A recent post on reddit about a corp theft got me thinking about morality in EVE. EVE is a game where you can play the villain and take part in actions that would be considered bad or evil in real life, such as betraying a corporation by stealing their assets. However, many consider these activities to be a reflection of the real person behind the keyboard. I'm not so sure about that.
I treat EVE as a game. It can be a highly immersive experience and can be an emotional roller coaster, from the adrenaline high of a close victory to the sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach after a crushing defeat. Without the lows the highs become meaningless. The emotional response is very real. However, at the end of the day EVE is still just a video game and it is important to separate this from reality. From that perspective, I believe that any action solely involving game mechanics does not reflect on the personality/nature of the person taking part in them regardless of how those actions would be viewed in real life. If I were to believe otherwise then I would have to believe that shooting people in an FPS means I wan't to shoot them in real life too. Maybe a simplistic example but I believe the logic still stands. Playing a game by the mechanics provided does not make you a bad person.
However, things start to get grey when social interaction is involved. EVE by classification is an MMORPG. The RP element of that is important. Many people like to escape into a fantasy world and role play a character that they could not in real life. I don't feel that playing the villain in an RP context automatically makes you a villain in real life. Being able to explore an evil career path in a videogame can be an interesting experience, even if it is not a career path you would be comfortable with in reality. However, not everyone puts on a persona when they play EVE. Many players are genuine, looking for friendships and are all too willing to misplace their trust in someone else. If I were to put on a persona and gain the genuine trust of someone only to break that trust through corp theft then I very likely will inflict a very real emotional sense of loss in that person. Though, I may still feel justified in my actions I would personally find it hard not to be empathetic towards that person even if the actions are allowed within the context of the game. The question is, would it make me a bad person for breaking their trust anyway when it is allowed within the context of the game?
I'm not sure. My gut feeling is no, it doesn't. The key variable here is that my goal would have been to advance myself in the game in wealth and/or specific assets. My goal was never to hurt my target emotionally, though that would be an end result. Befriending people within the context of the game with the intent of robbing them blind is a legal move. Just as bluffing is a legal move in poker. I don't feel that I should be responsible for their own poor decision making and misplaced trust leading to their own emotional feeling of loss. Simply put, I don't think it would make me a bad person to have beaten them at the game they chose to play where the rules are stated up front when you install the game. I don't think it should be my responsibility to tiptoe around someone who can't separate the game from reality. However, I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't make me feel guilty. At the end of the day I would have still chosen to be the villain and made someone else feel bad as an indirect consequence. That is why I don't think I could carry out a theft or action in game that is based on trust at a social level even if logically I think that it is simply part of the game.
Finally, I think intent in these situations is extremely important. If the goal of an activity is focused on the game, then I believe that it is more acceptable than if the goal is an emotional response from the target. My feeling is at that point it is no longer within the spirit of the game and is moving into harassment territory. I think there is a distinct difference in intent between gaining trust and friendship within the context of the game in order to steal someones stuff in comparison to trying to emotionally cripple them, even if the result is still the same. It is important to distinguish between fantasy and reality and EVE at the end of the day is very much fantasy. It is still my view that real friendships can be made in EVE and for that reason I don't think I could break someones trust to steal their stuff. Although I view it as a "legal move" I accept that they may not and it isn't worth ruining a friendship over. In EVE, the best ship is friendship after all.
Showing posts with label Random. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Random. Show all posts
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
Eating the Sand
I was listening to a Podside show recently when a line caught my attention:
"EVE is a sandbox and some people like to eat the sand." - Longinius Spear
Spear was telling a story about him and a friend trying to murder a Gnosis pilot. I won't tell the full story. Needless to say, the Gnosis pilot was totally unaware of Spear's intentions and had demonstrated some rather unusual behaviour prior to his demise. It seemed like this dude just had a rather strange way of playing and that his type of sandbox play was to simply "eat the sand". I think Spear was referring to how some people break the mould and do unexpected or unusual things within the sandbox and/or are just completely oblivious to their surroundings. It got me thinking about how I play EVE and what might drive other players into particular playstyles that could be considered "suboptimal".
A lot of activities in EVE get broken down to how much ISK/hour you can make doing it. I've talked about this before in a previous post. Being able to make ISK is important in EVE. However, it often leads people down the road to EVE becoming like a second job and padding the wallet can become an obsession. In my early attempts at playing the market I'll admit to getting a little obsessed. Watching the ISK roll in was satisfying. I was playing the 1 ISK game because I heard that it was an effective strategy that would get decent ISK/hour. However, I realised that I wasn't having fun. I needed to find fun activities rather than worry about being a space billionaire. That was the catalyst that led me to BNI but it also changed my way of looking at the game in general.
Opportunity cost gets applied to a number of activities in EVE when it comes to making ISK. Some players base almost everything they do in the game around the principle of opportunity cost. It is how I thought when I started, hence the focus on station trading. However, I realised that often I would have the most fun doing things just for the sake of it. I shifted my focus and started doing whatever took my fancy at the time. Feel like mining? Fire up the Retriever. Want to be a space trucker? Undock the space potato (Anshar/Obelisk). Need to prevent the Sansha from expanding its borders? Break out the Raven and smash some anomalies. The point is to try and avoid sacrificing fun for the sake of ISK and just play in the sandbox. I understand the "minerals are free" thing. People just like building things, even if it isn't the most efficient way to convert those mined minerals into ISK.
I'm fortunate that some of the activities I enjoy also yield absurd amounts of ISK, particularly the way I now play the markets. However, the point really is that I also do things that other people think are dumb. I do them because its fun. My most recent example is buying one of each bomb blueprint original and researching them to perfect ME/TE. That cost about 1.2 Billion isk in total (200M per BPO and then ~100M for perfect ME/TE on each). I'm also mining the ore, refining with almost no refining skills and then shipping the uncompressed minerals out to null sec with my JF in the spare cargo space I often have. I'm then going to build some bombs locally and keep a stock of minerals so that bomb types can be manufactured on demand. I can picture any industrialists out there cringing pretty badly as they read this. Why am I doing it? I'm doing it because part of me thinks it will be more fun to bomb people with home made bombs. So the next time you get bored grinding out ISK, or wonder why you aren't having fun in a videogame, remember that EVE is a sandbox. Sometimes it's more fun to eat the sand.
"EVE is a sandbox and some people like to eat the sand." - Longinius Spear
Spear was telling a story about him and a friend trying to murder a Gnosis pilot. I won't tell the full story. Needless to say, the Gnosis pilot was totally unaware of Spear's intentions and had demonstrated some rather unusual behaviour prior to his demise. It seemed like this dude just had a rather strange way of playing and that his type of sandbox play was to simply "eat the sand". I think Spear was referring to how some people break the mould and do unexpected or unusual things within the sandbox and/or are just completely oblivious to their surroundings. It got me thinking about how I play EVE and what might drive other players into particular playstyles that could be considered "suboptimal".
A lot of activities in EVE get broken down to how much ISK/hour you can make doing it. I've talked about this before in a previous post. Being able to make ISK is important in EVE. However, it often leads people down the road to EVE becoming like a second job and padding the wallet can become an obsession. In my early attempts at playing the market I'll admit to getting a little obsessed. Watching the ISK roll in was satisfying. I was playing the 1 ISK game because I heard that it was an effective strategy that would get decent ISK/hour. However, I realised that I wasn't having fun. I needed to find fun activities rather than worry about being a space billionaire. That was the catalyst that led me to BNI but it also changed my way of looking at the game in general.
Opportunity cost gets applied to a number of activities in EVE when it comes to making ISK. Some players base almost everything they do in the game around the principle of opportunity cost. It is how I thought when I started, hence the focus on station trading. However, I realised that often I would have the most fun doing things just for the sake of it. I shifted my focus and started doing whatever took my fancy at the time. Feel like mining? Fire up the Retriever. Want to be a space trucker? Undock the space potato (Anshar/Obelisk). Need to prevent the Sansha from expanding its borders? Break out the Raven and smash some anomalies. The point is to try and avoid sacrificing fun for the sake of ISK and just play in the sandbox. I understand the "minerals are free" thing. People just like building things, even if it isn't the most efficient way to convert those mined minerals into ISK.
I'm fortunate that some of the activities I enjoy also yield absurd amounts of ISK, particularly the way I now play the markets. However, the point really is that I also do things that other people think are dumb. I do them because its fun. My most recent example is buying one of each bomb blueprint original and researching them to perfect ME/TE. That cost about 1.2 Billion isk in total (200M per BPO and then ~100M for perfect ME/TE on each). I'm also mining the ore, refining with almost no refining skills and then shipping the uncompressed minerals out to null sec with my JF in the spare cargo space I often have. I'm then going to build some bombs locally and keep a stock of minerals so that bomb types can be manufactured on demand. I can picture any industrialists out there cringing pretty badly as they read this. Why am I doing it? I'm doing it because part of me thinks it will be more fun to bomb people with home made bombs. So the next time you get bored grinding out ISK, or wonder why you aren't having fun in a videogame, remember that EVE is a sandbox. Sometimes it's more fun to eat the sand.
Tuesday, 4 March 2014
Does EVE have an endgame?
I hear endgame being brought up occasionally when EVE is discussed. A lot of gamers these days ask "What is the endgame like?" when thinking about getting into a new game. EVE is no exception to this. However, I find it a very difficult question to answer, though not because I don't have one. The endgame usually refers to the range of content a player will have available when they reach "maximum level" in a particular game. This doesn't truly apply to EVE since there isn't a max level. Also, you don't really have access to the entire game when you make a brand new character. For example, a brand new character can't do Incursions on day 1 therefore the whole sandbox isn't available. The whole "endgame" isn't available if you wan't to think about it like that. If you say that a game "doesn't have an endgame" the connotation is that it doesn't have much content. So, if an ex theme park MMO player who wants to try out is told that EVE doesn't have an endgame, it can put them off. How do I then answer the question? Most EVE players would say that "no, EVE doesn't have an endgame since its a sandbox". However, I would disagree with that. I'd say that EVE does have an endgame, just not in the traditional sense. I'd tell them that the endgame is up to them and that they are empowered by the sandbox. How they use the tools is up to them.
Endgame in most other MMOs is usually reaching maximum level then dipping into all the various types of content available until one gets bored of them. EVE is a game where you set your own goals. You essentially choose your own endgame, rather than have the game automatically direct you towards it. I mentioned Incursions. A brand new player might quite like the PvE content. So they might set the long term goal of training into a ship suitable for running Incursions. Getting to incursions and running them regularly might be that persons "endgame". It might be the only content they want to do. In the shorter term they would focus then on running mission content, essentially progressing through the various ship types and training support skills for their endgame goal. However, Incursions are maybe a poor example since the mission running progression "model" is similar to the tiered progression model commonly followed in theme park MMOs.
What about Industry. I think this is a nice example since there isn't really an obvious progression path. Within Industry a single player sets their own goals and follows them. One player might be to work all the way up to Capital or even Supercapital manufacturing. However another player may simply stick to T1 manufacturing and work towards that particular niche on a larger scale. Another might be more flexible and do a little bit of everything across a range of manufacturing "tiers". The endgame for these players is simply maintaining that continuous process or setting new goals. You cant really "complete" or "win" at manufacturing, like you might do at the last tier of content in a theme park MMO, since it is a continuous process. However, I would still consider it an endgame activity regardless of what level of manufacturing you stop at.
A third area, and probably the most hotly debated, is PvP. PvP can be split into many categories but the simplest divisions are usually to divide into areas of space. High sec, Low sec, Null sec and Wormholes. Null can be subdivided further into Sovereignty Null and NPC Null. You can then further work your way down from massive supercapital battles all the way down to solo PvP. It is interesting because there are players who reside in these areas of space, participate in a specific type of PvP, and refer to their style of play as "THE" endgame. As an example, there are minorities of Null Sov players who proclaim their style of play to be the true endgame of EVE and that everyone should be working towards that style of play. While I think it is fair to choose that style of play as one's endgame experience I feel that it is a false conclusion. I also think it could be detrimental or offputting to tell a new player that any one particular playstyle is the endgame in EVE and everything else is simply leads to it or supports it.
As I said, many players will state that EVE has no endgame have come to that conclusion due to the vast amount of things to do in the game. Their conclusion might be that there are so many paths to take that one simply cannot ever reach an endgame. Others might say that there is an endgame but hold onto the idea that their particular style of play is "THE" endgame. Really I think EVE's endgame is up to the individual. The sandbox nature of the game puts the player in a great position. The linear progression paths and content driven nature of theme park MMOs often puts the player at the mercy of the developer. However, in EVE the endgame is largely put in the players hands. It is very empowering and one of the most refreshing things about EVE in my opinion. I think it is fundamental to EVE as a game that this power of choice remains. I'n my opinion EVE is about setting goals towards a personal endgame. It is satisfying to reach those goals and to reach that endgame. However, one must never forget the journey that got them there. I think that sentiment has been lost to a degree in other theme park MMOs and I hope it isn't lost as EVE development continues.
Endgame in most other MMOs is usually reaching maximum level then dipping into all the various types of content available until one gets bored of them. EVE is a game where you set your own goals. You essentially choose your own endgame, rather than have the game automatically direct you towards it. I mentioned Incursions. A brand new player might quite like the PvE content. So they might set the long term goal of training into a ship suitable for running Incursions. Getting to incursions and running them regularly might be that persons "endgame". It might be the only content they want to do. In the shorter term they would focus then on running mission content, essentially progressing through the various ship types and training support skills for their endgame goal. However, Incursions are maybe a poor example since the mission running progression "model" is similar to the tiered progression model commonly followed in theme park MMOs.
What about Industry. I think this is a nice example since there isn't really an obvious progression path. Within Industry a single player sets their own goals and follows them. One player might be to work all the way up to Capital or even Supercapital manufacturing. However another player may simply stick to T1 manufacturing and work towards that particular niche on a larger scale. Another might be more flexible and do a little bit of everything across a range of manufacturing "tiers". The endgame for these players is simply maintaining that continuous process or setting new goals. You cant really "complete" or "win" at manufacturing, like you might do at the last tier of content in a theme park MMO, since it is a continuous process. However, I would still consider it an endgame activity regardless of what level of manufacturing you stop at.
A third area, and probably the most hotly debated, is PvP. PvP can be split into many categories but the simplest divisions are usually to divide into areas of space. High sec, Low sec, Null sec and Wormholes. Null can be subdivided further into Sovereignty Null and NPC Null. You can then further work your way down from massive supercapital battles all the way down to solo PvP. It is interesting because there are players who reside in these areas of space, participate in a specific type of PvP, and refer to their style of play as "THE" endgame. As an example, there are minorities of Null Sov players who proclaim their style of play to be the true endgame of EVE and that everyone should be working towards that style of play. While I think it is fair to choose that style of play as one's endgame experience I feel that it is a false conclusion. I also think it could be detrimental or offputting to tell a new player that any one particular playstyle is the endgame in EVE and everything else is simply leads to it or supports it.
As I said, many players will state that EVE has no endgame have come to that conclusion due to the vast amount of things to do in the game. Their conclusion might be that there are so many paths to take that one simply cannot ever reach an endgame. Others might say that there is an endgame but hold onto the idea that their particular style of play is "THE" endgame. Really I think EVE's endgame is up to the individual. The sandbox nature of the game puts the player in a great position. The linear progression paths and content driven nature of theme park MMOs often puts the player at the mercy of the developer. However, in EVE the endgame is largely put in the players hands. It is very empowering and one of the most refreshing things about EVE in my opinion. I think it is fundamental to EVE as a game that this power of choice remains. I'n my opinion EVE is about setting goals towards a personal endgame. It is satisfying to reach those goals and to reach that endgame. However, one must never forget the journey that got them there. I think that sentiment has been lost to a degree in other theme park MMOs and I hope it isn't lost as EVE development continues.
Monday, 24 February 2014
ISK/hour versus FUN/hour
In previous posts I have touched on the ISK/hour metric and the concept of fun/hour. Many games, particularly MMOs, have activities that can be repetitive in nature, typically referred to as grinds, which are important in progression or maintenance of other in game activities. The outcome of the activity is desirable, sometimes mandatory to progression, although the activity itself isn't often considered fun. In EVE, many activities are considered boring and typically end up having an ISK/hour value attached to them. ISK allows players to buy modules and ships for PvP. It allows players to get started in industry. It is required to buy skillbooks. ISK is undoubtedly required to take part in a large number of activities in EVE. However, I feel that too much emphasis is often placed on how efficiently that ISK is earned.
Two examples immediately come to mind: Missions and Mining. Missions are PvE content which is carried out to gain faction standings and/or to earn ISK. Faction standings can be useful for a number of reasons, such as reduced broker fees for traders. However, the consensus that I have observed is that the majority of mission running is done in pursuit of ISK and that the missions themselves are boring. I agree that they are a bit behind the times and could an update to make them more dynamic and engaging. However, sometimes I wonder if the obsession in maximising this ISK/hour ratio contributes to them not being fun? Often forum posts come up asking what the best ship to mission in is, in order to reap maximum rewards, rather than going with what is the most fun. I don't mission very often. When I do its usually just for the hell of it. I grab a random ship that I haven't flown yet and go do a couple of missions to pass the time. Isn't that partly what video gaming is for after all?
Mining is viewed in a similar light. While I don't consider mining fun, I do sometimes find it relaxing. Maybe I'm not looking to do something in EVE that eats all of my attention but want to stay connected to the Universe. I'll fire up my Retriever for an hour while I relax watching Netflix. However, whenever mining is brought up it is often dismissed as a boring, poor ISK/hour task not worth wasting time on. There are dedicated mining corporations out there. Though I haven't participated in fleet mining, I assume they keep at it due to the social aspects rather than the ISK/hour aspects otherwise they would do something else. Other people might mine as part of a personal ship building project, just for the sheer satisfaction of building something from scratch, even if it wasn't the most cost efficient way of getting the ship in the end. For example, Sugar Kyle over at Low Sec Lifestyle mentioned mining the minerals herself to build an Orca. I admire that and appreciate that satisfaction that can be gained from such a project.
What is my point here really? Well, I often wonder what percentage of the playerbase are caught up in an ISK obsession. I appreciate that some people do genuinely enjoy watching their wallet blink ever upwards. I know I certainly feel satisfied when the effort I put into my market operations come to fruition. I enjoy the planning involved and just spending time in the EVE universe. However, how much fun is "lost" because of players becoming obsessed with ISK making rather than simply doing activities for the sake of it? There are players like Gevlon over at Greedy Goblin who put great emphasis on opportunity cost in relation to ISK/hour. Why spend x hour doing y to make z ISK when you could spend x hours doing w to make 10z ISK. Maybe he gets more satisfaction from the planning a project and the end result, regardless of the actual activity in between? When I think of gaming, I suppose I still apply opportunity cost. However my cost usually places emphasis on the fun/hour rather than this ISK/hour.
It leads me back to the drive towards PLEXing accounts. How much of this ISK/hour culture is attributed to the existence of PLEX? Goals are important in sandbox games like EVE. Great satisfaction can be gained from planning the way forward, executing that plan and then reaping rewards from the end result. Though in EVE I often wonder how many activities are "made" boring due to the obsession with ISK/hour. When I look at an activity in the game, my first thought shouldn't be "how many hours would I have to spend doing that activity to make enough ISK to buy a PLEX?". It should be, "am I having fun". If I'm not having fun, I should be doing something else. I feel sorry for the people out there treating EVE as a job rather than a videogame. It really is a fantastic Universe to be a part of. I think more people would enjoy it if they could free themselves of their ISK obsession.
Maybe my success in the markets has coloured my perception here. I'm by no means space rich relative to other traders. However of the limited set of ships I can currently fly I'm in no danger of going broke at losing 1... or 100. I know that in real life financial hardship can be an extremely harrowing experience, being at the forefront of your mind. EVE is probably the same to a degree. People often say that "money can't buy happiness". While this might be true, I would suggest that money can set you free. Free of certain burdens which can lead to happiness. Maybe EVE is the same?
Two examples immediately come to mind: Missions and Mining. Missions are PvE content which is carried out to gain faction standings and/or to earn ISK. Faction standings can be useful for a number of reasons, such as reduced broker fees for traders. However, the consensus that I have observed is that the majority of mission running is done in pursuit of ISK and that the missions themselves are boring. I agree that they are a bit behind the times and could an update to make them more dynamic and engaging. However, sometimes I wonder if the obsession in maximising this ISK/hour ratio contributes to them not being fun? Often forum posts come up asking what the best ship to mission in is, in order to reap maximum rewards, rather than going with what is the most fun. I don't mission very often. When I do its usually just for the hell of it. I grab a random ship that I haven't flown yet and go do a couple of missions to pass the time. Isn't that partly what video gaming is for after all?
Mining is viewed in a similar light. While I don't consider mining fun, I do sometimes find it relaxing. Maybe I'm not looking to do something in EVE that eats all of my attention but want to stay connected to the Universe. I'll fire up my Retriever for an hour while I relax watching Netflix. However, whenever mining is brought up it is often dismissed as a boring, poor ISK/hour task not worth wasting time on. There are dedicated mining corporations out there. Though I haven't participated in fleet mining, I assume they keep at it due to the social aspects rather than the ISK/hour aspects otherwise they would do something else. Other people might mine as part of a personal ship building project, just for the sheer satisfaction of building something from scratch, even if it wasn't the most cost efficient way of getting the ship in the end. For example, Sugar Kyle over at Low Sec Lifestyle mentioned mining the minerals herself to build an Orca. I admire that and appreciate that satisfaction that can be gained from such a project.
What is my point here really? Well, I often wonder what percentage of the playerbase are caught up in an ISK obsession. I appreciate that some people do genuinely enjoy watching their wallet blink ever upwards. I know I certainly feel satisfied when the effort I put into my market operations come to fruition. I enjoy the planning involved and just spending time in the EVE universe. However, how much fun is "lost" because of players becoming obsessed with ISK making rather than simply doing activities for the sake of it? There are players like Gevlon over at Greedy Goblin who put great emphasis on opportunity cost in relation to ISK/hour. Why spend x hour doing y to make z ISK when you could spend x hours doing w to make 10z ISK. Maybe he gets more satisfaction from the planning a project and the end result, regardless of the actual activity in between? When I think of gaming, I suppose I still apply opportunity cost. However my cost usually places emphasis on the fun/hour rather than this ISK/hour.
It leads me back to the drive towards PLEXing accounts. How much of this ISK/hour culture is attributed to the existence of PLEX? Goals are important in sandbox games like EVE. Great satisfaction can be gained from planning the way forward, executing that plan and then reaping rewards from the end result. Though in EVE I often wonder how many activities are "made" boring due to the obsession with ISK/hour. When I look at an activity in the game, my first thought shouldn't be "how many hours would I have to spend doing that activity to make enough ISK to buy a PLEX?". It should be, "am I having fun". If I'm not having fun, I should be doing something else. I feel sorry for the people out there treating EVE as a job rather than a videogame. It really is a fantastic Universe to be a part of. I think more people would enjoy it if they could free themselves of their ISK obsession.
Maybe my success in the markets has coloured my perception here. I'm by no means space rich relative to other traders. However of the limited set of ships I can currently fly I'm in no danger of going broke at losing 1... or 100. I know that in real life financial hardship can be an extremely harrowing experience, being at the forefront of your mind. EVE is probably the same to a degree. People often say that "money can't buy happiness". While this might be true, I would suggest that money can set you free. Free of certain burdens which can lead to happiness. Maybe EVE is the same?
Thursday, 20 February 2014
PLEX: A Double edged sword?
For those that don't know, PLEX is in an item that enters the game economy via a real world purchase (£16.99 at time of writing). The item can then be sold in game for ~600 Million ISK (the in game currency), redeemed for subscription time or used to activate multiple character training. This allows players to pay for their subscription with ISK and allows players with limited play time but more disposable income to get ISK to fund their activities. For example, I know that many players invest in an ISK per month on top of their subscription to fund their ships in PvP and minimise their time spent farming. Although ISK cannot be legally transferred into real money, due to PLEX having both an ISK value and real world value, it allows a pseudo-real world value to be applied to various items in the game and provide nice headlines for the gaming media such as the "~$300,000 destroyed in the battle of B-R" equating to over 10 trillion ISK.
In the first paragraph highlighted a few positives. Firstly, this offers an alternative to players who don't necessarily have the disposable income to pay the subscription fees. Secondly, it allows players with limited playtime but extra disposable income to get engaged in activities that cost ISK such as PvP. This is good because more players engaging in PvP, or other ISK losing activities, means more content. More content in a sandbox world is always a good thing. Thirdly it is also a great marketing tool. The battle of B-R is an example where media can put real world values on the destruction in game to draw the attention of players who wouldn't otherwise take notice of the EVE universe. This leads to spikes in player population which is always good for the health of the game. However, I also feel there are a number of negatives associated with PLEX.
I think it often causes a problem in expectation management. When I hear EVE players trying to get friends or other gamers interested in playing the subscription fee almost always comes up. When it does, it is almost always followed with "but if you earn enough currency in game you can pay for subscription that way". While true, and a good way to draw them into taking the free trial, I think it sets a dangerous precedent. It can cause new players to become entirely focused on making enough ISK to buy a PLEX rather than just enjoying the game during that trial. Very few new players make enough ISK in their free trial be able to PLEX an account. Making ISK can become an obsession for a lot of players, counting the hours to that next PLEX. I know that when I started out I spent a lot of time wondering about the ISK/Hour for each of my activities, rather than if I really enjoyed some of them. Thankfully Brave Newbies cured me of that illness and now I only engage in ISK making activities that I actually enjoy, regardless of ISK/Hour.
The other point I want to touch on is the altered perception of the game that it can give outsiders. "$300,000 destroyed in EVE online". It is quite a head turning statement. I believe the majority understand that nobody really spent $300,000 to blow up spaceships in a videogame. Sure, some of the ISK used to obtain ships lost in the battle will have come from PLEX sales, though I would expect that to be a small fraction of the total. My concern is that there will be a subset of potential players turned away by this headline because they don't take the time to understand it fully. There will be players who immediately conjure up a cash shop in their minds, common in other games, immediately connecting that money with the direct purchase of ships. The dreaded "Pay to Win" will be a concern of others, possibly putting them off the game*. There will also be non gamers who see the headlines but don't actually read deeper into the article, negatively affecting their perception of EVE players and the Universe that they inhabit.
Overall I do think PLEX is a good thing in EVE online. It has other benefits not described earlier, such as the pressure it places on RMT sellers. I think the amount of players it brings to the game outweighs those that it turns off, evidenced by the spikes in trial accounts and subscriptions following the major battles that make it into the media. Though the altered perception it can give to others is an interesting thought. The ability for less financially prosperous players to get in on the action, along with the flip side of that particular coin being able to generate content, can only be a boon to the population of the game. Though, I do often wonder the problems that it can lead to with ISK obsession and how it affects the motivations of new players entering the game. It makes me wonder what the EVE landscape would be like if PLEX didn't exist. Just some food for thought.
* The "Pay to Win" idea is a contentious point regarding PLEX and one that I will at some point dedicate a post towards
In the first paragraph highlighted a few positives. Firstly, this offers an alternative to players who don't necessarily have the disposable income to pay the subscription fees. Secondly, it allows players with limited playtime but extra disposable income to get engaged in activities that cost ISK such as PvP. This is good because more players engaging in PvP, or other ISK losing activities, means more content. More content in a sandbox world is always a good thing. Thirdly it is also a great marketing tool. The battle of B-R is an example where media can put real world values on the destruction in game to draw the attention of players who wouldn't otherwise take notice of the EVE universe. This leads to spikes in player population which is always good for the health of the game. However, I also feel there are a number of negatives associated with PLEX.
I think it often causes a problem in expectation management. When I hear EVE players trying to get friends or other gamers interested in playing the subscription fee almost always comes up. When it does, it is almost always followed with "but if you earn enough currency in game you can pay for subscription that way". While true, and a good way to draw them into taking the free trial, I think it sets a dangerous precedent. It can cause new players to become entirely focused on making enough ISK to buy a PLEX rather than just enjoying the game during that trial. Very few new players make enough ISK in their free trial be able to PLEX an account. Making ISK can become an obsession for a lot of players, counting the hours to that next PLEX. I know that when I started out I spent a lot of time wondering about the ISK/Hour for each of my activities, rather than if I really enjoyed some of them. Thankfully Brave Newbies cured me of that illness and now I only engage in ISK making activities that I actually enjoy, regardless of ISK/Hour.
The other point I want to touch on is the altered perception of the game that it can give outsiders. "$300,000 destroyed in EVE online". It is quite a head turning statement. I believe the majority understand that nobody really spent $300,000 to blow up spaceships in a videogame. Sure, some of the ISK used to obtain ships lost in the battle will have come from PLEX sales, though I would expect that to be a small fraction of the total. My concern is that there will be a subset of potential players turned away by this headline because they don't take the time to understand it fully. There will be players who immediately conjure up a cash shop in their minds, common in other games, immediately connecting that money with the direct purchase of ships. The dreaded "Pay to Win" will be a concern of others, possibly putting them off the game*. There will also be non gamers who see the headlines but don't actually read deeper into the article, negatively affecting their perception of EVE players and the Universe that they inhabit.
Overall I do think PLEX is a good thing in EVE online. It has other benefits not described earlier, such as the pressure it places on RMT sellers. I think the amount of players it brings to the game outweighs those that it turns off, evidenced by the spikes in trial accounts and subscriptions following the major battles that make it into the media. Though the altered perception it can give to others is an interesting thought. The ability for less financially prosperous players to get in on the action, along with the flip side of that particular coin being able to generate content, can only be a boon to the population of the game. Though, I do often wonder the problems that it can lead to with ISK obsession and how it affects the motivations of new players entering the game. It makes me wonder what the EVE landscape would be like if PLEX didn't exist. Just some food for thought.
* The "Pay to Win" idea is a contentious point regarding PLEX and one that I will at some point dedicate a post towards
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)