did not, i do not agree 100% on all of his posts but on that one I did, so I stated as much.

49

Now I’m positive you missed my point…

You can’t agree with his post on that topic then say :

His entire point was that you should expect criticism and emotions in these matters. It doesn’t invalidate the ‘signal’, which can usually still be interpreted and should not be dismissed simply due to tone.

You’re basically a grammar nazi, but your target is tone rather than syntax.

50

Debate is a healthy form of criticism and of course emotions get involved. Any text discussion reaches that kind of level without fail.

Grammar Nazi? My typing and spelling is awful lol. Trust me, if this forum did not have spell check, things would be a lot worse :slight_smile:

51

Also don;t call people Nazi’s mate, because it is highly offensive, especially considering where the term comes from and the actions associated with it. It is extremely offensive.

52

Fair enough, I’ll agree I should have used a different term there. I apologize.

53

No issue, we are all men here, well i’m more mental than man but yeh :stuck_out_tongue:

54

Eve Online is perfect the way it is, so what if CCP want to “shake things up” - You are not required to like it, at all.

If it would be perfect, nobody would complain and CCP would stop adding anything.

EVE is not perfect, nothing is. And CCP seems very inclined on pursuing financial goals. The profit must have been rather small past year.

Thats why very hard event and plex -10%.

55

If you’re captain (and part owner) of a ship, getting older and having had some issues with old dreams and you run into a problem with your home port while you know there’s a hole in the bottom of your ship change becomes unavoidable.

Here’s the thing. Your old dreams are gone, your efforts to trade in other ports where less than succesful, your attempts to get more ship as well, and you yourself are older in spite of having pushed yourself back on the rails, and then your home port points to the stakes at hand? Then you’re not going to attempt further dreams or experiments, instead you focus on the work required for interests, on which your own depend.

So you pick up the ship, because you have to, move it discretely to a different ocean and gradually move stuff into a new port. Simply because this is less effort and more directly rewarding with less intrinsic risk and less exposure than putting the boat in the yard while facing lessons and costs.

Don’t get me wrong here, there was a time where conditions were different, where other options were available. But even then CCP didn’t decide on strategic directives, no matter how much effort was put in making it look like they did. CCP just talked a good game in different times, but ultimately it quite simply refused to consider its own (segregated management / culture) role in root causes of that hole, and it quite simply wasted the goodwill & other intangible capital it had built up with less than optimal execution of sideshows and experiments.

It really isn’t unlike a typical startup which has a golden goose and falls for the myth of exceptionalism but ends up being reminded of its own assumptions and thus ending up like just another asset.

So, the time to plug or even fix the hole passed, circumstances changed, CCP stumbled into walls, investor relations changed, ultimately CCP just lost the room it used to have. What then follows is so ordinary and common that to consider it for CCP is difficult. It becomes business with no room to wiggle to be grand, it becomes a case of bottom line and personal stakes.

At that point, with the writing on the wall, you drop what was and redefine goals and methods. You identify necessities and opportunities, you identiy least resistance to measurable gain paths and work out a) what is required for that and b) how to execute that (without rocking the boat and thus you have to be subversive about it).

When you translate that from venture to product management, that means swapping out the old commercial model for a new one. One which is more measurable, where you have more control, less exposure, less complexities, lower costs, manageable gains.

Pure and simple. You just need to manage the change pains and limit risks to the venture.

I’m sure others can provide a timeline of decision points, above is by analogy to clarify how you end up at the point of having to instigate a paradigm shift where a venture with investor relations changes into a venture where your own role changes fundamentally. I don’t doubt that over time more stuff and stories will surface, and I think it is fair to say that it isn’t hard to dig up verifiable information on what happened when, why and with who involved.

I don’t think it serves much of a point to specifically point out the discrepancies between CCP’s carefully constructed messaging on these matters and the actual reality of decision points on an individual level. As I said, the turning point is now a few years behind us.

That said, there was no assumption of a model swap. It was a necessity. Granted, because conditions came to be which made it unavoidable, but a necessity it did become. At that point there is only forward.

Venture management is strictly business.

1 Like
56

Yes Yes, PLEX this and PLEX that.

Look, who cares about PLEX? Who cares about Ship Skins that need to be brought? If you cannot afford it, then suck it up and move, step up. Bottom line is and I’m sorry but if you cannot afford to pay for one account using IRL funds then you need to budget that in so you can do activities to fun other accounts.

This is what and how it is. People just want to whine and complain about Plex prices and Ship skins they want but can’t afford.

I want 150million IRL cash, a full time nanny, a cleaner and a 7 bedroom house, but I won;t get it because it’s out of my reach. I accept that and move on, I don’t sit down and whine about it 24 hours a day.

1 Like
57

is it wrong that the Venture is one of my fav ships?..

58

Thanks for your time and thoughts on this topic, which is obviously well within your area of expertise. You have given me, for one, a lot to think about.

Right now I still feel that the model change might have been in haste, but changed it is. I’d again point to CCP’s lack of success when they try to join the main-stream. The only success they have ever had is EVE, and its specific form of uniqueness played a large part in that. When a new title finally manages to offer substantial competition to EVE I fear CCP will regret this shift.

1 Like
59

He does seem to know, a lot about everything lol.

60

An idiot indeed.

1 Like