Thoughts on a shared subscription?

[Tharly]

And if it increases revenue from people on the fence more than it loses from people already subscribed to both? You cannot admit it for some reason, but it could end up working both ways. Nothing you can say can change that.

Do you have some inside SE information that isn't public? Seems to me the surplus from 14 right now could cover any realistically conceivable losses for the short term on a limited time gamble should it turn out that way.

So 14 didn't stop sales for long, why? By your thoughts they cannot respond to demand spikes within 1-3 years. Yet they did. All your arguments require SE to think only the way you think and respond only the way you respond. It appears to not be the case.

By your own standards then growth is impossible unless its accounted for 1-3 years ahead of time. From the best of my knowledge, player numbers for 11 have been stable for awhile now and something to help boost those numbers absent major new content should be welcomed.

[Alhanelem]

And if it increases revenue from people on the fence more than it loses from people already subscribed to both? You cannot admit it for some reason, but it could end up working both ways. Nothing you can say can change that.

Do you have some inside SE information that isn't public? Seems to me the surplus from 14 right now could cover any realistically conceivable losses for the short term on a limited time gamble should it turn out that way.

So 14 didn't stop sales for long, why? By your thoughts they cannot respond to demand spikes within 1-3 years. Yet they did. All your arguments require SE to think only the way you think and respond only the way you respond. It appears to not be the case.

By your own standards then growth is impossible unless its accounted for 1-3 years ahead of time. From the best of my knowledge, player numbers for 11 have been stable for awhile now and something to help boost though numbers absent major new content should be welcomed.

I'm pretty convinced he's just speaking out against the idea either purely due to his hatred for FFXIV or because I actually like an idea someone posted. He's made his bias against me abundantly clear.

[Pixela]

So 14 didn't stop sales for long, why? By your thoughts they cannot respond to demand spikes within 1-3 years. Yet they did. All your arguments require SE to think only the way you think and respond only the way you respond. It appears to not be the case.

Neither game has excess money and all the money they have been given years ago is accounted for, ff14 cannot meet increased demand so literally had to stop people buying the game (you cannot run out of digital codes, this is impossible and the only reason they did so was to stop people buying the game). They even chose to close data centers over just..adding new servers as wow did continually to encourage growth. Blizzard wanted wow to get big, so they kept adding more and more servers to keep encouraging growth. Square Enix (not the developers, it's not upto them) do not want this and will never do this (outside of eventually retooling some JP servers in to oceanic servers maybe), they want the game to stay as it is now.

What the players and developers want and what the people at Square that pay the bills want are two different things.

If the ff14 players got every single wow player to quit and want to move to ffxiv tomorow, they would again stop digital sales and still add no new servers, they would probably close all the data centers next.

These game are not run like western games where they embrace boom and bust, they are happy with them as they are and do not want mass growth at all costs.

Anyway we have argued this entire suggestion out, not like it matters cause nobody at square reads it and barely any of the players do either.