Global Alpha Test Start Date

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokinator

LOL you two need a room... good read though with good facts

---

Does it have room service? 'cause I need a cup of coffee, like, urgently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munba

Yoshi-p is always on the first line and among the players to respond to everyone, like a father that shows and explains things to his sons. For that reason, he's a great director.

---

Yeah its pretty cool of him, I hope he can maintain it through the release of ARR. Fireside chats with your dev, video game companies/producers are business but it is quite preferred to think of them as friends and family then perhaps "soul suckers" like Activision is sometimes referred to.

Edit: Updated my quote of Abrieal's updated post. nvm :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Oh, some do, believe me. No one that I would bear working with, of course (if any of my writers did something of the sort in any way that I could detect, I'd have a serious talk with them and the rest of the editorial team, and it could easily lead to termination), but I could name a large number of people that openly think that Square Enix deserves a "lesson", and that spare no chance in trying to administer it.

of course Square Enix isn't alone there. Electronic Arts is another good example. Many journos, even highly respected ones, have this warped idea that they're the vigilantes of the industry, and they need to "punish" the evil corporation of their choice with their almighty pen, instead of dedicating themselves to actual reporting.

Of course there are a whole lot of fair, intelligent and relatively unbiased (relatively because absolute lack of bias doesn't exist in any form of journalism. Anyone that tells you he's unbiased lies, and he knows it) ones, but if you look attentively, you'll easily be able to spot the rotten apples.

---

I dont bother reading much into things that I dont feel accurate for one reason or another :P like a games score being determined by first day DLC. Though I dont like the idea of 1st day DLC the score shouldn't be affected by it as its not a value of the company but of the game.

Not to say I find 100% unbiased sources since I have bias myself but I suppose for clarity I could have added "A good video game review company(/person) wouldn't look to hunt down a company just because".

the previous NDA for 1.0 wasn't even lifted till mid beta, so it will be still awhaile till we see ppl posting their stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

I dont bother reading much into things that I dont feel accurate for one reason or another :P like a games score being determined by first day DLC. Though I dont like the idea of 1st day DLC the score shouldn't be affected by it as its not a value of the company but of the game.

---

Totally agree, and you have no idea on how many think the opposite, feeling that day 1 DLCs are "immoral", and as such they need to lower the score of the game from a moral standpoint.

It's hilarious, I know.

Quote:

---

Not to say I find 100% unbiased sources since I have bias myself but I suppose for clarity I could have added "A good video game review company wouldn't look to hunt down a company just because".

---

Absolutely. The problem is that the percentage of "good" video game reiewers is not as near to the 100% as it should be. This is an industry with a whole ton of amateurism, and the widespread cronyism determines the fact that a lot of those amateurs with no cognition of journalistic integrity and no journalistic education at all, end up writing for large websites that provide their "ideas" with a ton of undeserved visibility, allowing them in turn to negatively and unduly influence the success of a game while they often write just out of a personal grudge of sorts.

Give you an example that isn't about this game, and isn't even one of the most extreme:
http://www.g4tv.com/games/pc/46075/t...-world/review/

It's fairly easy to spot from the highly hyperbolic choice of wording and the way concepts are expressed that the writer went out of his way to be as nasty as possible, to the point of expressing quite a few factually incorrect things.

And that's a fairly well known writer on a very popular website.

But I believe I'm digressing, a LOT, my apologies.

PS:

Quote:

---

Edit: Updated my quote of Abrieal's updated post. nvm :P

---

Yeah, I know, I'm sorry, I tend to polish and repolish my posts over and over. Déformation professionnelle and all that. It's my worst flaw... >_>

In my head, I imagine all of Abriael posts sounding like Brent Spiner (Data) before the emotion chip in Star Trek: Generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

The problem isn't just that people didn't get access to the Alpha. I couldn't care the less about that.
It's that people that had active accounts got passed in favor of people that didn't, while the form clearly stated in all available languages that only those with an active account were eligible.

---

Where is the problem? The last 4 or 5 days before dalamud crash ALL accounts were active. Time enough to register for alpha.
SE didn't say "You need to have played the original game for 90 days to get alpha access"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BarretWallace

In my head, I imagine all of Abriael posts sounding like Brent Spiner (Data) before the emotion chip in Star Trek: Generations.

---

Am I that cold?

I can be fairly emotional when I want (i'd provide examples, but that'd be a tad too much on the self promoting side for my taste), but I try to avoid it when I try to pinpoint a problem that I consider serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Felis

Where is the problem? The last 4 or 5 days before dalamud crash ALL accounts were active. Time enough to register for alpha.

---

The problem is that those accounts were not supposed to be considered fully active, as they didn't have access to forums and lodestone for instance. It's a fairly large loophole that caused a ton of problems (even beyond the application to the alpha, that may or may not be due to that), so people are fairly justified in being upset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Quite the contrary. Having been in basically every major MMORPG beta since Ultima Online (and many minor ones), I understand people's motives very well. They're hardly as easy to identify and as black and white as you believe.

Some people are just butthurt. Some people are disappointed because they genuinely want to contribute to the development of the game, some people simply air their frustration not because they have some kind of grudge or because they feel entitled, but because as part of a community, they think in a rather naive way that other people will express their support instead of shooting them down. There are a lot of different motives and a lot of shades of grey.

---

I've been there in nearly every major release of mmos as well. I'm not exactly a spring chicken myself, lol. And I'm very good at understanding people's motives myself. Many are not black and white, in fact it's rare to find some that are. But I'm good with people, and can read between the lines. I've always been good at picking apart people's motives and reasons. It's a gift of mine. Some are disappointed because they wanted to participate in testing the game, many are also disappointed because they don't get an early peek at the game. And I can tell with some observation which is which.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Nope. That isn't stating a motive. That's stating a belief. And that belief has been created by Square Enix themselves, as the fact that active subscribers were the only ones eligible to the alpha was clearly stated in the application form. When a developer tells paying customers A and then does B, it's not unjustified for the paying customer to be disappointed and voice that disappointment.

---

Beliefs create motives. People who believe that they are entitles to alpha simply because they have been there playing FF14 long before a lot of others have that belief. It motivates them to whine and cry like babies when they're not selected. And again, people disappointed that they didn't get in for the right reasons, I have no problem with. People who think their time playing the game before ARR should get them early access to alpha before those who haven't played as long, that's annoying. And stupid. And it's repeated so very many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

See what I mean, you're doing it again. You're second guessing my motives without knowing anything about me.

---

Not at all. I merelt stated that you jumped the gun in your reply, not knowing which kind of people I was referring to. Which you did. OR, you are one of the people I was referring to. n which case, your anger would be predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

I got ticked off because I know that a certain amount of disappointment is quite justified in this situation, given the communication blunder, and I find people so ready to jump to the throat of people that are already (rightfully) disappointed rather distasteful.

---

First of all, getting ticked off was actually quite unnecessary. Predictable, if you're one of the people whining for the wrong reasons, but unnecessary. And proof you took things a bit too seriously. Secondly, I didn't jump down anyone's throat. I merely stated that people whining that they should get into alpha for reasons they themselves worked out in their heads and opinions are just annoying. You took it the wrong way by thinking I stated that anyone who had any kind of concerns whatsoever over how alpha was handled were whiners. You jumped the gun. You jumped waaaaay over the gun, lol. And the conclusions you came up with spurred you to make an angry response. If anyone jumped down anyone's throat, it's you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

It happens with every testing. People are always very ready to attack those that are already disappointed, making everyone's disappointment worse. It's bad and it really paints the community in a sad light.

---

What ALSO happens with every testing is that some people of said community will whine like entitles brats that they didn't get into testing. And some will make thread after thread crying over why they felt they should have been let in, regardless of how testing was handled. That, too, makes a community look pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

I'm sure there are people that are just "butthurt", but I don't know their percentage, nor you do. So I don't necessarily assume that everyone that complains belongs to that group like many here are doing, nor I go ahead and second guess their motives.

---

Nor do I. However, those who complain, whine, and grumble over and over in multiple new threads that they created that their status as veterans in the game should net them automatic access no matter what are practically transparent in their motives... er, sorry, "beliefs"... and those are the people I was referring to. No "second guessing" is even needed in such cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Nope. It's serious to anyone that knows that a company giving their customers wrong information often can lead to serious issues.

---

And I still don't think this is one of those cases, lol. Just mho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

When you have a loaded rifle pointed at your face, encouraging the killer to shoot isn't exactly a sensible course of action.

---

Interesting metaphor, but not really all that accurate, since I highly doubt that some misinformation about alpha is gonna be the death of the game. Again, just my humble $0.02.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokinator

LOL you two need a room... good read though with good facts

---

LOL I like room service! And cable! Does it have cable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Am I that cold?

---

I wouldn't say "cold," so much as I'd say "interesting." It's healthy, good ol' fashioned speech and debate.

Criticism, constructive or otherwise, is necessary, in this instance, to keep the devs from getting complacent. And I guess with any online forum you can't say "Ok! Five threads about this topic is enough!" Because it'll take as many threads and posts as required to see the complaints/suggestions addressed.

I'm not above a classy flame, troll or a heckle every now and then, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyeWindbinder

Snip

---

I'll refrain from going on and on about people's motives, as we obviously have different standpoints here. I'll just tell that when you call people "whiners" and "crybabies" and "butthurt" (what a bad word... using it really makes a post irritating), you're being confrontational and insulting, and I doubt you think that your alleged "judgement of people's motives" skill is infallible. If you do... well. That's more your problem than mine.

Choice of words is always important, and walking around with a can of gasoline in a foundry isn't exactly what I'd consider sensible, but to each his own.

Quote:

---

And I still don't think this is one of those cases, lol. Just mho.

---

-Only active accounts are eligible.
-A bunch of people with inactive accounts get into the alpha.

I'm sure it's not hard to notice the contradiction between the two elements above.

Quote:

---

Interesting metaphor, but not really all that accurate, since I highly doubt that some misinformation about alpha is gonna be the death of the game. Again, just my humble $0.02.

---

Strawman argument warning: No one argued that it's gonna be the "death of the game". That kind of negative press is damaging, whether it's a little or a lot depends on how widespread and on the issue at hand. But a developer has to try and avoid it when it can. And in this case it definitely was avoidable.

Just look at how some of the press just tried to raise a stink about the same gender marriage issue. Luckily it kind of fizzled because the spotlight on the game ain't intense enough, but they sure did try (the funnies thing is that they ALL noticed it eight days later than Yoshida mentioned it, way to be on top of the news lol).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Totally agree, and you have no idea on how many think the opposite, feeling that day 1 DLCs are "immoral", and as such they need to lower the score of the game from a moral standpoint.

It's hilarious, I know.

---

It really is immoral to charge people to access data on that $60-$70 game they purchased. I can understand separate DLC since it can extend and enhance your purchase, but when you get into Capcom realm and the like, you can't defend that nor can you deny it's immoral and shady business practices.

Day 1 DLC is fine if ts not data you already purchased, so rating it down based on that alone isn't a good thing, but if its Day 1 DLC for extra $ to something significant already on the disk? Yep, I agree with rating on a moral standpoint, I already dropped $60-$70 on a game, why do I need to pay $5-$20 more to access data already on the disk?

Quote:

---

In regards to future additions, we will be testing phase 3 stability until December 2, and would like to add testers from December 3. Also, in order to address stress created from adding testers, we will be opening the third Alpha Test world on December 3, even though this was not the original plan.

---

way to go Yoshi-P, you are awesome :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elexia

It really is immoral to charge people to access data on that $60-$70 game they purchased. I can understand separate DLC since it can extend and enhance your purchase, but when you get into Capcom realm and the like, you can't defend that nor can you deny it's immoral and shady business practices.

Day 1 DLC is fine if ts not data you already purchased, so rating it down based on that alone isn't a good thing, but if its Day 1 DLC for extra $ to something significant already on the disk? Yep, I agree with rating on a moral standpoint, I already dropped $60-$70 on a game, why do I need to pay $5-$20 more to access data already on the disk?

---

Whether it's immoral or not depends on how you see the issue. For each game we have no idea if a DLC has been ripped off from the game just to make more coin, or the company simply created it separately, investing money for a further team and assets to create it, and selling it as a separate product studied as that from the beginning.

The fact that it's already on the disk is not really relevant, as putting content on the disk is just a matter of convenience.

In any case, whether it's immoral or not, it's beyond the issue. It's not a reviewer's role to be the vigilante of the industry's morals. We have to judge games on what they are, and for the content they have, not for the content we believe should be included at no charge.

If a game provides a good amount of content, it should be judged as such, regardless of DLCs. On the other hand, if a game provides an insufficient amount of content, it should be judged negatively, no matter the DLC policy.

Mentioning our opinion about it is fine, mind you, but it shouldn't influence the overall judgement or score, that should be related exclusively to the quality of the product we review.

I need the alpha invite .. My doctor said if i don't get it i'll die in 24hour *whistle while looking in the air crossing finger* lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

I'll refrain from going on and on about people's motives, as we obviously have different standpoints here. I'll just tell that when you call people "whiners" and "crybabies" and "butthurt" (what a bad word... using it really makes a post irritating), you're being confrontational and insulting, and I doubt you think that your alleged "judgement of people's motives" skill is infallible. If you do... well. That's more your problem than mine.

Choice of words is always important, and walking around with a can of gasoline in a foundry isn't exactly what I'd consider sensible, but to each his own.



-Only active accounts are eligible.
-A bunch of people with inactive accounts get into the alpha.

I'm sure it's not hard to notice the contradiction between the two elements above.



Strawman argument warning: No one argued that it's gonna be the "death of the game". That kind of negative press is damaging, whether it's a little or a lot depends on how widespread and on the issue at hand. But a developer has to try and avoid it when it can. And in this case it definitely was avoidable.

Just look at how some of the press just tried to raise a stink about the same gender marriage issue. Luckily it kind of fizzled because the spotlight on the game ain't intense enough, but they sure did try (the funnies thing is that they ALL noticed it eight days later than Yoshida mentioned it, way to be on top of the news lol).

---

LOL Dude what part of "You do NOT deserve to be in the alpha more than the next guy" you fail to understand? Chillax man no wall of text is getting you in ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

I'll refrain from going on and on about people's motives, as we obviously have different standpoints here. I'll just tell that when you call people "whiners" and "crybabies" and "butthurt" (what a bad word... using it really makes a post irritating), you're being confrontational and insulting, and I doubt you think that your alleged "judgement of people's motives" skill is infallible. If you do... well. That's more your problem than mine.

---

lol If it was more my problem than yours, I would have been the one to get angry, instead of you. I may have been strong in my wording, but I stand by what I said. There were people simply "whining" like "butthurt crybabies" that they didn't get in because of some false sense of entitlement. Perhaps confrontational, but no more so than the posts I was talking about were annoying for being posted over and over and over and over and over. And really, if you're going to whine like that because of some sense of entitlement, you are actually setting yourself up for words such as like the ones I used, and with good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Choice of words is always important, and walking around with a can of gasoline in a foundry isn't exactly what I'd consider sensible, but to each his own.

---

Neither would I consider such actions sensible. Then again, that's a terrible metaphor to use to describe this situation, as calling people out for starting numerous threads to whine about the same thing over and over because of what they feel they are entitled to is likely anywhere near a parallel situation. More like "If you're going to walk around naked and yell over and over how you have the best fashion sense around, be prepared for someone to eventually call you an idiot over it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

-Only active accounts are eligible.
-A bunch of people with inactive accounts get into the alpha.

I'm sure it's not hard to notice the contradiction between the two elements above.

---

-People post that they have concerns over how alpha was handled because of misinformation

-People are angry becaue they feel their status as veterans in the game should net them early access, and are ticked off because it didn't, and post numerously how unfair that is

Not hard to notice the contradictions there, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Strawman argument warning: No one argued that it's gonna be the "death of the game". That kind of negative press is damaging, whether it's a little or a lot depends on how widespread and on the issue at hand. But a developer has to try and avoid it when it can. And in this case it definitely was avoidable.

Just look at how some of the press just tried to raise a stink about the same gender marriage issue. Luckily it kind of fizzled because the spotlight on the game ain't intense enough, but they sure did try (the funnies thing is that they ALL noticed it eight days later than Yoshida mentioned it, way to be on top of the news lol).

---

Well, perhaps it's just me, but I have yet to see a game being brought down or even slightly damaged due to how a closed alpha was slightly mishandled, especially when a beta has yet to really happen. As for SSM, that's a slightly bigger and more contraversial issue than some mis-info on closed alpha. I mean, I was there for Star Wars: The Old Republic after all. I kind of undersand how that's a MUCHO GRANDE bigger deal. But a closed alpha session, an almost private testing of a game that will likely get at least one or maybe two more testing sessions before the game is released? Hmm.... nah, I just don't see it as a critical blow. But then, just my humble $0.02.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warlock

LOL Dude what part of "You do NOT deserve to be in the alpha more than the next guy" you fail to understand? Chillax man no wall of text is getting you in ...

---

From the official application form.

Quote:

---

- Must currently have an active FINAL FANTASY XIV account

---

I'm not sure what part of it you don't understand, 'cause it sounds quite clear to me. I didn't make the rules. I just point out when they're broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyeWindbinder

lol If it was more my problem than yours, I would have been the one to get angry, instead of you.

---

You're assuming that I'm angry. Finding something rather distasteful and writing about it isn't an equivalent to being angry.

Quote:

---

Neither would I consider such actions sensible. Then again, that's a terrible metaphor to use to describe this situation

---

Is it? They're not called "flames" for nothing. And again, you're continuing to interpret people's motives rather arbitrarily.

Quote:

---

-People post that they have concerns over how alpha was handled because of misinformation

---

There's no misinformation, or better, that "misinformation" was created by SE itself. They're the ones that officially stated that only people with an active account were eligible. It hasn't been invented by some other misinformative source.

Which is exactly the problem. Misinforming paying customers is a bad, bad idea. On a case by case base it's possible to get away with it, but it's always a risk not worth taking.

Quote:

---

Well, perhaps it's just me, but I have yet to see a game being brought down or even slightly damaged due to how a closed alpha was slightly mishandles, especially when a beta has yet to really happen. As for SSM, that's a slightly bigger and more contraversial issue than some mis-info on closed alpha. I mean, I was there for Star Wars: The Old Republic after all. I kind of undersand how that's a MUCHO GRANDE bigger deal. But a closed alpha session, an almost private testing of a game that will likely get at least one or maybe two more testing sessions before the game is realed? Hmm.... nah, I just don't see it as a critical blow. But then, just my humble $0.02.

---

Customers are sensitive, any kind of situations in which they're fed wrong information is a potential can of worms. It may not be a "critical blow", but a good boxer avoids all the blows he can, no matter if they're critical or not, they add up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Am I that cold?

---

That's a really interesting phenomenon. People have expressed similar feelings / opinions with regard to my posts on other forums (different language, though). I think it's induced by well thought out, on-topic, smart posts with accurate use of grammar and an actual value compared to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

From the official application form.

I'm not sure what part of it you don't understand, 'cause it sounds quite clear to me. I didn't make the rules. I just point out when they're broken.

---

Maybe you understand already what I'm gonna write, but that line was merely for the application. It has NO HOLD whatsoever on who gets accepted save for filtering those into who can access the application.

I do agree that it may be a bug/glitch, because I have a friend who attempted to access the application on an inactive account, but he got denied. That may be it working correctly, but then you have reports from others...it's not honestly that big of a deal because the applicant had to have a shred of interest to even get through the application. SE doesn't up and choose everyone from the huge masses - they review the application and, based on the criteria they laid out for themselves (WHICH THE RULE FOR THE APPLICATION DOES NOT APPLY), they choose the person.

The application rules and process is independent from the alpha testing criteria and selection. The application merely filters through people who want to test from everyone else as well as provide their own personal information. The selection doesn't look for any other information aside from what was provided and based on that criteria, chosen. So the two processes aren't linked.

If anything, the selection of alpha testers went smoothly. It was the APPLICATION which seems to be weirded out. But as I said, it may be a bug/glitch, as it has worked for others, and not so much for some.

EDIT: Not targetting anyone in particular, but it seems as if there are huge misunderstandings about the application, selection, and the NDA. Maybe I should type up a topic related to those three instances just to clear things up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

From the official application form.

Quote:

---

- Must currently have an active FINAL FANTASY XIV account

---

I'm not sure what part of it you don't understand, 'cause it sounds quite clear to me. I didn't make the rules. I just point out when they're broken.

---

I dont think it really matters anymore whats done is done wat till the 3rd an if you dont get picked oh well no point in debating it anymore man :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whoopeeragon

Maybe you understand already what I'm gonna write, but that line was merely for the application. It has NO HOLD whatsoever on who gets accepted save for filtering those into who can access the application.

---

Eh not really. If you state something as an application "requirement", it's rather obvious that selection will be made between those that match those requirement, because those that don't can't even apply.

I do think it's an non intentional problem, probably caused by the partial reactivation of all the accounts for the final event (thing that was really a bad idea in its own right, mind you, as it caused many paying customers to miss the event completely due to the insanely high traffic, but they already apologized about that, and I normally accept apologies), but in that case the correct course of action is to admit the issue and make amends.

And I do think Yoshi's post at the very least tries to amend the problem, so that helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lolodin

I dont think it really matters anymore whats done is done wat till the 3rd an if you dont get picked oh well no point in debating it anymore man :P

---

It doesn't matter to the past, but I sure hope that Square Enix won't do the same mistake for the future. Count it as a friendly reminder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

You're assuming that I'm angry. Finding something rather distasteful and writing about it isn't an equivalent to being angry..

---

Ahem... Note the post below that YOU YOURSELF wrote... (especially the bolded part)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

I got ticked off because I know that a certain amount of disappointment is quite justified in this situation, given the communication blunder, and I find people so ready to jump to the throat of people that are already (rightfully) disappointed rather distasteful.

---

^^Post #557.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Is it? They're not called "flames" for nothing. And again, you're continuing to interpret people's motives rather arbitrarily.

---

Except the ones who clearly state their self-entitled reasons for whining. lol You know, the ones I was writing about in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

There's no misinformation, or better, that "misinformation" was created by SE itself. They're the ones that officially stated that only people with an active account were eligible. It hasn't been invented by some other misinformative source.

---

I never said it was. I used that term in a sense to describe how they didn't get the info out they should have. Or rather, how they got the wrong info out, saying that only those with active accounts would be let into alpha, when that clearly isn't the case. And again, it's not the people with legit concerns over that that I was referring to. (How many times do I have to say that? lol)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Which is exactly the problem. Misinforming paying customers is a bad, bad idea. On a case by case base it's possible to get away with it, but it's always a risk not worth taking.

---

Indeed. But as I said before, I doubt this misinformation about this phase of alpha is really as serious as you're painting it to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Customers are sensitive,

---

I know. Dear god, do I know. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

any kind of situations in which they're fed wrong information is a potential can of worms. It may not be a "critical blow", but a good boxer avoids all the blows he can, no matter if they're critical or not, they add up.

---

A good boxer also knows what kinds of hits to take seriously and what kind of boxer isn't going to hit that hard. Mike Tyson might have a lot to worry about in a match against Evander Holyfield. But I don't think he'd be all that worried about taking a couple of hits from Don Knotts. My point is, yes, misinformation can be critical. But knowing what to be super worried about and what not to be superworried about is just good judgment and perspective. And, really, I don't think this is a red-alert, world-ending critical problem. (shrug)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyeWindbinder

Ahem... Note the post below that YOU YOURSELF wrote... (especially the bolded part)

---

"ticked off" (I just repeated your term, mind you) is quite different from "angry". I find the confrontational attitude that some have against those that are already displeased by not being selected highly distasteful and unbecoming of a community. More distasteful than the complaints.

Complaining about Complainers and all that.

Being "angry" is a whole different thing.

Quote:

---

Except the ones who clearly state their self-entitled reasons for whining. lol You know, the ones I was writing about in the first place?

---

They're not "self entitled". That's a rather meaningless and derogatory catchphrase. Square Enix created that entitlement in the first place by putting the "Must currently have an active FINAL FANTASY XIV account" caveat in writing.

There's nothing "self" about that entitlement. And mind you, considering that they supported the game thus far, while people that aren't subscribed didn't, it's very, very debatable that that entitlement isn't justified to begin with.

The concept of customer loyalty is very important for a company, and loyal customers normally do have a degree of reason to expect a better treatment than casual ones. It's a simple give-and-take issue.

Quote:

---

I never said it was. I used that term in a sense to describe how they didn't get the info out they should have. Or rather, how they got the wrong info out, saying that only those with active accounts would be let into alpha, when that clearly isn't the case. And again, it's not the people with legit concerns over that that I was referring to. (How many times do I have to say that? lol)

---

It wasn't really wrong info. The info is legit, as the rules were there, quite clearly stated. What's wrong is how those rules weren't applied.

Quote:

---

Indeed. But as I said before, I doubt this misinformation about this phase of alpha is really as serious as you're painting it to be.

---

What you seem to have missed is that I did not make any precise statement of seriousness. Whether it's serious or not, it brings a degree of damage. And it's a degree of damage that 1: could be avoided 2: brings absolutely no advantage to balance it.

So it's a bad thing that should be avoided, regardless of how serious it is.

Quote:

---

A good boxer also knows what kinds of hits to take seriously and what kind of boxer isn't going to hit that hard. Mike Tyson might have a lot to worry about in a match against Evander Holyfield. But I don't think he'd be all that worried about taking a couple of hits from Don Knotts. My point is, yes, misinformation can be critical. But knowing what to be super worried about and what not to be superworried about is just good judgment and perspective. And, really, I don't think this is a red-alert, world-ending critical problem. (shrug)

---

Damage adds up over time. He might not be worried about taking a couple of hits from Don Knotts, but he won't certanly consider them a good thing, especially if there's the possibility to receive more hits over time.

I suggest googling "strawman argument", because by continuing to describe it as something that isn't a "red alert, world ending critical problem" you're doing exactly that.

You're refuting something that no one argued. It gets tedious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recycler

That's a really interesting phenomenon. People have expressed similar feelings / opinions with regard to my posts on other forums (different language, though). I think it's induced by well thought out, on-topic, smart posts with accurate use of grammar and an actual value compared to others.

---

Why, thank you :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

"ticked off" (I just repeated your term, mind you) is quite different from "angry". I find the confrontational attitude that some have against those that are already displeased by not being selected highly distasteful. More distasteful than the complaints. Complaining about Complainers and all that.

Being "angry" is a whole different thing.

---

Ticked off (definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary)

-to make angry or indignant <the cancellation really ticked me off>

But hey, let's just say you have a different definition from, well, it's official definition. In which case, I'll say it was still rather unnecessary for you to get "ticked off", since there was really no call for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

They're not "self entitled". That's a rather meaningless and derogatory catchphrase. Square Enix created that entitlement in the first place by putting the "Must currently have an active FINAL FANTASY XIV account" in writing.

There's nothing "self" about that entitlement. And mind you, considering that they supported the game thus far, while people that aren't subscribed didn't, it's very, very debatable that that entitlement isn't justified to begin with.

---

Look, they are self entitled, because in no way did SE tell them that because of their status as veterans of the game they should get access into alpha. And, by the way, regardless of whether you believe they should or not because of how long they've played, that's not the way SE set it up, so that's not the way it is. Some people believe otherwise, and whine (yes, whine) about it not being so. They are self entitled. And crybabies. Truth. Deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

It wasn't really wrong info. The info is legit, as the rules were there, quite clearly stated. What's wrong is how those rules weren't applied.

---

Come again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

What you seem to have missed is that I did not make any precise statement of seriousness. Whether it's serious or not, it brings a degree of damage. And it's a degree of damage that 1: could be avoided 2: brings absolutely no advantage to balance it.

So it's a bad thing that should be avoided, regardless of how serious it is.

---

And what you don't seem to get is that it's really not as serious as you are painting it to be. Making a mistake and spilling water on your carpet is not nearly as big a mistake as forgetting to wear your seat belt in the car. You are blowing it out of proportion. Some wron info was given. Or rather, the right info was not given. In either case, it's not that big a deal. It's a closed alpha session. The beta sessions are around the corner. None of the reviewing sites seem to smell any blood in the water and are going for the kill. Just NOT that big a deal, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Damage adds up over time. He might not be worried about taking a couple of hits from Don Knotts, but he won't certanly consider them a good thing, especially if there's the possibility to receive more hits over time.

---

You're implying more damage is yet to come. But I doubt, even if Don Knotts got a couple of hits on Mike Tyson, he'd last long enough to regret it. Damage can add up over time. But seeing as how this realy wasn't even 0.01% out of 100 of damage that could occur to FFXIV, again, I doubt SE should be sweating bullets. Yes, you can ruin your carpet if a tsunami of water rushes over it. That doesn't mean if you drop a glass of water on it, you should flip out. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

I suggest googling "strawman argument", because by continuing to describe it as something that isn't a "red alert, world ending critical problem" you're doing exactly that.

You're refuting something that no one argued.

---

Not really. I'm merely stating that it's hardly something SE should be super worried about. And no amount of "Damage can add up over time" or "Well, mistakes can be a critical blow" is going to change that. If you're truly worried, then I suggest you take a chill pill and relax. Because. as I said before, it's just not a big deal. It's just... not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lolodin

I dont think it really matters anymore whats done is done wat till the 3rd an if you dont get picked oh well no point in debating it anymore man :P

---

Well said! I couldn't have said that better myself!

The requirement for applying alpha is having active FF XIV account

there is some statement that some people able to apply without active FF XIV account

we ( or maybe I) need community rep to confirm or denied it.

is it that hard to understand? does my questioning unjustified? what will happen if the case is true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyeWindbinder

Ticked off (definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary)

-to make angry or indignant <the cancellation really ticked me off>

But hey, let's just say you have a different definition from, well, it's official definition. In which case, I'll say it was still rather unnecessary for you to get "ticked off", since there was really no call for it.

---

One definition from one dictionary is hardly an "official" definition. "ticked off", as many vernacular expressions, describes a wide range of emotions, that goes from simple annoyance to anger.

There was plenty call for me or others to find your remarks distasteful, as they are quite evidently very confrontational and insulting. No matter who they're aimed at.

Quote:

---

Look, they are self entitled, because in no way did SE tell them that because of their status as veterans of the game they should get access into alpha. And, by the way, regardless of whether you believe they should or not because of how long they've played, that's not the way SE set it up, so that's not the way it is. Some people believe otherwise, and whine (yes, whine) about it not being so. They are self entitled. And crybabies. Truth. Deal with it.

---

I'm afraid something isn't "truth" just because you say it is.

Square Enix said quite clearly that those that didn't have an active account were not entitled to apply for the alpha. So the entitlement is justified because it came from an official source.

The fact that they didn't apply that rule that they set is an entirely different pair of sleeves, and it's exactly the issue.

Quote:

---

And what you don't seem to get is that it's really not as serious as you are painting it to be. Making a mistake and spilling water on your carpet is not nearly as big a mistake as forgetting to wear your seat belt in the car. You are blowing it out of proportion. Some wron info was given. Or rather, the right info was not given. In either case, it's not that big a deal. It's a closed alpha session. The beta sessions are around the corner. None of the reviewing sites seem to smell any blood in the water and are going for the kill. Just NOT that big a deal, lol.

---

You continue to ignore the fact that the degree of seriousness of the issue is besides the point. When you run a business, you avoid issues when you can. There's no reason to run headlong into them.

Quote:

---

You're implying more damage is yet to come. But I doubt, even if Don Knotts got a couple of hits on Mike Tyson, he'd last long enough to regret it. Damage can add up over time. But seeing as how this realy wasn't even 0.01% out of 100 of damage that could occur to FFXIV, again, I doubt SE should be sweating bullets.

---

Companies should always assume a degree of risk. So yes, they should plan taking in account that more damage is yet to come.

Quote:

---

Yes, you can ruin your carpet if a tsunami of water rushes over it. That doesn't mean if you drop a glass of water on it, you should flip out. lol

---

I'm not flipping out. You're the one insulting others in this thread. Not me.

Quote:

---

Not really. I'm merely stating that it's hardly something SE should be super worried about. And no amount of "Damage can add up over time" or "Well, mistakes can be a critical blow" is going to change that. If you're truly worried, then I suggest you take a chill pill and relax. Because. as I said before, it's just not a big deal. It's just... not.

---

I'm perfectly relaxed. Again, I'm not the one throwing insults at people I don't even know here, calling them "whiners" "crybabies" and other interesting epithets. SE should be worried, and *is* worried, like any company in the world, about everything that can damage its image. Feeding wrong information to customers falls entirely in that category of issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

One definition from one dictionary is hardly an "official" definition. "ticked off", as many vernacular expressions, describes a wide range of emotions, that goes from simple annoyance to anger.

There was plenty call for me or others to find your remarks distasteful, as they are quite evidently very confrontational and insulting. No matter who they're aimed at.

---

lol Well, that's your opinion. Just as it's my opinion to find that you actually got angry at my statements (despite your denial), which was really unnecessary. But hey, perspectives vary from person to person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

I'm afraid something isn't "truth" just because you say it is.

---

But it is truth if it's factual. So, yeah. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Square Enix said quite clearly that those that didn't have an active account were not entitled to apply for the alpha. So the entitlement is justified because it came from an official source.

---

Except those who feel that they should automatically get in because of their veteran status. Which is not justified. As that is not what SE stated. Get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

The fact that they didn't apply that rule that they set is an entirely different pair of sleeves, and it's exactly the issue.

---

And people having a problem with how SE handled things as far as that goes are not the people I was talking about. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

You continue to ignore the fact that the degree of seriousness of the issue is besides the point. When you run a business, you avoid issues when you can. There's no reason to run headlong into them.

---

And you continue to ignore the fact that perspective and judgment is needed in these cases to determine whether a blinder is a serious, dangerous, red-alert one or one that can easily be handled without too much trouble. If a car has a flat tire, that is a problem. But you can still use the car if you change the flat. No need to declare the car unusable from that day forth, and no need to stand there grumbling about how disastrous things would be if the car had four flat tires or blew up or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Companies should always assume a degree of risk. So yes, they should plan taking in account that more damage is yet to come.

---

WHEN. IT. COMES.

They gave wrong info about how a closed alpha was to be handled. Not really as big a deal as you would like to believe it is. Not nearly. Not even slightly. lol Companies sould always assume a degree of risk, yes. Companies should also have enough perspective to know the difference between horrible, un-fixable mistake and slight, hardly worth dwelling on blunder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

I'm not flipping out. You're the one insulting others in this thread. Not me.

---

Not at all. I'm just calling crybabies and whiners crybabies and whiners. If they don't like it, maybe they should stop crying and whining. Blunt, rough, even unkind as it may be, truth often is that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

I'm perfectly relaxed.

---

Sure you are. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Again, I'm not the one throwing insults at people I don't even know here, calling them "whiners" "crybabies" and other interesting epithets. SE should be worried, and *is* worried, like any company in the world, about everything that can damage its image. Feeding wrong information to customers falls entirely in that category of issues.

---

lol Worried, I doubt it. Simply doing his part to calm the people complaining, yes indeed. Again, a blunder about mis-info as far as a closed alpha is hardly somehting Yoshi, or anyone else in SE for hat matter, should (or is) sweating bullets over. Your assumption of otherwise is cute, at best. But a bit disproportionate in judgment, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyeWindbinder

lol Well, that's your opinion. Just as it's my opinion to find that you actually got angry at my statements (despite your denial), which was really unnecessary. But hey, perspectives vary from person to person.

---

It's funny that you feel entitled to think that you know what other people feel better then them. But after all you feel entitled to call them crybabies, whiners and other not so flattering adjectives, so why am I surprised?

Quote:

---

But it is truth if it's factual. So, yeah. lol

---

Only it isn't. Your opinions aren't facts just because you say they are.

Quote:

---

Except those who feel that they should automatically get in because of their veteran status. Which is not justified. As that is not what SE stated. Get it?

---

That's an extremely rare issue. Most people here are displeased because SE allowed in people with an inactive account.

And even those rare cases in which people think that legacy status should grant them alpha access aren't necessarily whiners or crybabies. The concept of customer loyalty being rewarded is in no way out of this world or illogical.

It's actually deeply ingrained in the basic rules of commerce, and companies use it to their advantage all the time, Square Enix included.

Whether you agree or disagree, you're in no position to insult them. Mind you, as per forum rules, you're in no position to insult *anyone*.

Quote:

---

And you continue to ignore the fact that perspective and judgment is needed in these cases to determine whether a blinder is a serious, dangerous, red-alert one or one that can easily be handled without too much trouble. If a car has a flat tire, that is a problem. But you can still use the car if you change the flat. No need to declare the car unusable from that day forth, and no need to stand there grumbling about how disastrous things would be if the car had four flat tires or blew up or something.

---

Only that no one declared the car unusable. The strawman arguments and the unfitting comparisons are getting more and more tedious.

Quote:

---

WHEN. IT. COMES.

---

lol. No. Planning for risk factors in advance is a crucial part of running a business. Companies that deal with problems "when they come" don't last very long.

Dealing with the problem when it comes is exactly one of the factors that got us FFXIV 1.0.

Quote:

---

They gave wrong info about how a closed alpha was to be handled. Not really as big a deal as you would like to believe it is. Not nearly. Not even slightly. lol Companies sould always assume a degree of risk, yes. Companies should also have enough perspective to know the difference between horrible, un-fixable mistake and slight, hardly worth dwelling on blunder.

---

You're minimizing the problem. Tanaka did as well.

Quote:

---

Not at all. I'm just calling crybabies and whiners crybabies and whiners. If they don't like it, maybe they should stop crying and whining. Blunt, rough, even unkind as it may be, truth often is that way.

---

I believe you should review the forum rules. Insulting people is not kosher, no matter how much you think that those terms apply to them. You're not entitled to break the rules.

I don't really think I can explain it in easier terms than this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

It's funny that you feel entitled to think that you know what other people feel better then them. But after all you feel entitled to call them crybabies, whiners and other not so flattering adjectives, so why am I surprised?

---

Yeah yeah, you're just "ticked off" in a calm way. Well actually, you only said "ticked" because you're "tickeld pink". lol You're the calm version of "ticked off". Yeah, whatever. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Only it isn't.?

---

Only to those in denial. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

That's an extremely rare issue. Most people here are displeased because SE allowed in people with an inactive account.

---

"Rare issue"? Dude, try reading the forums sometime. It will definately bring you up to speed. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

And even those rare cases in which people think that legacy status should grant them alpha access aren't necessarily whiners or crybabies. The concept of customer loyalty being rewarded is in no way out of this world or illogical.

---

But feeling entitled to rewards for some reason you yourself made up in your own head is. And when you whine when you don't get it, you're a whiner. And a crybaby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

You're in no position to insult them. Mind you, as per forum rules, you're in no position to insult *anyone*.

---

There's a difference between "insulting someone" and pointing out the truth. People crying over not getting something no one at SE said they were entitled to anyway are being whiners and crybabies. (shrug)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Only that no one declared the car unusable. The strawman arguments and the unfitting comparisons are getting more and more tedious.

---

LOl As is your obvious inability to get the point before it sails way over your head. (and it's getting funnier as well) My point is, it's wise to keep things in perspective. A mistake by a company can be devastating. But if it's not, it's best to deal with it in such a matter. You keep bringing up what "might" happen or what "could" happen, and no one disputes that serious mistakes can be made, and can be damaging. My point is, SE's blunder is not as serious as you are pretending it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

lol. No. Planning for risk factors in advance is a crucial part of running a business. Companies that deal with problems "when they come" don't last very long.

---

And companies that blow a blunder out of proportion and deal with it accordingly waste time when they could be focusing on something more important. Which is just as potentially devestating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

Dealing with the problem when it comes is exactly one of the factors that got us FFXIV 1.0.

---

Different situation. The game was atrocious when it first came out. We're talking about misinformation about alpha testing invites. Which isn't a big deal. Really, it's not. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

You're minimizing the problem. Tanaka did as well.

---

Actually, I'm minimizng "this" problem. Most everyone else is as well. Because, well, it's not a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abriael

I believe you should review the forum rules. Insulting people is not kosher, no matter how much you think that those terms applying to them entitles you to break the rules.

---

People are being whiny crybabies. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck. (shrug) Deal with it. lol

All this over a "Crashy/time Restrictive/getting told what to do" Alpha Test.. *Three Cheers for the NA Community!*

Has anyone else had an issue with the Alpha Sign up? I keep getting an error code saying Different Region every time I try and get to the form.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm running out of popcorn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starlord

All this over a "Crashy/time Restrictive/getting told what to do" Alpha Test.. *Three Cheers for the NA Community!*

---

Hip hip, hooray!

Hip hip, hooray!

Hip hip, hooray! :D

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yusosuki

Has anyone else had an issue with the Alpha Sign up? I keep getting an error code saying Different Region every time I try and get to the form.

---

I got that after re-trying to apply to see if i got the "this account already applied" to feel safer ..idk whats up with that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyeWindbinder

Yeah yeah, you're just "ticked off" in a calm way. Well actually, you only said "ticked" because you're "tickeld pink". lol You're the calm version of "ticked off". Yeah, whatever. :D

---

Quite calm. You may want to notice that despite you continuing to miss the point, to misrepresent my opinion and to generally derail the discussion over and over, I'm not insulting you. While you are indeed insulting others. And standing by your alleged "right" to continue insulting them (which, believe me, is utterly hilarious).

Guess I'm not the angry one here.

Quote:

---

Only to those in denial. lol

---

Claiming that those that deny the factual nature of your claims are "in denial" doesn't make them more factual.

Quote:

---

"Rare issue"? Dude, try reading the forums sometime. It will definately bring you up to speed. lol

---

I believe my post count and yours shows quite clearly who needs to read the forums more.

... or maybe who needs to read them less... >_>

Quote:

---

But feeling entitled to rewards for some reason you yourself made up in your own head is. And when you whine when you don't get it, you're a whiner. And a crybaby.

---

No, they're individuals that have been educated by companies (SE Included) over the years to the concept that customer loyalty is to be rewarded, which is, mind you, a quite logical and balanced concept.

Quote:

---

There's a difference between "insulting someone" and pointing out the truth. People crying over not getting something no one at SE said they were entitled to anyway are being whiners and crybabies. (shrug)

---

Is funny how you claim you're not insulting people, and you continue to stress on those insults in the same sentence. "whiner" "crybaby" and the like are all derogatory remarks. As such they're factually insults. You should refrain from them.

Quote:

---

LOl As is your obvious inability to get the point before it sails way over your head. (and it's getting funnier as well) My point is, it's wise to keep things in perspective. A mistake by a company can be devastating. But if it's not, it's best to deal with it in such a matter. You keep bringing up what "might" happen or what "could" happen, and no one disputes that serious mistakes can be made, and can be damaging. My point is, SE's blunder is not as serious as you are pretending it is.

---

The little fact that you're missing is that no one is pretending anything. You're continuing to try and refute a point that no one argued. It's a blunder. Serious or not, it's besides the point. Blunders should be avoided.

Quote:

---

And companies that blow a blunder out of proportion and deal with it accordingly waste time when they could be focusing on something more important. Which is just as potentially devestating.

---

Why, I believe you're in no position to assess SE's resources, and to decide whether they have the time to amend whatever mistake they make.

I'll give you a hint: they have a PR department and plenty community managers exactly for that purpose. "wasting" their time can hardly be "devastating". That's what they're paid for.

Quote:

---

Different situation. The game was atrocious when it first came out. We're talking about misinformation about alpha testing invites. Which isn't a big deal. Really, it's not. lol

---

You are aware that you saying that something isn't a big deal "really" doesn't make it so, right?

Quote:

---

People are being whiny crybabies. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck. (shrug) Deal with it. lol

---

In a discussion forum in which the rules state clearly that demeaning others isn't allowed, it remains disallowed no matter how much you *think* it's justified.

The rules don't state "be polite and respectful to others unless they deserve a thrashing". They state "be polite and respectful to others" period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LlenCoram

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm running out of popcorn.

---

i'll share what's left of mine. There's only so many times even the most patient person can try to explain the same very basic concepts before he gets bored.

*Blows whistle!* TIMEOUT!! Abriael to one room, and Skye on the Other room! Now meditate and be calm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starlord

*Blows whistle!* TIMEOUT!! Abriael to one room, and Skye on the Other room! Now meditate and be calm.

---

Oh, I'm perfectly calm, while utterly bored.