Just a background in venture capital development, venture management and mergers & acquisitions - a lot of which connected to the industry and CCP’s former & current investor relations. Prior to a switch to governance.
Ask me to change the oil on a car, watch me stand paralysed in confusion.
Friends once removed the wheels on a car we rented while on a trip to Akureyri, put the thing on blocks and laughed the morning after as I got in and was left wondering why the thing didn’t move an inch.
Then they left me trying to figure out the problem over the phone with the rental agency while bitching how my driver service at work never had any such weird problems.
Until lunch. At which point someone from that agency turned up grinning like an idiot.
I understand that the changes EVE is now going through will happen regardless of what many people feel or think. The problem that I and many of my fellow players have is that CCP has made it a regular business decision to be less than open on what is happening now and in the future. I’m not talking about cash flows and depreciation, but rather the lack of both initial communications about the direction the game is heading and responding to evaluations/concerns following any change. I don’t know if it is a cultural problem, translation of one language to English issue, or exactly what is the underlying problem that prevents CCP from establishing reasonable lines of two way communications with their customers. What CCP has been doing in recent years is a failure by any modern day PR standard. Sure you want a unified point of a company voice, but complete silence or spin doctor like blogs just doesn’t work for many of their customers. Especially when you have had a past reputation for being both open and blunt in regards to gameplay.
I can see that CCP has been slowly changing their business model and that IS their choice. Some issues I agree with their decisions, others not so much…but that’s fine with me. I’ll decide when I no longer feel that I’m getting my money’s worth from the product known as EVE and spend my free time and cash elsewhere. But, I refuse to quietly accept poor coding and lack of response to customer concerns as an acceptable return for my money and time. Poor returns on assets invested causes me to trade or switch products, whether in business, the stock market, or products I purchase. CCP is currently failing in holding up their end of the long term business relationship I and many others have had over the years; not by slowly changing the gameplay, but by refusing to at least acknowledge our concerns as they continue to devalue our efforts and accomplishments earned over numerous years and continue to produce less than major game market standards game content and mechanics.
If you rented an apartment of house and the roof leaked or furnace didn’t work, you would complain to the owner. If you rented a car and it didn’t work well, you would complain to the owner. If your groceries you just bought were rotten or had expired used by dates, you would complain to the owner. In each case above, the business owner should offer a polite discussion, an acknowledgement of the deficiency, compensation and correction, and an apology. That would be the normal and expected business relationship. Are computer game companies that different?
Didn’t read all replies, but this claim stands out …
Correct, fully agree. Nobody is against boxes dropping from NPCs or handed out for agency points in the events for better tradability.
However, selling boxes full of random loot for ISK is … a lootbox gambling mechanic. That it’s not sold for PLEX is just special for EvE, where PLEX can be used to buy the ISK you need for gambling.
I’d love for someone to show me the loot boxes, I’ve never seen one in the store. It’s only a loot box if you have to pay REAL money for it. There are literally none in Eve, the day there actually are, CCP can bugger off.
Yet with the other wavy line thing, that was exactly what all of us were doing, but PA had not brought out CCP, so no one said anything aty all, now CCP is acquired, everyone yells “loot boxes” lol wut?
You mean Abyss gambling? I remember a lot of voices seeing a line crossed by that. The current version of gambling is just one step further towards purity.
No, not sure how long uve played for, I cannot remember the event name but it was like a window u opened ingame and u matches lines and wave lengths and then the more u did u got skins in the space boxes etc. I really can’t remember what it was
You mean project discovery? Where you have to help real planet hunters to find transits? This mini game to help science couldn’t be more distant from gambling.
That’s still a thing isn’t it? From what I remember all the data was already confirmed before it was sent to CCP. That was still pretty educational though, I hope they do more like that. Definitely wasn’t gambling tho! The way they awarded the loot was sort of like the hacking mini game, probably what you’re thinking of.
There was also one where you had to look at biology stuff.
Alright, you’ve stumbled a bit with reductionism on a few statements, sometimes an observation is not a case of “just this” or “just here and now”
It isn’t that simple. On an individual level you are correct. That said, considering the impact of accelerators, injectors, extractors and all that since the introduction it is easy to understand why people might feel otherwise. Game design incentives a lot, including stimuli to “catch up”, yet there’s limitations that apply. Add to this experiences in other games and it is easy to see why sentiment and impression can lead to the thought “EVE is P2W”.
Here’s the thing though, EVE is not just a solo game, in truth it even isn’t that first or foremost. The group dynamic is the focal point. On an organisational level there is an immense array of complexities, so to speak. Economies of scale, early adopter advantage, group buy power, group output efficiency and so forth.
It is something CCP has taken into account for complications, but it is also something they bank on for the transition between functional models. The underlying issue is that there are organisation level segments which are in a P2W state in comparison to individual customer perspectives, at minimum. In some ways even in comparative analysis between group / organisation types on that level.
In other words: is EVE P2W? No, but CCP isn’t doing much to counter the sentiment, and in certain areas CCP is actively incentivising the perception of P2W as a gameplay method. There’s risks attached to this, as it is what is called a behavioural slope. It currently isn’t slippery, but it is a slope. You may move on it, stay upright, but every step still takes you further down.
This is a management doctrine that goes hand in hand with what we discussed earlier on model swap, otherwise known as boiling frogs. Let me put it this way, as an enterprise you only ever apply it when the intention is to move down the slope. Otherwise you incurr sunk costs at a tremendous rate while exposing organisation and commercial model to tremendous risk. CCP abhores sunk costs, they follow a model known as minimum product viabiity, as such moving on the slope is a conscious decision and effort.
Which is why there is valid concern. But also why it is demonstrable that at minimum CCP is consciously walking a very fine line. While this CCP is a different CCP than most people know, their track record is not exactly impressive. Which is why there is no blind trust anymore, even though belief persists. Put the two together and you get a situation where CCP is not good at walking a fine line, yet deliberately stepping and moving on a slope, with a roadmap.
Now if you want to go even deeper, consider that CCP’s group dynamic focus has changed. As Hilmar said, it’s about the accounts first and foremost, it’s about the human at a much later and to a much lesser degree. This is something with far reaching consequences, but for this current discussion it lies outside the scope of the topic.
Unfortunately none of this is correct. This isn’t just oversimplifying it, it’s actually incorrect.
CCP is not an independant company. It was acquired as a studio asset, pure and simple, provided directives, goals and a stepped roadmap - as part of acquisition and as part of operational management.
CCP was allowed to maintain their organisation, this is the independance they were granted. But their fiscal and corporate status is that of subsiduary, this is their position and maneuvering room.
The released statements state exactly this. Sure, one needs a little bit of background to know the meaning of the terms used, but that can also be looked up. It isn’t complicated, it’s standard stuff, so to speak.
Other than providing the terms as required, the statements also provided a lot of marketing. This is normal, in truth this is part of acquisition playbooks. You do not rock the boat, even if the intent is to cut it up for scrap or rework it for a different purpose. This too is standard stuff, so to speak. As always, identify what is actual affirmation of terms, and what is marketing. The first rule in acquisitions is to not leave room for anyone to rock the boat, as such communication is required to first and foremost be marketing.
Marketing is a tool to serve and protect selective interests, not of product or instrument, but of owner and interest. When a company emphasis marketing in communication, it is an affirmation of intent other than what the marketing narrative aims to impress. Important to keep in mind.
Now PA isn’t a game developer. It’s an investment management agency with a corporate structure which houses a studio asset providing a flagship product which is used to gain entry to markets and relations. This is indicative of operations and prioritiets. Consider how every other economic activity is processed through interexchangeable publisher mechanisms, this demonstrates the value placed on investment structures as opposed to products. For PA, which is not an atypical Korean/Asian company in this regard, this means that a product isn’t a goal, it is an asset, a means to an end. The ends determined by investor focus and investment returns.
This is quite different from what people in the west are used to, unless one happens to have an experience base in venture or enterprise dealings with such types of agencies.
It all boils down to this: to PA CCP is just an asset. As long as it meets the targets set for it by PA, PA will not interfere, it will merely sweat the asset (as it is called) and control direction and priorities through internal exposure (vision transfer, roadmap provisioning etc) and the setting of goals on a venture management level. Here’s the thing, none of that is the kind of thing one could call interfering, but it is important to keep in mind that it is control. Which is only logical, it is business, PA bought an asset as an investment. They require a consistant return on it, they require it to work in a direction according to owner strategy and goals.
To summarise, CCP has kept its organisation, but has lost the maneuvering room it had under conditions of previous investor relations. As long as they can meet targets and adopt the general direction of the whole PA will not change CCP’s organisation. But CCP no longer has a corporate mandate as a subsiduary. CCP is an asset, pure and simple.
To paraphrase in your terms: PA tells CCP in what direction to develop the product to meet goals it provides for CCP. As long as CCP delivers, PA will not mess with how CCP organises itself and its routines.
None of the above is opinion. It’s bogstandard terminology, practices and playbooks explained. You do not need to accept this as valid from me, but I will say that it is incredibly easy to correlate the terms, the definitions, the concepts and the playbooks for validation.
Do not misunderstand me, if I choose to look at this as just a player, I too would prefer an independant CCP. Unfortunately, CCP has never been self funding, CCP has never been independant, and post-acquisition it is less so by type and stipulation of the acquisition. I wish this was not so, but I also recognise that CCP is managed in a more guided manner than before with at least for a timeframe high stakes present, thus ensuring that CCP will do the work and meet goals.
Unfortunately, this too is a concept where CCP is walking a fine line. See the earlier reference to business operations on the slope. This indicates at minimum that CCP is allocating resources as part of strategic goals to introduce monetisation mechanisms either similar, related to or connected to lootbox concepts. For the same reasons as provided earlier, it is easy to understand why people do not place trust in marketing statements around the topic. It makes me wish that CCP had invested more in maintaining credibility, but alright, it is as it is.
What the event demonstrated is that CCP has consciously decided to allocate resources to introduce what is known as lootbox gambling mechanics. In the chosen implementation they make use of what is known as mechanism masking, they have not connected the mechanism to direct cash purchase, they have connected it to the currency chain of the product. Which rests on cash / real currency expenditure.
This pretty much connects two dots. First, there is a roadmap springing from a vision where monetisation efforts are required to go further than what CCP’s marketing states, second that CCP has already invested money and resources in developing and implementing it. That it is a process and a careful one at that reinforces this observation, part of the business playbook. The painful conclusion here is that this highlights that CCP’s marketing communications are just that, marketing. Not factual or indicative.
I realise that the above is a little complex here and there, I also realise that it is a lot to take in while it goes against our observations right here and now in the moment. It is however not necessary to take my word for it, a little bit of research will very easily validate every bit. Also, particularly those who live EVE should realise that it is about the moment, but also about all those moments a year from now, a decade from now. As such, extrapolating long term effects and changes is a case of self interest.
Probably because you don’t read your own material.
See hypocrite, complain people insult you but start your post calling someone’s post “stupid”.
You really need to strengthen up if you think being called a hypocrite is insulting.
People are entitled to opinions and to complain when there game is dramatically altered, who are you to tell people what to do.
The good old ‘He don’t agree with me so I won’t respond’, it’s weird people do this as it backs you into a corner. You want to respond and pick away at my points but you don’t as your breaking your integrity.
