HTFU

I've had a bad week in EVE.

Not a lost-a-billion-ISK-ship, did-my-entire-wallet-on-the-market, accidentally-trashed-a-cap-blueprint sort of bad week. Those are shit-happens-in-EVE weeks, they happen, I swear a bit (all right, a lot) and then I get on with my gaming.  Dealing with setbacks due to either your own stupidity or someone else's smartness is part of EVE and if you don't cope with (I'll go so far as to say relish) the challenge, EVE is probably not the game for you.

But there are some things that nobody should have to 'cope with', not in games, not on the internet, not in real life. Racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, vilification, and threats of actual, real-life harm are not a 'challenge' to be coped with nor are they 'part of EVE', folks, and no, it's not okay because it's 'just the internet' or 'just a game'. And this week, I and several good EVE friends have been on the receiving end of all of the above.

Now, I can already hear the cries of 'HTFU!' from here.

Here's my question to you: why should I be the only one to HTFU? Why is the onus on women, non-Caucasians, and GLTBI people to 'grow a thicker skin' or 'stop being sensitive'?

Why is it up to us to avoid tramping the tender sensitivities of those who casually refer to 'raping those faggots' in the WT corporation by never, ever, on any occasion pointing out the inherent sexism and homophobia in the language used? Why is it up to us not to make a fuss about nothing, but never up to those who start forum threadnaughts about the outrageous unfairness of anyone naming the calling of space-wealthy players 'jews' as the antisemitism it is?  Why does freedom of speech apparently protect the rights of those who call me 'bitch', 'whore' and 'slut' but not my right to call them 'misogynist'?

And why is the choice presented to me to 'HTFU or GTFO' of a game I love but never to the fragile flowers who find being called out on their language and behavior to 'ruin their fun'?

It boggles my mind that people who choose to play a game whose entire ethos is 'actions have consequences' act like it's grotesquely unfair that their actions have consequences.

Admittedly, some of those consequences are pretty serious: using a "carriage service" (i.e. the internet) to threaten, intimidate and harass is a crime in a lot of jurisdictions and you might be surprised to discover that the one you live in might be one of many with inter-state and international agreements covering the prosecution of such crimes.  Certain behavior is against the EULA: CCP can toss you from the game for it.  But you know, there's an old saying about 'not doing the crime if you can't do the time' that comes to mind here. If you don't want your local LEOs knocking on your door, don't press send on that OOG email threatening to rape someone IRL. Not rocket science, people! (And even Rocket Science only takes 21 days to train to level V).

Some consequences are more minor: you might get tossed from a chat channel, banned from a forum, blocked by a player or a group of players.

Or ganked. Or awarded a 10 billion bounty. Or wardecced.

Some of those consequences are interpersonal: the people around you, the people you play the game with, are going to form opinions about you based on what you say, and how you react when people call you on what you say.  (Pro-tip: if the mails along the lines of 'Thanks for saying that; I wish I had the courage to' that flash into my inbox when I point out sexism and homophobia are any indication, the fact that nobody is telling you they think you're an asshole doesn't mean you're not actually making an ass of yourself. And you know, those 'bitches', 'faggots', and 'spics' that you don't know you have in your corp just might get pissed off enough to show you another consequence with a grand old EVE tradition: the awox).

I know the tired old accusation of 'politically correct censorship' is trotted out whenever anyone names bigotry for what it is, but if you're starting to froth about 'banning words' or 'censoring free speech' I suggest you go back to the beginning and read again, carefully.  I completely accept your right to be however much of a racist, sexist, homophobic fuckwit you choose to be. I even accept your right, as a free individual and (possibly) an adult, to decide to break the law.

I don't accept your right to whine about what happens next, any more than the player who undocked a shuttle so full of PLEX it was a playtime pinata has the right to whine about getting ganked.

Actions have consequences.

HTFU and accept them.

What CCP Did Right

Last night local, CCP Zulu published a devblog  which directly addressed the recent uproar in and about Eve. 


Reaction has been mixed, which, while a step short of adoring crowds littering the streets with confetti, is a big step forward for CCP from mobs with pitchforks and torches.  Importantly for CCP, the message of 'please stop burning down the building for a few days' has been largely accepted by the 'big feet' - what used to be called 'opinion leaders' and now are usually referred to as 'trusted communicators', those members of your target audience who are regarded by other members of the audience as worth listening to. 


Co-opting your 'big feet' is a critical part of managing negative publicity because it allows you to marginalise your critics as extreme, unreasonable and just plain dumb. 


(This isn't a comment on the relative worth or otherwise of the opinions of any group in this or any other situation - 'big feet' are as vulnerable to manipulation, wishful thinking and mistakes as anyone else.  They do exercise influence over their peers, though: that's why companies give celebrities freebies and even pay them to wear and use their products, and why politicians make time to have one-on-one conversations with influential members of their media pack.)


The blog is a pretty good example of exactly what you should say in a situation like this, and although it's a shame CCP didn't save themselves some trouble by doing this a lot earlier, better late than never etc.


Here's what CCP Zulu did:


Addressed the real issue / treated people with respect


The blog directly acknowledges what have been the major flash-points: the tone of CCP communications, the lack of consultation, and the 'gold ammo' for Aurum question. 


Owned his decisions (and in this case, actions)


CCP Zulu opens the blog with a mea culpa for the tone of the previous blog, honestly explains the reasons for the mistake, and apologises.  Further, he talks about errors in 'our communication' and 'our perception' - I'm sure at CCP there's a degree of frustration at the misunderstanding of some of their statements, kudos for not putting that on the players for not 'getting it'. I know what a bitter pill that is to swallow (personally, I recommend washing it down with whiskey but YMMV). 


Protected the brand


References to 'unique' factors in the relationship between Eve players and Eve developers remind everyone of the days when Eve was a game for Internet spaceship nerds, by Internet spaceship nerds. Realistically, those days are gone, but the perception is still part of the Eve brand.  Raising it gives us the feeling that we're still special snowflakes to CCP, not numbers in a database. 


Got on the front foot


The blog announces an extraordinary meeting of the CSM June 30th/ July 1st to help define and address the real underlying concerns and assist in defining and iterating the virtual goods strategy. 


This doesn't commit CCP to changing anything, or even to doing what the CSM wants, and there have been responses referencing the previous side-lining from the CSM. However, it is an action, it has a set time-frame, it co-opts specific 'big feet' to CCPs 'give us time' message, and divides the playerbase angry about recent events by splitting off those willing to wait and see what happens from the rest.  


Instead of reacting (or not reacting) to events, CCP is now setting the timetable and the agenda. Regardless of the outcome of the meeting, they look more in control than they have since the whole pot began to simmer with the $99 licencing fee announcement and then boiled over last week.  


Perception is reality.


Again regardless of the outcome, flying people to Iceland for meetings is a concrete demonstration that CCP takes this seriously - even if only as a serious PR problem.  As I said last time, a lot of people who were fairly indifferent to the content of the issues raised, or at the very worst opposed but willing to give CCP the benefit of the doubt and see how things shook out, were put off-side by the perception that CCP didn't think there was anything that needed answering or addressing. 


Inoculation


Two key phrases in the blog are the first stage in the inoculation of the Eve playerbase to the idea of more and different 'macrotransactions' in their game: 'defining and iterating on our virtual goods strategy'; and 'how virtual goods and services will evolve in Eve'.


Before anyone gets out the pitchforks again, this is hardly a contradiction of the other statement 'no plans for 'gold ammo' for AURUM'.  It does, however, leave the door open for CCP to change their strategy in the future without either being accused of lying or (if they go to largely micro instead of macrotransactions) looking like they're reversing direction.  It's an honest communication of a reality - CCP is in a changing and evolving business, and they have no way of predicting what the climate will be like one year, two years, or three years down the track.   It gets players in the mindset of 'changes are probably going to happen', while at the same time framing those potential changes as positives - after all, who doesn't want to evolve?  It also walks back the perception that CCP's attitude is "this is how it is, and so this is how it's going to be, like it or leave it."  


Another inoculation in the blog is the closing statement that there won't be further public comments until after the CSM meeting.  This manages our expectations that CCP will respond to either the forums or the widespread media coverage of the issue. 


Conclusion: 


With the exception of the (yes, understandably) frustrated paragraph about 'out of context' information (protip: whenever you find yourself beginning a sentence in  a public statement with either 'however' or 'to prove the point', find your delete key and use it) this is an excellent response to what's been happening this last week.  I can not just imagine but remember how hard it is to write something like this when every instinct is screaming 'circle the wagons'. 


CCP Zulu has successfully bought some time. 

An open letter to CCP

Dear CCP,


It's become pretty apparent to many of us over the last few days that when it comes to crisis management, your company, quite frankly, sucks. A lot of the anger/ disappointment/ hurt / outrage you're seeing could have been avoided by handling this whole thing properly from the get-go. A lot of it is in direct response to the way you've handled things - people who are not particularly upset about NeX prices, the Incarna expansion destroying other people's hardware, or even the possibility of 'pay 2 win' in Eve are upset over the piss-poor response of CCP to these issues being raised by others. 


Now, I get that people who are focused on producing an Internet spaceships games, sorry, complete scifi simulator, are not necessarily people who have a lot of experience in what to do when the shit hits the fan corporately. However, many of your players have a wide-range of life experience and professional backgrounds, and mine is in precisely this area. 


Here's a few tips for the next time you find yourself in this kind of situation:


Inoculate, inoculate,  inoculate.


Put your umbrella up before the shit starts raining down on you.  


Now, I get that you might have been taken by surprise by the reaction of a large section of the playerbase to the Incarna expansion. In fact, from the various comments by the CSM members, it looks like you deliberately insulated yourself from any possibility of finding out that the response was going to be negative. Don't do that. Even if you have no intention of deviating from your plan one iota, finding out that people don't like it allows you to pre-plan your response strategy, have releases pre-approved and ready to go, engage trusted communicators in selling your message about why your plan is the right one, soften up the ground through staged leaks and limited information release, and manage expectations.  


If people had heard a month ago that there were probably going to be some problems with CQ for even high-end machines and many players would have to turn it off, but CCP felt they couldn't solve those problems through SISI testing alone, so were going to release it on schedule, then they would have been prepared to monitor GPU temps on startup, and when their graphics cards started spiking dangerously high temperatures, their response would have been 'Cool looking room and avatar, glad CCP is on the job of fixing it'. Instead of, as it was, "WTF do you seriously think this is release ready it just ate my GTX 580". 


Likewise, if people had heard a month ago that the NeX store was going to pioneer a whole new concept in micro-transactions, i.e. that they not be micro, by including items that cost as much or more than their IRL equivalents, and that these would be all that was available on release due to concerns over PLEX prices and the ongoing difficulties of bedding down a new currency in the game, then when they logged in for the first time, their reaction would have been 'Huh, they weren't kidding about the prices, hey?' Instead of, as it was, "WTF are you guys thinking, clearly my sub fees are being spent on crack for the Bizdev team."


People react badly to surprises. This is not new in human nature. We all have expectations about the future - if I go to sleep tonight, I'll wake up in the morning; when I drive to work, I won't get in a fatal car crash; if the price of a litre of milk yesterday was $2.05, tomorrow it will be that or close to it. Now, I get that you have a corporate culture of taking great pride in flying in the face of expectations. However, successfully doing so requires clear communication that you know what those expectations are and have clear reasons for defying them. Neither of those things has been present in any CCP communications either pre or post Incarna deployment. Thus, you don't look revolutionary, cool, ground-breaking or edgy. 


You just look out of touch.


This is not good for any company, but it's particularly problematic for a company whose business is technological. 


So next time, inoculate, inoculate, inoculate. 


Get on the front foot.


Leaving aside the problem that you really should have known what was coming, let's assume you were genuinely blind-sided by the reaction.  You may well have been genuinely blind-sided by the leak of your internal newsletter, although I will point out that 'two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead' is still as true as ever in the Internet age. 


You need to respond.


Yes, big corporations have complex management structures, multiple layers of approval, and processes that slow things down. However, well-run big corporations have clear plans for who does what when those established, day-to-day processes won't cut it. They have people who are authorised to speak, even if only to issue holding statements. They have people authorised to make the high-and-wide calls - often with the understanding that if they get it wrong, they'll be personally hung out to dry. And, if all else fails, they have a CEO. 


The silence from CCP over several days here has made everything worse for you. When unexpected problems arise, you need to get out in front of them, and fast. Seize the momentum of the discussion - and make it clear to everybody that you are, at the very least, aware of the nature and magnitude of the problem. 


This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. Getting on the front foot doesn't mean immediately agreeing with all criticism, nor does it mean doing a backflip on policy. It does, however, mean fast and honest responses: "We understand there is a problem, we are talking about it internally, let me explain to you how we made the decision that has upset you."


Treat people and their feelings with respect.


I appreciate that if you're looking for respect, the Eve-O forums isn't exactly the first place you'd go. I also appreciate that, as is clear from the tone of pretty much all communication from your company either on the forums, through DevBlogs or on twitter, the over-riding reaction inside CCP to all this is 'lol get a clue n00bs'.


I, also, have on many occasions in my professional life been faced with complaints and criticisms that I think are unjustified, unreasonable, and just plain dumb. 


However, regardless of how wrong I think they are, I have never considered it acceptable to treat them with contempt. Apart from anything else, this makes any bad situation worse.


Please let your employees know that snide remarks, ill-timed humour and general flippancy is not appropriate when dealing with people who are upset / angry / saddened. If they're angry, and you're laughing, they will experience that as contempt for their feelings and themselves, even if you don't mean it. 


Even simple statements of acknowledgement can go a long way. CCP Zulu's Devblog would have been incalculably improved with the inclusion of the sentences, "We realise that many of you do not agree with the strategy we've chosen.  We, however, think it's the right one." Instead, the whole tone is 'What do you not get about this, morons?' 


Address the real issue.


This is a bit of a subset of both 'get on the front foot' and 'treat people with respect'. One of the most damaging things to CCP's brand over the last few days has been the non-response responses. When you say you're 'responding' but don't address the key concern that's been raised with you - in this case, 'pay 2 win' possibilities - you look like you either don't have a clue about what people are thinking, or don't care. And given the multiple threadnaughts on your forums about this very issue, not having a clue translates into not caring anyway. 


It may be the case that all you can say about that particular issue is, 'Changing business models is something every responsible company has to be open to. We will involve the community in any decisions we make about this in the future.' That doesn't commit you to taking or not taking a particular course of action, but it does let people know that you have realised what they're upset about. And that goes a long way - most people, even on issues they feel very strongly about, are willing to accept decisions they disagree with so long as they feel that their disagreement has been heard and respected.  


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you both hear and respect the opinions of the very many players who have written, posted, blogged and tweeted about this issue. You need to let them know that's the case.  It's okay to also let them know you disagree with them: do not, however, ignore them. 


Own your decisions.


If you are passionately convinced that a controversial decision is the right one, you should be prepared to passionately defend it. If you feel it's publicly indefensible, you need to re-examine the decision.  


If no-one below the CEO is authorised to defend and own the decision, the CEO needs to be the one in public. Sending out people to say 'I can't say anything' makes the problem worse. If you're not sure about the decision and you don't want to commit the whole company to dying in a ditch for it, send out the people inside the company who agree with it to make their case as individuals why they think it's the right thing. People respect honesty and commitment even when they disagree.


The inability of CCP to put forward strong, immediate arguments in favour of their strategy very much gave the impression that no-one in the company cared to defend the decisions - either because they didn't care what players thought of them, or because they didn't feel the decisions were defensible.


Either of these is a real problem.


Perception is reality.


I get the feeling from a lot of your corporate and staff communications that you think what you have here is a perception problem. There's been a lot of stuff about 'we should have communicated better' and so on. 


There is no such thing as a perception problem in business. If you have a perception problem, you have a problem.


Protecting your brand.


I am assuming that there are people in your corporation who understand the importance of branding. 


CCP and Eve have an enviable brand. Brave start-up, defying expectations, visionary, the game for people who like hard-mode, the game where the devs grief the players and everyone laughs, etc. 


What I think your marketing and BizDev people (and if the leaked email is real, your CEO) have forgotten is that this brand is not solely created and maintained by CCP themselves. As any clothing company which gives free samples to celebrities and refuses to make sizes above 'small' knows, the identity of your customers is part of your brand.  


One of the very successful things Eve has done in the past is protect its 'elitist jerk' brand while actually opening up the game to more players. Everyone wants to be one of the special ones: no-one wants to be one of the consumerist cattle. Persuading people that behaving like consumerist cattle makes them one of the special ones is at the heart of all successful businesses in modern consumer capitalism. (c.f. Apple)


This illusion breaks down when people start to feel that purchasing your product marks them out as one of the cattle. 


Now, I get that you were trying to do the opposite with monocle-gate. An item that only 52 people out of 300k would buy? How special must those 52 people be to have it, right?


The problem is, your success is based on the illusion that everyone who plays Eve is one of the special ones.   We're too hard-core for WOW, or so we tell ourselves. The infamous learning curve, the HTFU ethos, the 'can I have ur stuff' response to people who are quitting, it's all part of it. You are selling membership to a small and exclusive club, or rather, you are selling the illusion of membership to a small and selective club. 


That is the Eve brand. 


When you put out public messaging that 99.9% of your players are not part of the club, and that you don't give two shits about that, you have immediately damaged that brand. And let's be clear, what you are selling is a brand, not a game or an experience. There are a lot of those out there. You are selling the idea of 'being an Eve player'. The minute 'being an Eve player' starts to mean, being an idiot willing to be fleeced by a corporation that doesn't care about them, you have reduced the value of your product.


One way you could have avoided damaging your brand, while still maintaining the strategy of exclusive, high end  items in the NeX store, is actually something you have done in previous expansions: give existing players a shiny. In the past, those have been free ships. They are markers of membership to the club of 'people who were playing when X happened.' You could have created a special vanity item for Incarna and given it to every player, a visible 'I played Eve before you could leave your pod' badge. 


For future controversial decisions, for example if /when you introduce game-affecting items in the NeX store, you should strongly consider that as an option. It will enhance, rather than damage, the brand that has made you successful.




In conclusion


I have not here put forward any of my own opinions on the actual content of current or rumoured strategies at CCP. I have made those opinions known on the forums, but I accept that like any company, you will make both long and short-term decisions based on your own priorities, which may not agree with mine as your customer. I understand, too, that you may have decided to chase a new customer base, and so don't really care that your decisions risk alienating many of your existing customers.


However, it is not actually necessary to chose between these two options. Attracting new and different players does not require trashing your existing brand. Following the simple steps above will allow you to shift and even radically change your corporate direction with a minimum, rather than a maximum, of collateral damage. 


As someone who enjoys your product and would like to see your company continue to grow and succeed, I hope that you will handle future controversial strategic decisions with a bit more finesse. 


Remember:

1. Inoculate
2. Get on the front foot
3. Treat people with respect
4. Address the real issue
5. Own your decisions
6. Perception is reality
7. Protect your brand.