«

»

A follow-up to yesterday’s post

I came back today and prepared to respond to the comments from the last post. Maybe it’s better if I answer those comments here, in a post of its own, to better explain my opinion. I’d like to make one thing clear from the get-go, though, my post is a direct response to the complaints I’ve seen that people in the EVE community are upset for the sole purpose of causing drama. That’s a great way to make a bunch of dedicated and active community members look like real jerks for simply expressing concern about their game. My post was overly sarcastic. Sometimes I like to write like with exaggerated characteristics. It’s fun to write like that sometimes, especially when you care about something. As mostly writers, I’m sure you’ll understand. Anyways, responses.

Chron Said:

I don’t know if you actually explained anything here, you just made a leap from expensive monocles to rampant crime, and then broke my sarcasm detector. Could you maybe elaborate a bit on why you think the monocles = crime metaphor is apt?

I don’t mean that the two are equal in seriousness. I mean that even though people can ignore them altogether, they have a right to voice their concerns because, even so, they’re players of the game and the success or failure of this type of transaction model (it doesn’t qualify to be “micro” anymore) will have a direct impact on a game they’re paying to play. It’s their job as players to speak up when they think something is unreasonable; it’s how we tell the market what we want.

The analogy to crime is simple. There’s no crime breaking out on my street, but it is my town, so I’ll express concern for it. Same goes for EVE players and their game.

All IMHO.

Andrew Said:

As Chron says, if you’re trying to say something about why the $60 is actually bad, you failed pretty hard.

If you don’t want to pat $60 for an e-monocle….. don’t! Amazing concept.

The $60 monocle is bad not only because of it’s ridiculous price but also because it’s driving additions to the game, such as the limited “walk in ships” addition of Incarna. When it’s a matter of buy it or don’t, of course you can choose to ignore it. The issue is whether or not it’s something that will impact players who do ignore it. $100 ship skins? $20 rockets?

Again though, my main point wasn’t to tear down the $60 monocle. It was to address comments coming from the other side about why we’re all a dumb lot for speaking up.

Stabs Said:

Someone here is too isk-poor to afford his own monocle.

Lol. While I wish that were true, I don’t play EVE. As a follower of the MMO industry, the community opposing this is one I can support.

That’s all for the comments here so far. You can join in the conversation here.

I also got in a debate across Twitter where the defense was capitalism. What’s the difference? To be clear, and with all respect to the friend with which I spoke, “capitalism” isn’t a supporting fact in the “you guys shouldn’t care” argument. Capitalism is the pure reason why people need to express their concern for things like this. As consumers, it’s our job to inform the market on what we want and will tolerate. We do that with our wallets AND with our voices.

2 pings

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge