More and more microtransactions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

Imagine what would happen if FFXIV switched to F2P model...

---

My linkshell and I talked a bit about that last night. Going FTP would probably be the death of FFXIV. Bots and gold farmers would pack the servers. SE already moves as slow as a glacier to take care of the ones already under PTP. The situation would become far far worse as FTP. Which leads to all servers eventually being as packed as Balmung is, so hello connectivity issues around all the servers especially on patch days. I could see it taking the FTP model SWTOR has where you're limited to what you can do or have access to unless you become a subscriber or spend money for unlock tokens per week.

On top of things you mentioned, the major FTP games offering far far far more then FFXIV has to offer. In terms of content, new events every now and then in game, customization and so on. FFXIV is second to WoW and that's mainly due to its the only two major games really left that use a sub model. What does FFXIV offer in the long run that isn't offered in other FTP games? I honestly can't think of one thing at all that makes me wanna scream about it being worth it. Well okay maybe G-pose, but that's all I can think of.

That and I shudder to think how SE would handle lock boxes/RNG boxes >_>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylis

My linkshell and I talked a bit about that last night. Going FTP would probably be the death of FFXIV. Bots and gold farmers would pack the servers. SE already moves as slow as a glacier to take care of the ones already under PTP.

---

Actually, bots would become less of a problem. I know, I know. It sounds ridiculous at first glance. But it's not.

1) Why pay some dubious site that can hack your account if you can officially pay the developer and get the stuff without any risk added? And if you could get through that way stuff more useful than what you can get for gil which is the only currency that bots can farm ever could buy you?
2) The big issue for permanent bans "But I pay the sub, you can't just ban me at random!" will disappear. Square Enix will have much more freedom to ban players without serious investigation. There is a publisher that bans completely innocent victims just because at one point in time they could have a piece of illegal goods (bot-farmed money, duplicated gear etc.). Even if they were some third in line and never had anything to do with the illegal activity, they would receive a ban and be effectively told "Oh, well, sorry. But we'll keep the ban. You are encouraged to make a new account though. In the future, be more careful when you trade with other players.". Right now Square Enix cannot do such a thing and MUST very carefully investigate every report. It is safer for them to not ban a thousand bots than accidentally ban one innocent.

The other aspects...I won't be responding to. I don't really care much for thinking of what will happen. This games management is bad already. I am still sticking to it more because of friends and cause I just feel like logging in sometimes. A free-to-play would just make playing the game free for me removing my issues. And if it would become crap? Well, that would remove my issues as well. I have no problem leaving a game that I don't have fun with at all, this wouldn't be an exception no matter how much I invested in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

Actually, bots would become less of a problem. I know, I know. It sounds ridiculous at first glance. But it's not.

---

You've never tried Archeage at release. 90% of the players were RMT bots, and it was a damn joke how the PvP areas would cycle between being able to kill them with impunity and the bots having a pattern that you could watch for the next few hours. People would not log out of the game for fear of not being able to get back into it. Never mind how long it took on foot to get places.

Like a thing I personally like to do to bots is find ways to get them killed. Usually discovering such a way doesn't last very long because it can also be used against actual players. Most of them could be killed simply by luring any monster.

Mabinogi had the gall to have "monster summoning" gacha boxes, where you defeat the monster and it leaves a chest (that you have to buy a damn key for) to unlock. So people would find ways of summoning the monsters right on top of the bots.

But the bots never disappear. Bots are such a overwhelming problem in F2P games that there is NO STAFF TO DEAL WITH IT.

Like clockwork, as soon as it's 5pm on friday, 10,000 bots descend upon the F2P games, and chaos rules until 9am Monday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

1) Why pay some dubious site that can hack your account if you can officially pay the developer and get the stuff without any risk added? And if you could get through that way stuff more useful than what you can get for gil which is the only currency that bots can farm ever could buy you?.

---

Most of the stuff we buy with real money are already by default untradable. So botters don't care about those. The market board ones that players farm or craft are what you need Gil for. And with a F2P model, they would easily level an entire account and use it.
Aion is a perfect example of this. The game is riddled with bots everywhere. And people heavily buy the game currency (Kinah) from other websites to buy stuff from the auction house to the point that prices inflated up to 100s of millions to get stuff (Why wouldn't they if you can buy 45M Kinah with 1$).

I really don't think anyone has to fear FFXIV becoming F2P. I mean, FFXI still collects a subscription fee every month.

Yoshida and other Square Enix members have mentioned time and again how the subscription fee carries a connotation to it (that the game is higher quality), and how that actually feeds into their marketing for the game. Final Fantasy is a trusted IP and brand, and if it has a sub fee and so many accounts even with said sub fee, then the game must be good, right? Not my actual opinion, just how they've been candid about it (like in the No Clip documentary).

The sub fee itself is as much a marketing tool as any of their promos. And Square Enix is too prideful for its own good. They'll shut the game down before they go F2P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

2) The big issue for permanent bans "But I pay the sub, you can't just ban me at random!" will disappear. Square Enix will have much more freedom to ban players without serious investigation. There is a publisher that bans completely innocent victims just because at one point in time they could have a piece of illegal goods (bot-farmed money, duplicated gear etc.). Even if they were some third in line and never had anything to do with the illegal activity, they would receive a ban and be effectively told "Oh, well, sorry. But we'll keep the ban. You are encouraged to make a new account though. In the future, be more careful when you trade with other players.". Right now Square Enix cannot do such a thing and MUST very carefully investigate every report. It is safer for them to not ban a thousand bots than accidentally ban one innocent.

---

I'm curious what makes you think the reason they don't ban bots is because they're afraid they might ban an "innocent"
There is almost no legal ramifications for them to consider because of the contract you "sign" when you agree to terms.
If anything I think the major reason is the bots are still feeding money into the system and it would be a detriment to the bottom line. A sub is a sub.


OP: are you asking for a detailed breakdown of income and where it's going? Or just a dev explanation? I'll tell you right now that the chances of you getting that breakdown are slim to none.
I understand you're probably asking "well it doesn't look like the output has changed, where is the money going?" but a lot of things can be improved without us actually seeing a super visible change. It might mostly be on dev side: less stability issues, more thorough QA and so forth. I'm not saying it's definitely being spent on this game but its very possibly being invested into making the invisible side of the process better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KisaiTenshi

But the bots never disappear. Bots are such a overwhelming problem in F2P games that there is NO STAFF TO DEAL WITH IT.

---

I have been playing free to play games more than enough to know what kind of situation there is there. Not Archeage, but other ones. However, I also know that it varies from game to game. And there is a reason for that. Some games are simply more attractive for botters than the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

Most of the stuff we buy with real money are already by default untradable.

---

You're talking about the current item mall in terms of a possible free to play item mall...What makes you think it is a good idea?!

I'm 100% sure there will be a lot of stuff that players will want very much on a free to play item mall...that will be tradeable. The reason why most of that stuff is not is exactly to minimize the effect of buying your gil with real money. But once this game would turn to free to play I very much doubt that Square would care about that in the slightest. They'd pack it with consumables that are tradeable for players to buy, so as to monetize the non-paying consumers through the "whales" that would buy items explicitly for sale. That is only normal. That's a vast part of where income is in free to play games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

I'm curious what makes you think the reason they don't ban bots is because they're afraid they might ban an "innocent"
There is almost no legal ramifications for them to consider because of the contract you "sign" when you agree to terms.

---

Because I know, just like Square Enix, that their "contract" won't hold water if someone will really push for it to court with a valid case. Agreements between two parties cannot supersede the law. They are a company. They cannot just ban people randomly for no reason on a whim, especially during the paid term.

Then there is the case of press release, and while Square Enix shows the middle finger to the community a lot, there is a major difference between not listening to requests and making poor design choices and making months of years of effort irrelevant for no reason.
A person that is being shafted by there being no particularly worthwhile content time and time again may still log in here or there to do the older one, and that means that will pay the sub here or there. If not, there is a chance of them returning after an expansion.
A person that is being told that they may lose all the effort they put into the game and start from scratch, even if they never did anything remotely dubious, will think twice whether he wants to actually invest in the game at all. It's one thing with free to play games, another thing entirely with sub games where you literally pay for nothing gameplay-wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

If anything I think the major reason is the bots are still feeding money into the system and it would be a detriment to the bottom line. A sub is a sub.

---

Except the bots won't stop being made. If they leave the bots, they'll get a sub once a month. If they'll ban the bots every day, they'll get thirty subs in a month. Clearly it's better to ban them than not money-wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

Because I know, just like Square Enix, that their "contract" won't hold water if someone will really push for it to court with a valid case. Agreements between two parties cannot supersede the law. They are a company. They cannot just ban people randomly for no reason on a whim, especially during the paid term.

Then there is the case of press release, and while Square Enix shows the middle finger to the community a lot, there is a major difference between not listening to requests and making poor design choices and making months of years of effort irrelevant for no reason.
A person that is being shafted by there being no particularly worthwhile content time and time again may still log in here or there to do the older one, and that means that will pay the sub here or there. If not, there is a chance of them returning after an expansion.
A person that is being told that they may lose all the effort they put into the game and start from scratch, even if they never did anything remotely dubious, will think twice whether he wants to actually invest in the game at all. It's one thing with free to play games, another thing entirely with sub games where you literally pay for nothing gameplay-wise.


Except the bots won't stop being made. If they leave the bots, they'll get a sub once a month. If they'll ban the bots every day, they'll get thirty subs in a month. Clearly it's better to ban them than not money-wise.

---

I'm not sure where you get the idea that a legally binding agreement you sign by clicking OK "doesn't hold water". That's the whole purpose of the terms of service, to legally safeguard them in case they have to terminate the service for any reason. This is why games you play online aren't owned by you and the wording almost always refers to you paying for access to the game and not the game itself. As soon as someone says "hey you banned me wrongly" there could be an investigation and items restored possibly gametime awarded, but there wouldn't really be a whole lot of fallout. Doesn't happen in other games, even those with very long lifetimes. People get banned all of a sudden for RMT or botting and have no foot to stand on legally, they either start over (sometimes not even that because they get IP banned) or never play again. Legally it's so expensive to sue and really all you can be awarded is the original purchase price of the game, usually not worth the hundreds and possibly thousands you will pay in legal fees. A company like SE laughs at people suing over things like that because legally they're protected AND they have the money to make the process so prohibitively expensive for the prosecution that even the thought is laughable. No serious lawyer would take that case. They already do eliminate "waves" of supposed RMT traffickers and users, pretty sure one or two of them out of the tens of thousands every wave have likely been innocent.
You can be denied the use of a lot of your services at any time due to the agreements you've "signed", this is already a risk we all take. Not understanding that you've already agreed to that is dangerous. I warn you that you're not nearly as immune as you seem to think from getting the rug simply yanked out from under you. If you think any different I would speak to a lawyer about it.

I wouldn't really know how fast a bot-farmer restores their bots. Would they honestly bother if the bots got banned in a day? Might make it not worth it financially and there would just be no botting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

I'm not sure where you get the idea that a legally binding agreement you sign by clicking OK "doesn't hold water".

---

Maybe it's a difference in legal systems between where I live and whatever point you are looking at.

In Europe, at least some countries, there are laws that protect consumers from unfair practices. Not only are there certain ones codified as illegal contract clauses, but if something is not codified and a person feels like it is abusive part of the contract they can still sue it and the court may invalidate that part of the contract as well. With enough of that term being brought up and it may be outright added to the illegal contract clauses.
Whether you sign up the contract or not does not matter one bit. Anything that is part of a contract that law claims should not be there is invalid. If a part of contract is invalid, the rest (if possible) still remains valid. If a large part of the contract is invalid, its entirety may be invalidated instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

That's the whole purpose of the terms of service, to legally safeguard them in case they have to terminate the service for any reason.

---

Except it doesn't work that way. It can safeguard them only within the scope of the law. There are clauses that no matter what will not be valid. No matter where in the world you are, I am sure that similar law DOES exist at least for some clauses. I can even give you an obvious example.
"I therefore sell my freedom to Mr.X. Henceforth Mr.X holds ownership over all my rights, including my right to live, and can do with me as he pleases, including but not limited to selling me, trading me, abusing me and so on."
You can sign a contract that includes the above clause as many times as you want, in as many copies as you want, in any language or country that you want. You can go and see a psychiatrist before and after to have on paper that you are in full control of yourself, in perfect mental health. Nothing matters. Slavery is illegal worldwide and cannot be part of a contract. Similarly in many countries prostitution cannot be part of a contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

As soon as someone says "hey you banned me wrongly" there could be an investigation and items restored possibly gametime awarded, but there wouldn't really be a whole lot of fallout.

---

How much "fallout" would be depends on the other consumers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

People get banned all of a sudden for RMT or botting and have no foot to stand on legally(...)

---

Tell me...Where I said that a person banned for RMT or botting can sue them? Never. Quite the opposite. I used the word "innocent" multiple times for a reason. But the weight of the investigation is on Square Enix (and the police in case of RMT possibly, depending on country and whether Square takes it to prosecution). And a player that was banned NEEDS to have reasonable means of self-defense (aka. ones that may actually end up with them getting back what they lost). That is one of legal obligations that cannot be removed contractually in Europe at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

Legally it's so expensive to sue and really all you can be awarded is the original purchase price of the game, usually not worth the hundreds and possibly thousands you will pay in legal fees.

---

Entirely country-dependent. In my country for example, the loser pays ALL the court fees. Everyone pays their share if both are at fault. Sure, you may need to invest originally (not always, as taking things to court is one of the constitutional right and therefore a "free" option needs to be offered by the country for those that cannot afford it), but if you win, you'll get it all back. And you seem to ignore the other side of the medal. Why would Square Enix pay such big sums of money to avoid unbanning a player that never did anything wrong if they can just...you know...unban him and avoid both bad press release and costs?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

They already do eliminate "waves" of supposed RMT traffickers and users, pretty sure one or two of them out of the tens of thousands every wave have likely been innocent.

---

There are countless people that under law could take case to court and would win eventually, getting all the costs as well as extra on top. And they don't. Because they don't know they are "defended", because they think the courts are "corrupt", because they think that there's no winning against the "big, bad companies". And?!

I have in my family someone that won a case against a large company. That someone got even more money than he sued for. And the costs?! The other side paid them. The lawyer chosen did take a percentage of the won money though, but it was percentage, so it would still be a win no matter how much or small the winnings were.

There are many people that win against multinational banks, and that's a big deal, while spending hardly anything thanks to the way law is around here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

I warn you that you're not nearly as immune as you seem to think from getting the rug simply yanked out from under you. If you think any different I would speak to a lawyer about it.

---

I don't particularly care. I do not invest in this game more than my monthly subscription and I get my share of it, so being banned would not have much of an effect on me. I never had issues just ditching whatever stopped entertaining me. Even if I could take it to court, granted the case, I most likely wouldn't cause I'd see no reason to.

There are those with greater investment than that however, that did that investment with future gains in mind. And I assure you, some of them would take matters to court. And that is a costly endeavor. Why would Square want to do that if, I'll say that again because it is very important, we're talking about people that didn't do anything wrong? No matter what, it's a loss for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

I wouldn't really know how fast a bot-farmer restores their bots. Would they honestly bother if the bots got banned in a day? Might make it not worth it financially and there would just be no botting.

---

That'd be a first. I don't know of any game that removed bots. I assure you, many of the bots are not even being paid for by the companies that use them. They are accounts that are hacked (through players idiocy, not lacking security, mind you), free trials and such. And it is a very profitable business when on a large enough scale. They easily earn more than those 12$ a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

Maybe it's a difference in legal systems between where I live and whatever point you are looking at.

In Europe, at least some countries, there are laws that protect consumers from unfair practices. Not only are there certain ones codified as illegal contract clauses, but if something is not codified and a person feels like it is abusive part of the contract they can still sue it and the court may invalidate that part of the contract as well. With enough of that term being brought up and it may be outright added to the illegal contract clauses.
Whether you sign up the contract or not does not matter one bit. Anything that is part of a contract that law claims should not be there is invalid. If a part of contract is invalid, the rest (if possible) still remains valid. If a large part of the contract is invalid, its entirety may be invalidated instead.

---

Very possible there are very different laws in different places. I don't understand how you'd classify simply ending service as abusive. No matter what , in the end this is a game and disallowing access isn't like cutting off power or repossessing a car, it's just a matter of allowing someone to play a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

Except it doesn't work that way. It can safeguard them only within the scope of the law. There are clauses that no matter what will not be valid. No matter where in the world you are, I am sure that similar law DOES exist at least for some clauses. I can even give you an obvious example.
"I therefore sell my freedom to Mr.X. Henceforth Mr.X holds ownership over all my rights, including my right to live, and can do with me as he pleases, including but not limited to selling me, trading me, abusing me and so on."
You can sign a contract that includes the above clause as many times as you want, in as many copies as you want, in any language or country that you want. You can go and see a psychiatrist before and after to have on paper that you are in full control of yourself, in perfect mental health. Nothing matters. Slavery is illegal worldwide and cannot be part of a contract. Similarly in many countries prostitution cannot be part of a contract.

---

In reasonable contract such as "the provider reserves the right to cease providing services at any point" you'd be hard pressed to find a judge who would award any more than a refund of the remaining fees for time paid for but not able to be redeemed. Slavery is taking a service agreement much too far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

How much "fallout" would be depends on the other consumers.

Tell me...Where I said that a person banned for RMT or botting can sue them? Never. Quite the opposite. I used the word "innocent" multiple times for a reason. But the weight of the investigation is on Square Enix (and the police in case of RMT possibly, depending on country and whether Square takes it to prosecution). And a player that was banned NEEDS to have reasonable means of self-defense (aka. ones that may actually end up with them getting back what they lost). That is one of legal obligations that cannot be removed contractually in Europe at least.

---

I mean banned for but innocent of. Yes they have legal recourse but in my country the only obligation the company has is allowing an appeal and the client must attempt that appeal process before proceeding with further legal action. Ideally an innocent would either be provided with the "evidence" of their "crime" or acquitted and service restored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

Entirely country-dependent. In my country for example, the loser pays ALL the court fees. Everyone pays their share if both are at fault. Sure, you may need to invest originally (not always, as taking things to court is one of the constitutional right and therefore a "free" option needs to be offered by the country for those that cannot afford it), but if you win, you'll get it all back. And you seem to ignore the other side of the medal. Why would Square Enix pay such big sums of money to avoid unbanning a player that never did anything wrong if they can just...you know...unban him and avoid both bad press release and costs?!

---

even if it was free you would have to take the time to pursue it and it would be YEARS. They wouldn't though, likely there would be an appeal and the "innocent" would have their service reinstated, yet another reason I don't think they're not avoiding bans because innocents may get caught in the crossfire. Undoing them would be easy if found to be unjust. YOur original comment implies they're avoiding legal action and I think the consumer has far more to fear down that road and the company would simply have to have people looking into "I was banned unjustly" reports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

There are countless people that under law could take case to court and would win eventually, getting all the costs as well as extra on top. And they don't. Because they don't know they are "defended", because they think the courts are "corrupt", because they think that there's no winning against the "big, bad companies". And?!
I have in my family someone that won a case against a large company. That someone got even more money than he sued for. And the costs?! The other side paid them. The lawyer chosen did take a percentage of the won money though, but it was percentage, so it would still be a win no matter how much or small the winnings were.
There are many people that win against multinational banks, and that's a big deal, while spending hardly anything thanks to the way law is around here.

---

OK.. but there is no precedent for someone suing a game company for simply ceasing service or a "wrongful" ban and winning. If it was as weighted or beneficial to the consumer as you imply it would have happened. Once again, I am sure SE is not avoiding bans because they are afraid of litigation or bad press.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

I don't particularly care. I do not invest in this game more than my monthly subscription and I get my share of it, so being banned would not have much of an effect on me. I never had issues just ditching whatever stopped entertaining me. Even if I could take it to court, granted the case, I most likely wouldn't cause I'd see no reason to.
There are those with greater investment than that however, that did that investment with future gains in mind. And I assure you, some of them would take matters to court. And that is a costly endeavor. Why would Square want to do that if, I'll say that again because it is very important, we're talking about people that didn't do anything wrong? No matter what, it's a loss for them.

---

and I say again people who haven't done any wrong would have little to no worries through an appeal system, my primary point was that SE has no reason to fear banning people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikix12

That'd be a first. I don't know of any game that removed bots. I assure you, many of the bots are not even being paid for by the companies that use them. They are accounts that are hacked (through players idiocy, not lacking security, mind you), free trials and such. And it is a very profitable business when on a large enough scale. They easily earn more than those 12$ a day.

---

I don't know of any game that daily purges all bots either though. I really don't know enough stats on how many people just get hacked vs how many "jklewjfh bfewiowjf" character accounts get bought, made and farmed to make a solid claim on numbers there. It's mainly speculation. Balmung had very few bots and no RMT spam for quite a while when it was closed.. that's one way.