I can understand why you would want to disagree, personally at times I wish I could too But remember, you are chosing to stand with marketing, as opposed to verifiable facts. There’s zero opinion in my post there. That should tell you something
Do not misunderstand me, I understand the choice. It is yours to make, I sometimes wish I could be this innocent in my exploration and perspective - it would make certain things easier.
From an position of interest in and care for the game, standing with and following marketing communications is not in the interest of said game. Remember the slope? Every next step is a step down. As such, if one cares, self and shared interest provides the requirement to provide counterweight, resistance if you will, so that the steps on the slope are at least careful and balanced.
From this it also follows that standing with the marketing isn’t in the product’s or the player’s interest.
No I do fully understand what you are saying as I have said in multiple other posts of yours I have responded to. But I am standing with a changing game. But I also do not think CCP is doing a lot of what they are being accused of.
It just doesn’t make moralistic (not sure if thats a word) sense.
Standing with a changing game is something else, no issues there. I take that position as well, as change is the only constant ever.
Standing with marketing is always contrary to interests, it is important to keep this in mind. As for CCP, I can understand why it is not easy to validate the available information for many reasons, but CCP isn’t just doing anything ad hoc anymore. To paraphrase a movie quote: the slope is there, CCP stepped on it and they have a plan. That plan has been underway for two business cycles already.
Ergo, what you see now is just one step of an already vested roadmap. If one observes a deliverable which does X1, from this it follows that an X2, X3 and further must follow because the decision was made long ago by that point and the money invested. It is that simple.
Business has no morality or boundary, it has math, means and a bottom line.
I’ll happily agree that most of the typical signal posts are at best gimped, often distorted. But the situation is as I described it, and you too can validate every bit of it
Again, if you do not want to, I get that. Completely. But keep in mind that in not validating signals or information you also provide a distorted signal, not unlike the type we both abhor.
Well, the playbook in such circumstances dictates a so called short focus / low cost marketing initative cycle, followed by what is known as a larger marketing narrative instance or mechanism to be introduced.
The silence in between is easy to figure out. It’s just smart use around practical limitations.
We’re seeing the first bit recently, so now it is waiting for the next part. Which will be broader, more symbolic, contain both future abstract and present practical messaging, with a touch of sentiment (and as I suspect, declaration of aspiration).
The caveat is that once they speak, language and intent follow from marketing. Only logical, but that is not the same as factual, verifiable or indicative of intent or purpose.
I would say to watch what they do, and not watch what they say.
Basically, what Hilmar himself said, for good reason. He’s right, don’t take anything from me, trust the guy running the show on this
And then consider that what we see is stepped output, so we should consider what steps follow from committed investment and resource allocation. Which may be painful for us, but not difficult.
Zachri, well written and informative posts. Many of us suspected what you have just confirmed quite a while ago, but we were being constantly put off by the “official” narrative, as well as pushback by certain elements on the forums and elsewhere. The direction of the game aside, what in earth is CCP and PA thinking by going silent during this PR disaster? The story is getting picked up by gaming bloggers and sites; I’ve been asked by numerous friends what was going on in EVE and all the anger being expressed. In an era of internet speed dissemination of people’s version of an event and the cause/ effect around it, CCP’s failure to engage with their long term customers outside of marketing blurbs and non responsive acknowledgments in forums is just stunning. Every day where their customers concerns and questions are answered with silence merely stokes a growing anger and frustration with the game and the developers; slowly destroying a business relationship that many of us have held for over a decade. That a company so interested in following the normal business practices fails in maintaining an established corgial relationship with its customers just doesn’t make any rational sense.
What is the intent of maintaining this “radio silence” and failing to meaningfully engage us, their customers? Since they have a game plan and strategy fully marked out, what purpose is served by just letting the discontent raise to a boiling level? I cannot believe that they did not expect or plan for their course change which deviates in direction and intent from years of previous planning to NOT cause widespread concern and anger. Why have they made a conscious effort to just ignore us?
I get that CCP isn’t either looking for input or direction from the player community. I also understand that they have a set of marching orders from PA and a set of ROE that constrains and reinforces exactly what the powers that be want to happen and how it should be accomplished. A new demographic model for its customers is being implemented and supported; a long time former customer may no longer be a current or future consumer. All this I and many others undrstand; not always agree with, but understand.
What so many people find appalling is that CCP has made a conscious effort to completely discard anyone not willing to blindly accept from day 1 the course changes being implemented. That people who could continue their long term relationship with EVE if someone made any effort to directly state and explain the direction the game was going and the needed changes that were going to be made aren’t even deemed worthy of any reasonable effort for retention. CCP’s minimal viable product paradigm means that you completely accept whatever CCP decides to do to the game; input or questioning by the consumer is never resolved, information is restricted, and any corporate response is canned. In essence, shut up and take it.
It’s just business has been quoted numerous times, but business isn’t always purely numbers, unless you are in the “greed is good” school of thinking in ALL aspects. I’ve helped run a multimillion manufacturing business that has been in business for over a hundred years. While the numbers are of primary importance, our family has realized that the establishment and maintanence of mutually beneficial and open relationship with our suppliers and customers over the years were also important. Sure, the numbers come first in any equation, but those numbers are often based and have a strong effect in the people related to what those numbers represent. Bluntly put, people are part of any equation and are valuable,too. Too bad CCP doesn’t appear to think so.
I think CCP is shooting themselves in the foot; not because of any game design changes (which may or may not change what the game has been or becomes), but rather their conscious decision to just shut down a normal business relationship with their long term customers just because there might be a percentage that will fail to blindly accept what is going to happen. The CSM is probably in trouble; why go through the expense when you are quite clearly stating that player input is of little value if it deviates too far from the corporate roadmap? It’s too bad a company that prided itself on emergent group gameplay and building relationships to succeed now finds itself doing the opposite. Well, good luck. While I’m planning to stick around for the transition, I plan to join many of my fellow long term EVE players in seeing what other opportunities exist.
While I agree with your sentiments, it is clear that CCP does not. At this point they want us to conform. They fully expect that those of us who do not will leave eventually.
They obviously can’t say this… so they say nothing. That way they can milk us for some more subs until we wake up and get out.
As I stated in a previous post, I too see fault in this decision. CCP is betting that the only thing that has kept them from “becoming mainstream” and growing subs has been the game’s current/past player base. They are abandoning a loyal customer base because they are sure they can find a new, bigger, and better customer base as a result. To me, this still smells like a bet on their own exceptionalism. They seem to think that their loyal customer base is not needed for their success going forward…
For years they have gambled away EVE profits on other failed projects. Now, EVE itself is in the pot (the higher stakes @Zachri referred to).
Actually, the stakes are personal. See CCP’s ownership and share type / division pre-acquisition and targets allocated in the transfer. In a nutshell, “want payout accordingly, deliver” - standard acquisition methodology where owners other than investor relations are subject to the acquisition.
But remember, you are chosing to stand with marketing, as opposed to verifiable facts. There’s zero opinion in my post there. That should tell you something 
