CCP: Greed is Good?

Internal doc debates micro-transactions.

An alleged internal CCP newsletter has surfaced on the internet.

In it, the developer discusses its approach to the introduction of micro-transactions within the Eve gaming universe. The document begins with an introduction, explaining the general philosophy behind the change of revenue model:

"...as a subscription based golden goose, Eve needs to incorporate the virtual goods sales model to allow for further revenue - revenue to fund our other titles, revenue for its developer: you. The model also supports the notion of creating a meaningful experience and identity for the player..."

Later on in the newsletter, company employees debate the merits and shortcomings of adopting such a model.

Kristoffer Touborg, lead games designer at developer CCP, argues for an increased use of micro-transactions.

"I would like virtual goods sales in Eve," he wrote.

"In fact, I'd like to sell a lot more than vanity items. Does this mean I'm an evil capitalist that, unless stopped, will cause the entire company to catch fire and be buried at sea by a secret team of Navy SEALs?

"Let 's hope not, although that's the impression I get sometimes when interacting with our customers. There is a pretty overwhelming perception amongst Eve players that these changes are bad. I think they're brilliant, but our players don't. We're going to face an uphill struggle, and the reason many of us never talk about this publicly is that we'd be burned at the stake by the players."

He went on to add that a system of micro-transactions could equally be used to reward loyal players.

"I think we should be giving money away too. Giving people small amounts of micro-currency for being loyal subscribers, or even as a reward for high level gameplay like taking sovereignty should be just as legitimate a part of the business model as charging players."

At the opposite end of the spectrum, John Turbefield argued against the proposed changes.

"When we're adding additional things into the game that enable users to gain an advantage over other people for real money in a way they simply wouldn't be able to if we hadn't done so, then it becomes an issue," he wrote.

"I feel that if people have already paid a subscription fee then unless there is a good reason for the overall community to introduce a gameplay-affecting virtual goods sales (such as with PLEX), then gaining an in-game advantage isn't justifiable. More revenue is of course an aim, but making our customers feel like they are being 'double billed' to be able to play on the same level as others is just a step too far."

Suggestions that NPC faction standings, ammunition and ships may also become available for real-world currency have caused consternation amongst Eve Online players.

The newsletter goes on to discuss revenue plans for upcoming PlayStation 3-exclusive shooter Dust 514.

"With no subscriptions in Dust, we have to be careful about selling permanent awesomeness, as there's a danger of saturating the market. When everyone has everything, there's no reason to buy anything anymore. Concepts such as planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence thus play a key role (obsolescence referring to the deliberate shortening of a product's lifespan)."

While the document has not been verified as genuine by CCP, Seleen - member of the current Council of Stellar Management - has confirmed that the document is similar to those seen at a recent summit at the company's headquarters in Reyjkavik, Iceland.

You can view the relevant pages of the newsletter in the gallery below.

Comments (23) Latest comment 11 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • telboy007 #1 11 months ago

    I was just thinking this would be a good thing for you to pick up on for EG. :)
  • Cosquae #2 11 months ago

    Any chance of getting an official comment from CCP about this? Chances are they'll take your questions a little more seriously than that on their forums.
  • Clive_Dunn #3 11 months ago

    I'm pretty sure "permanent awesomeness" was only ever sold by Willy Wonka, although I'm sure Steve Jobs claimed it more than once.

    Anyway, it's an interesting debate - of course the current player base would be against it as they are the people who have already invested the time and therefore have the most to lose. Personally though, I can't play Eve as I'm time poor and already massively behind with no chance of ever catching up. If cash can level that playing field then it's an interesting topic to be discussed.

    Good to see the company actually discussing it properly and openly, nice way to work.
  • telboy007 #4 11 months ago

    @Cos Sounds like you don't think CCP likes reading through 1000 posts of bitter rage to try and find the one or two constructive posts?
    Edited by telboy007 at 23/06/11 @ 10:39
  • Oli Verified Reviews Editor, Eurogamer.net #5 11 months ago

    @Cosquae - As it happens John has an interview already set up with Torfi about Incarna this week, which is now looking very well timed! Hopefully he'll respond to questioning.
  • Spekingur #6 11 months ago

    This is an internal newsletter? That is more than 35 pages long? Woah.
    Know what is best about this if true? Employees are actually allowed to disagree without the fear of being thrown out. That would never happen in such official ways at Activision or EA.
  • MrYellow #7 11 months ago

    @Oli "Blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah!" Nothing they can say now, years of goodwil thrown away. This MT issue is just the tip of the ice-berk. They have many more issues with customers and many customers are stuck in more then 1 of those issues. Results of spending 2 years neglecting their golden goose thinking they could massively expand off it's back. They believed their own hype and dug a very deep hole when integrating DUST became a bigger job then they expected.
  • TeeHee #8 11 months ago

    Sticking with an subscription based MMO after the free trial is over is apparently not enough proof of your loyalty these days.
  • MrYellow #9 11 months ago

    @jn2002dk It's not exactly the issue, more the focus for the general rage over the many things failing for CCP.
  • Rack #10 11 months ago

    PVP. Eve is a serious PVP game. In DDO it doesn't matter if you're lacking a +4 strength super-potion bonus you can still make it through content, but if someone attacks you with a hyper-mega bomb that cost $40 and takes your tanker? That's serious.
  • ResidentKnievel #11 11 months ago

    The Economy is what's different, it's so integral to the EVE that any change that would cheapen it drastically could destroy the unique EVE experience.
  • ResidentKnievel #12 11 months ago

    Or even PVE, what's the point in getting into manufacturing when Mr. Richie McMoneybags just bought himself a load of extra manufacturing slots?
  • nuanimal #13 11 months ago

    I'm just chuffed that there is kind of balanced discussion going on in a developer. I'm sure it happens else where (except Activision) but it's just nice to see it.

    John Turbefield got my sentiments exactly.
  • ResidentKnievel #14 11 months ago

    "I'm just chuffed that there is kind of balanced discussion going on in a developer. I'm sure it happens else where (except Activision) but it's just nice to see it.

    John Turbefield got my sentiments exactly."

    Yeah, me too.

    I'm just a bit disheartened that the guy who is for MT is CCP Soundwave. He comes across as EVE's No. 1 fan and volunteers to help organise and host the Alliance Tournament each year which he does a cracking job of.
  • Redsonny #15 11 months ago

    I haven't got a problem with Incarna. I think getting out of your ship and controlling your avatar brings a whole new dimension to the game's immersion. Granted, it's not much yet as it's just walking around your captains quarters. But soon you'll be able to interact with other players on the stations. They are even talking about doing deals that can only be done face to face on the stations - like smuggling etc.

    I haven't got a problem with micro-transactions. But, as long as it's only for vanity items that DO NOT effect gameplay. If people want to dress up their avatars or decorate their quarters or give their ship a unique paint job then I haven't got a problem with that. I think they would be nuts to do it though, as the cost of a monocle for your avatar is $80. I could buy a pair of real life Oakley sunglasses for that :)

    Problems will arise though, if they start charging real life money for things that would effect gameplay. For example charging for a block of skill points. Common sense needs to be applied by CCP here or they could lose customers fast.
  • telboy007 #16 11 months ago

    They want to introduce limited use / limited time virtual goods so you have to keep on paying and never stop paying. This is what they want, they want the readies to keep rolling in at all costs.

    "money grab era"

    Edit: FFS, don't even know my own copyrighted slogan.
    Edited by telboy007 at 23/06/11 @ 14:55
  • Chaser #17 11 months ago

    Its very difficult to justify microtransactions AND a subscription - to have both smacks of a desperate attempt to claw money out of their customers. The key statement is - "...as a subscription based golden goose, Eve needs to incorporate the virtual goods sales model to allow for further revenue - revenue to fund our other titles." This is going to piss off a LOT of eve players who have suspected that CCP is no longer interested in making their game better - they are simply using it as a cash cow.

    If they dont start to wise up soon, they are going to have some serious problems if someone else releases a "serious internet spaceships" game.
  • Cosquae #18 11 months ago

    The problem I have with this, even for vanity items it two fold...

    Firstly, I don't like the idea of having to pay twice to get an item... any item. We pay a sub (one of the highest in the MMO world) and I agree with John Turbefield that it's akin to being charged twice.

    Secondly, and most importantly, this is all being paid for by plex. Increased demand for plex pushes up the prices and makes playing the game on plex all the harder. Cheap plex makes the game more attractive for all. Much more attractive than different pants options.
  • gmmonkey #19 11 months ago

    This will never work in EVE. Without going over to the forum I can imagine the players are going batshit insane. It only works in lord of the rings because of the model they've set up, i.e., you can have a normal monthly sub, which you get all the content, or you can not pay the sub and buy and bits and bobs individually, which is more expensive. Keep in mind all things get destroyed in eve. If you bought a battleship for a tenner, and got it blown up because of server lag you would be raging! I remember when they announced 'walking in stations'. Everyone pissed because they were devoting resources to make it and not fix certain aspects of the game. This is just going to annoy people even more.
  • gmmonkey #20 11 months ago

    This will never work in EVE. Without going over to the forum I can imagine the players are going batshit insane. It only works in lord of the rings because of the model they've set up, i.e., you can have a normal monthly sub, which you get all the content, or you can not pay the sub and buy and bits and bobs individually, which is more expensive. Keep in mind all things get destroyed in eve. If you bought a battleship for a tenner, and got it blown up because of server lag you would be raging! I remember when they announced 'walking in stations'. Everyone pissed because they were devoting resources to make it and not fix certain aspects of the game. This is just going to annoy people even more.
  • DodgyPast #21 11 months ago

    There's also the point that they've been caught out lying.

    They've been saying ever since the remap scandal that they'd never sell anything that gave you an ingame advantage for cash when in the document they state that they need to sneakily figure out how to do exactly that.

    Utter lying cunts.
  • brod #22 11 months ago

    "More revenue is of course an aim, but making our customers feel like they are being 'double billed' to be able to play on the same level as others is just a step too far."

    Thank god there is still rational thinkers at game companies.
  • Tuisk #23 11 months ago