Alleo's Signature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thamorian

I hope you are the original owner of your current housing plot, cause if you bought that house after it was auto-demolished from someone else, and you complain about the auto-demolish, some might consider that to be hypocritical.

---

I lost one house to the auto demolish but I have bought both the houses I've owned from release.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skivvy

I agree that personal housing should be more than just a larger apartment, and this is something that instanced housing could handle nicely. I'm definitely on the team of "time to start over, your housing system sucks as it is". Maybe keep the existing wards for those people who want that ghost-town feel, and then release proper instanced housing to ALL characters.

I always think of WildStar when thinking of instanced housing. They allow so much freedom there, massive plots, AND you can form a small instanced community with a few of your friends. Although, I'm sure SE could find a way to muck that up as well.

---

I wouldn't mind if it was an instanced house. Would also be a lot easier on the servers I think. Current housing wards, the servers have to keep the instances open, they are treated like any other zone, except they also have to load all the garden decorations for each ward for every player that enters. Switching to instanced housing would prob use up less resource.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaer

You could say that about anything though, "They didn't lie because they changed their mind" means you could brush anything anyone says off and if that's how you feel that's fine. It's just giving license to other people to say whatever they want and not have any accountability. It also feels like spinning, like what lawyers or PR people do.

In real life people don't risk that so they sign binding documents, or take an oath.

---

You also have to bear in mind that Yoshi P was a lot less experienced when he said this. He was clearly excited about housing, and fully believed he could bring about the plan for housing he envisioned. He was also clearly not aware that the players were going to take his announcement as some kind of binding contract to hold over his head for years to come. You'll notice that he is a LOT more careful, now, about revealing plans for the game nowadays. He has experience, now, and typically limits announcements to things he knows the developers can deliver (in fact, the probably limits them to things the developers have already developed, or mostly so). He's learned his lesson.

If he was still making wild promises today then I'd agree that he should be held accountable, but the stuff about housing we can chalk up to his growing pains as a director. Continuing to dredge these remarks up nowadays is comparable to calling a woman a pervert because she said she wanted to marry her brother when she was four years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineageRazor

You also have to bear in mind that Yoshi P was a lot less experienced when he said this. He was clearly excited about housing, and fully believed he could bring about the plan for housing he envisioned. He was also clearly not aware that the players were going to take his announcement as some kind of binding contract to hold over his head for years to come. You'll notice that he is a LOT more careful, now, about revealing plans for the game nowadays. He has experience, now, and typically limits announcements to things he knows the developers can deliver (in fact, the probably limits them to things the developers have already developed, or mostly so). He's learned his lesson.

If he was still making wild promises today then I'd agree that he should be held accountable, but the stuff about housing we can chalk up to his growing pains as a director. Continuing to dredge these remarks up nowadays is comparable to calling a woman a pervert because she said she wanted to marry her brother when she was four years old.

---

Eh, I mean I suppose. But that's why you have an entire PR department that coaches you, (and I'm pretty sure they do have one since it's been referenced many times about why he can't reveal things) so really I would understand if people don't let him off the hook completely.

I really doubt he just does whatever he wants, I'm sure some of it gets filtered through PR especially something like a Live Letter, which I assume has pre-screened questions.

Sometimes someone makes a silly promise and breaking it is the lesser of two evils. Or, in this case, actually the right thing to do. The only thing they did wrong was wording it as a promise in the first place. It was very naive of them.

If they never went back on this silly statement, nobody past the first couple of days of housing being added to the game would be able to own a house. How lovely that would be. I'm sure being given the amazing opportunity to wander deserted wards, admiring some long-gone early adopters' abandoned houses is exactly what active, paying customers want out of the game. Think of the exciting museum experience!

...said nobody ever ^^

Those who want to show off in a public instance should only be able to do so while actively playing the game. Those who want housing without commitment can still own apartments and private chambers. They never go away and you can take all the breaks you want without locking other players out of plot ownership.

You can either have the devs forever committed to one direction (even if it leads off a cliff)... or you can have devs who can evolve, respond to feedback and learn from mistakes. Pick one n_n

If they never made that statement, a lot of people would have also not bothered with housing because they'd have foreseen it being a subscription anchor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

If they never made that statement, a lot of people would have also not bothered with housing because they'd have foreseen it being a subscription anchor.

---

I feel like this is a bit of an exaggeration. People are still buying up homes left, right, and center, (and complaining about auto-demo) even already being aware of it going in.

I wish there was an alternate form to stop the auto-demolition counter without having to log-in into the game, I'm subbed in 180-days cycles so I never worry about running out of subscription time but there might be times when I can't play for more than 45 days and I don't want a system to destroy my mansions and leave me homeless!...


I'd suggest the Producer and the dev team to develop another way to stop the counter without having to play the game, maybe it could be done through the Companion app!...

That auto demolition isn't tied to your sub is just baffling, you're literally paying a sub and the only thing of yours actively using server resources can be removed if you don't access it, even though you're paying for it with real money. An auto demolition system was very much needed due to people who left the game never to return, but a paying customer should never lose their house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alimdia

the only thing of yours actively using server resources can be removed if you don't access it, even though you're paying for it with real money.

---

Eh, it's a small but important difference, but you are not paying real money for the house. You are paying real money for access to the game servers. Nothing else. The house may be why you choose to pay to access the server, but that is not what SE is actually charging you for. It all circles back to that part of the ToS that explicitly states we own absolutely nothing (not our characters, gear, items, etc.) and merely pay SE to access content.

I understand SE's reasoning for the the way the auto-demo timer works. If it were tied to sub, then houses could sit just as empty for just as long as if the owner had quit the game. Yeah, you can pop over to it once every month and half, enter, leave, and ignore it again for another month and a half, but requiring you to actually go there at least encourages you to spend time there and use it.

If you need to pay to access the game to be able to buy a house and your sub money is partially going towards the upkeep of said servers, you are paying real money for that house. If we don't pay then there are no servers to host the houses.

I'm not arguing about ownership so I don't know why you're mentioning that, and entering a house once every 44 days is hardly using it. If the point of houses is to have more things to keep you subbed then you shouldn't lose your house if you're subbed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alimdia

If the point of houses is to have more things to keep you subbed

---

The "point" of houses is... to access housing features. Decorating, gardening, workshops, etc.

The auto-demo timer isn't some sort of conspiracy to make people stay subbed to the game, no matter what the tinfoil hat-wearing posters would have you think. The auto-demo timer is to make sure houses aren't sitting unused indefinitely. Forcing you to actually go inside your house a bare minimum of once every month and a half is probably the least tyrannical way that SE can "nudge" you toward using it. But as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

And I'll say it again, since my point seemed to go over your head. SE does not charge for specific features (raiding, housing, pvp, etc.) they charge you access to the game servers. What you choose to do after that point is moot. You don't pay for a house, you pay to play, just like everyone else (homeless and homeowners alike.)

But my point also goes over your head, if your money is being used to develop those features then you're paying for them, they aren't offering them for free, they are offering them as part of your sub. When you pay for something you're paying for everything included in that something.

It's not a tin-foil hat conspiracy when as a matter of fact we have had content droughts longer than 45 days, someone not playing for 45 days doesn't mean they have abandoned the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alimdia

But my point also goes over your head, if your money is being used to develop those features then you're paying for them, they aren't offering them for free, they are offering them as part of your sub. When you pay for something you're paying for everything included in that something.

---

You are also paying to develop ilvl 375 weapons. But SE isn't obliged to give them to you just because of that. You still have to Savage Sigmascape for them. You paid for the development of the Centurio Tiger but you still need to do 2000 hunts for it. You paid for the Magitek Conveyor to be created and yet you still need to rank in the top 100 for Feast.

The game is a package deal. You pay for everything, not just the content you choose to opt into. And you know what? Plenty of people without houses paid to develop and host your house, too.

And yes, the wild claims about demo-timer being there to force subs is a conspiracy theory thrown around by crackpots. The length of "content droughts" has no bearing on the topic of housing. The term itself is questionable as there is plenty of content in the game to keep people busy between content patches... if they choose to opt into it. Just because there is nothing you want to do, doesn't mean there is nothing to do.

Someone not playing for 45 days might not have abandoned the game. Someone not playing for 6 months might not have abandoned the game either. Or a year even. Where do you draw an arbitrary line like that? What's the hard cutoff for when people will never come back? To me, 45 days seems reasonable. Others disagree, as is their right. But it doesn't mean it's a conspiracy on SE's part. The demo timer is there to try to keep houses in the hands of people who will use them. Nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rymm

I feel like this is a bit of an exaggeration. People are still buying up homes left, right, and center, (and complaining about auto-demo) even already being aware of it going in.

---

I'm not saying nobody would have been buying housing. However buying a house with the knowledge that it goes poof if you're gone for a while is different than buying one thinking its yours for the foreseeable future. Perhaps subscription anchor is a harsh term, but there have been several times in the past four years where its been exactly that for me.

I love the hell out of my house. But I bought it back when we were told houses were permanent until sold. I can't say I'd have bought it knowing that it would be like it is now, where a 45 day break or more will leave one homeless. Perhaps at some point just letting it poof will ease my mind, and I can just customize an apartment instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alimdia

If you need to pay to access the game to be able to buy a house and your sub money is partially going towards the upkeep of said servers, you are paying real money for that house. If we don't pay then there are no servers to host the houses.

---

Your money is paying for the servers, but so is the money of other people who want a house and can’t get one.

It might be different if you had to pay real money to keep your house if you’re not actively using it - but that’s a different can of worms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alimdia

That auto demolition isn't tied to your sub is just baffling, you're literally paying a sub and the only thing of yours actively using server resources can be removed if you don't access it, even though you're paying for it with real money. An auto demolition system was very much needed due to people who left the game never to return, but a paying customer should never lose their house.

---

This!
I really cannot understand how anyone can defend a policy that permanently removes your virtual assets even when you are paying a sub. If this applied to minions, mounts or anything else we could get in-game or buy from the cash-shop there would be war.

Square have gone back on their word and while I can understand why that was necessary, I feel the present system is unnecessarily punitive. I think the very least we should expect is permanent storage of all furniture.

If they had also included instanced housing along side of the hamfisted rubbish we ended up with, they could of avoided so much drama over all this time.
Pig headed devs with ridiculous backward visions...

It’s not so much that they broke the promise that bothers me, it’s that people who already owned a house when they broke the promise weren’t grandfathered in.

I personally only bought a house because it didn’t require me to commit to the game. Then they changed their minds and now my sub fee is being held ransom when I was told that would never happen at the time I made the decision to buy my house.

Yoshi makes a promise or says what he wants to do ------> one of his bosses says otherwhise and yoshi has to do what his boss says --------> com roasts yoshi.

The biggest mistake with housing was that they made private housing available if they have issues to get houses for everyone into the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

But the changes to housing were only 1 or 2 years after those promises were made. Kind of disingenuous to pretend these changes are recent.

---

It is funny how some are saying that its such an old quote while completely forgetting that this change did not happen recently. So yes somehow they went back to their words in a quite short amount of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rymm

The "point" of houses is... to access housing features. Decorating, gardening, workshops, etc.

The auto-demo timer isn't some sort of conspiracy to make people stay subbed to the game, no matter what the tinfoil hat-wearing posters would have you think. The auto-demo timer is to make sure houses aren't sitting unused indefinitely. Forcing you to actually go inside your house a bare minimum of once every month and a half is probably the least tyrannical way that SE can "nudge" you toward using it. But as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

And I'll say it again, since my point seemed to go over your head. SE does not charge for specific features (raiding, housing, pvp, etc.) they charge you access to the game servers. What you choose to do after that point is moot. You don't pay for a house, you pay to play, just like everyone else (homeless and homeowners alike.)

---

The problem is, that having to go into your house every 45 days does not mean that you are using it a lot. Workshops only work for FC, gardening wont be done in the break either and nobody has a list of what you need to do with your house to keep it. I for example sometimes use the garden plots but I did not buy it for that. I just like to decorate and craft my stuff but you also cant always decorate because of the limit and because you wanted a certain look. So I have used hours to decorate the FC and private house but right now its done thus I use it mostly to craft in there in peace and to have a nice little spot to visit. So with your list I should lose the house because I dont necessarily "use" the features. And I am quite sure that there are quite some people or FC that barely use their house or might not be interested in decorating it much. Maybe some just own it because they want to hold a event in this once per months.

There are so many different reasons for having a house and there are no rules how you have to use it. So some might be angry because someone bought a house and only visit it once per month to party in this. But its their right and they should not lose it because someone believes that they are not using it enough.

I do agree that those that dont play anymore should not keep their house forever but this could have simply be solved by saying that you need to sub for a certain amount of days or cant have a big break between your sub. This way SE gets money from those that want to keep their house but might not be able to play right now for reasons and anyone that truly does not plan to play anymore wont keep ghost houses. Win Win for everyone imo. (Other than those that feel like only certain people deserve a house.)

(A PVP player also dont need to access their limited mount to keep it, no matter if that person will ever use it again or not. )

Many good points here but just because someone doesn't use an item for a period of time doesn't mean they should lose it forever. I might not touched my geared pld for 4 months if I'm lvling other jobs, it doesn't mean I don't want it's gear.

I personally don't even think they should have offered housing if there was not enough for every subscribed member to have one. I don't understand why they would gate any content or housing items behind a house if they were not prepared to supply all their players with a place to enjoy said content and housing items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

So with your list I should lose the house because I dont necessarily "use" the features.

---

Whoa, back up. I think you misunderstood me here.

The person I was quoting directly before bringing up housing features was claiming that SE added housing (and the demo timer) solely to force people to stay subbed. I brought up the examples of features housing offers only to point out that they are why housing was added, not some crazy conspiracy by a mustache-twirling, money-grubbing SE dev. The list of examples I gave have no bearing on my argument about the demo timer itself and was merely to counter that specific claim brought up by that specific poster.

I know this discussion comes up a lot (A. Lot.) and that one of the ideas often kicked around is if SE should have other requirements in place for players to keep their houses; minimum number of furnishings, move things around inside every so often, etc. Let me just be clear that I am not one of the people in favor of these type of suggestions.

SE obviously wants housing to go to people who are going to use it in some way, shape or form. They could, theoretically, add any number of convoluted, authoritarian requirements to make sure that you are actually "using" the house. Instead they went with a softer touch (which I agree with) and just require you to visit it a bare minimum of once every 6ish weeks. They are leading the players to water, but leaving it up to the individual whether or not they choose to drink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

(A PVP player also dont need to access their limited mount to keep it, no matter if that person will ever use it again or not. )

---

I just knew someone was going to take what I said in that post out of context.

Again, the feast mount (and other examples) were only brought up to counter a specific argument by a specific poster. Namely that-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alimdia

you are paying real money for that house

---

My point (as succinctly as possible) is that the only thing your sub fee guarantees you is the right to log on. That is what you are paying for. Everything else is determined by how you choose to spend your time/effort in the game. If you want the pvp mount you have to meet the minimum in-game requirements; i.e. finish in the top 100 of Feast. If you want to keep your house, you have to meet the minimum in-game requirements; i.e. visit it once every month and a half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rymm

The person I was quoting directly before bringing up housing features was claiming that SE added housing (and the demo timer) solely to force people to stay subbed. I brought up the examples of features housing offers only to point out that they are why housing was added, not some crazy conspiracy by a mustache-twirling, money-grubbing SE dev. The list of examples I gave have no bearing on my argument about the demo timer itself and was merely to counter that specific claim brought up by that specific poster.

I know this discussion comes up a lot (A. Lot.) and that one of the ideas often kicked around is if SE should have other requirements in place for players to keep their houses; minimum number of furnishings, move things around inside every so often, etc. Let me just be clear that I am not one of the people in favor of these type of suggestions.

SE obviously wants housing to go to people who are going to use it in some way, shape or form. They could, theoretically, add any number of convoluted, authoritarian requirements to make sure that you are actually "using" the house. Instead they went with a softer touch (which I agree with) and just require you to visit it a bare minimum of once every 6ish weeks. They are leading the players to water, but leaving it up to the individual whether or not they choose to drink.

I just knew someone was going to take what I said in that post out of context.

---

I am also quite sure that people did not say that housing itself was created to keep people subbed because housing started without the timer. (And I agree with one poster, somehow recently people that own more than one FC and private house were grandfathered in but those that bought houses before the timer did not, which imo is also not quite fair) But since the timer started people are not only forced to sub nearly constantly but also visit the house in that time limit. At the same time Yoshida more and more stated that people should just go play something else between patches if they are bored..this is kinda ironic since the timer exist thus people cant just play something else without paying and playing anyway. So for me its completely understandable that we house owners are a bit annoyed to have to be punished for their bad system.

I am also gonna be honest and say that I have never read that anyone would want much stricter rules that includes moving stuff around. The only thing that I remember are fees for house owners.

The thing is, SE never truly cared for housing. They created this limited system and was fine with it. Until the playerbase got more and more (rightfully) pissed of because they could not get houses. And instead of fixing their system so that everyone can have a house they just punished us owners by creating a timer which also includes that you need to go into the house. They were completely fine with letting people sell and buy houses until the players were annoyed about this again and then they said that this is not good but never really enforced it either...and on top of that after all the time were even the timer is not enough to give people houses, they release a new zone which ends in another housing war and lots of backlash. Thus they were forced to release many more wards which still does not solve the real problem. So for me they never cared how many people get a house because the system itself makes it impossible to have one for everyone. Even if only truly active people own a house it would not be enough. So the timer is nothing but another bandaid fix (and a broken promise) which ultimately never solves the problem, while keeping people forced to sub if they dont want to lose it.

To battle all the unused plots from players that never play again, they could have simply created a system where you get a mail after half a year of not paying a sub and if they dont react on this the house would be demolished. Half a year should be enough for someone to decide if they want to play anymore and if someone has something happening to them in real life they have the time to sort it out and if they cant go back soon they still could simply sub to not fall under this. I know that there would be some people annoyed because in their view such a person has no right to own a house but honestly that just opens the door to the question of "who really deserves to own one?"

About PVP: So would you be fine if they suddenly made a rule (because they noticed that the limited mount is not used in a certain way and people are angry that they lost their chance to it) that anyone who does not use it in a certain amount of time will get it taken away? Because that is exactly what happened with housing. There was no timer and a promise to not have it. People probably worked hard to get one (since it was more expensive and you did not get Gil so easily) and bought it with the knowledge that it would stay with them. And suddenly thanks to SEs bad system they could lose it if they want to take a break that goes longer than 1 1/2 months..and it also did not solve the problem at all. Yes after the first time quite some houses got demolished but after that its was barely the case. (Its not like houses did not get demolished without the timer)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

I am also quite sure that people did not say that housing itself was created to keep people subbed

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alimdia

the point of houses is to have more things to keep you subbed

---

It's the crux of alimdia's argument. And total BS, which is the whole reason I got drawn into a discussion with her in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

About PVP:

---

(┛ಠ_ಠ)┛彡┻━┻

Please, go back and reread the end of my last post. I know it is a nuanced concept, but I really don't know how to explain my point any plainer. I am not now nor was I ever equating housing to pvp rewards. I merely brought that and other examples up as things you are not "paying real money for" and thus not automatically entitled to just by paying a sub. I mentioned it to counter a specific claim made by alimdia and was not applying it to the housing issue at large.

Also, for the record, I know exactly what was promised about housing and the consequences of Yoshida breaking that promise. I bought my first house back before the timer existed. I lost it when they implemented the auto-demos while I was on a break from the game due to getting married and moving to a different hemisphere. In spite of that, I still recognize the necessity of the demo timer and am strongly in favor of it. You suggest half a year would be a reasonable amount of time to demo a house, but how is that any less arbitrary than the time we have now? What makes it objectively better, other than being your opinion? Everyone has their own opinions about how long would be a good length, SE can't satisfy everyone. It's their call to make, and they settled on 45 days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rymm

You suggest half a year would be a reasonable amount of time to demo a house, but how is that any less arbitrary than the time we have now? What makes it objectively better, other than being your opinion? Everyone has their own opinions about how long would be a good length, SE can't satisfy everyone. It's their call to make, and they settled on 45 days.

---

It's longer, therefore it's objectively better.

Matching the timer to patch cycles is also objectively not arbitrary. 45 is completely arbitrary. It doesn't match up with anything. 30, 60, 90, 180 days would match up with something (patch cycle), therefore isn't arbitrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MomomiMomi

It's longer, therefore it's objectively better.

---

In your opinion. Opinions aren't facts, so please don't try to present them as such. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but they are the very antithesis of objective. Go to the housing forums and you'll find some posters who want it dropped to a flat 1 month. How does your opinion carry more weight than theirs?

And as I said before, content patches have no bearing on the housing argument. There are plenty of things in game to keep you busy between patch drops. Just because you opt not to do them doesn't mean they cease to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rymm

In your opinion. Opinions aren't facts, so please don't try to present them as such. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but they are the very antithesis of objective. Go to the housing forums and you'll find some posters who want it dropped to a flat 1 month. How does your opinion carry more weight than theirs?

And as I said before, content patches have no bearing on the housing argument. There are plenty of things in game to keep you busy between patch drops. Just because you opt not to do them doesn't mean they cease to exist.

---

Content patches do have to do with the word arbitrary, though. Arbitrary means chosen at random or by whim. Choosing an amount of time based on patch cycle is not arbitrary.

And a longer amount of time keeping a house for someone who has it, that still accomplishes the goal of removing houses from those who are not using them anymore, is objectively better. It accomplishes both things and is more lenient for those who have already paid their dues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MomomiMomi

And a longer amount of time keeping a house for someone who has it, that still accomplishes the goal of removing houses from those who are not using them anymore, is objectively better. It accomplishes both things and is more lenient for those who have already paid their dues.

---

So why not a year, then? That's even more lenient for those who have already paid their dues. Longer is better after all. Hey! Why not two years?? It'll still open up the houses... eventually.

You are right about patch cycles not being arbitrary, I'll concede that one. But it still doesn't mean they should have any influence over the housing timer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rymm

So why not a year, then? That's even more lenient for those who have already paid their dues. Longer is better after all. Hey! Why not two years?? It'll still open up the houses... eventually.

You are right about patch cycles not being arbitrary, I'll concede that one. But it still doesn't mean they should have any influence over the housing timer.

---

Because some people are willing to compromise, something which I'm not sure you understand how to do.

I would prefer no timer at all in all honesty. It's SE who should bear the burden of this housing system, not the players.

They should simply provide more houses when there aren't enough instead of jumping straight to taking them away from those who already have them. Alas, they get to have their cake and eat it, too. And then they even get defended for it by the players. It's pretty amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MomomiMomi

Because some people are willing to compromise, something which I'm not sure you understand how to do.

I would prefer no timer at all in all honesty. It's SE who should bear the burden of this housing system, not the players.

They should simply provide more houses when there aren't enough instead of jumping straight to taking them away from those who already have them. Alas, they get to have their cake and eat it, too. And then they even get defended for it by the players. It's pretty amazing.

---

The problem is you are looking at it as it if's a specific problem rather than a general issue in the wider community. There are numerous things to consider

1. The overall population playerbase. Let's get real, this is only going to drop until the next expansion, therefore the longer you hang around the better chance you have of getting a house
2. The demand per server - this is the biggest. I'm on two moderate servers and there is plenty of small houses available. If you do not have the option of buying a house then you might want to transfer.
3. House sizing - You cannot win here. If you made more servers with large or medium people would complain either way, either they didn't get it on demand or that their small should be maede bigger.
4. The long-term. The only real impact on Square Enix for housing is server costs and how housing impacts the value of retaining subscriptions. A few afternoons with a good analyst would work this out (and probably has). There is no point putting up more housing if there is already a decent number of plots available from a commercial perspective.

Tl;dr Housing is a commodity. As a corporation SE probably will not change their policies on housing to suit the small few opinionated players on a forum page. If you really want a mansion you might have to be willing to
1. Change server
2. Merge or allocate resources to an FC
3. Grind out gil for months/a long time
4. Hawk out the property board at every opportunity.

I don't like it but it's more likely to get the house you want doing that than by complaining to corporate who are more interested in profit margins than housing in one of their games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MomomiMomi

Because some people are willing to compromise, something which I'm not sure you understand how to do.

---

I wouldn't be quick to make assumptions about people because, honestly, I really wouldn't care much if SE chose to extend the demo timer. Or shorten it for that matter. As long as it accomplishes it's purpose of opening up unused homes for active players, then I consider it working as intended.

If you look back at my posts, I never once argued that it shouldn't be adjusted either way. I at one point asked someone to clarify their reasoning for claiming their way was better, but that was the closest I ever got to even hinting toward disagreeing. The only two personal opinions that I expressed were A) believing that the timer is necessary in the current housing system and B) understanding SE's reasoning for tying the timer to entering the house and not the sub.

What I do take issue with is flawed arguments. Like people claiming one length of time is better than another (which there is nothing wrong with, everyone has their own opinions) but basing their stance solely on their personal feelings and then presenting it as an objective fact (which is the sort of thing that torques me off.) The whole reason I even got drawn into this thread wasn't about the demo timer itself, but because someone made an erroneous, unrelated claim about what they pay for and I pointed it out what it is that SE is actually charging for. Things sort of snowballed after that, largely because of people who missed the point of my argument and just saw me as someone who disagreed with them and therefore must be refuted.

And, of course, the system would be better with instanced housing or dynamic wards or whatever else they could come up with that would allow each and every player to own a home and never have to worry about losing it. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who would actually argue otherwise. I personally really liked the idea that I once saw suggested where the housing wards still exist but when you walk up to the placard you can select which version of the instanced house you want to visit. I think that would be awesome and the best of both worlds (instance and neighborhood housing.)

Sadly, such a thing does not and may never exist. Until the game does change to support housing for each and every player, I feel the demo timer is the lesser of two evils.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rymm

It's the crux of alimdia's argument. And total BS, which is the whole reason I got drawn into a discussion with her in the first place.

---

Yes you can use a quote out of the context and state that she sees it that way but it does not change the fact that housing started without the timer thus housing on itself was never something to keep us sub until the timer came. And thats exactly what Alimdia meant. That now this timer forces people to sub thus houses as those are behind the timer, keep us subbed. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know that you dont see PVP and housing the same but as you use it as an example, I do too, especially since PVP is the only other ingame part where you have limited items. So my question was how it would be fine if they suddenly created a new rule for PVP too?

In the end if the timer stays than it either should just be sub only and/or longer. So you would still have it to demolish really old not used houses but also dont force the people that are normally using their houses but just want to take one break, to continue to sub and play it nearly all the time. Even increasing the timer to 90 days would be better because that would mean that people could take a break between patches if its too boring. (Its not like every single house owner would always take a break)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Yes you can use a quote out of the context

---

The only one taking the quote out of context is you. Here, I'll quote the entire sentence so that there can be no doubt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alimdia

If the point of houses is to have more things to keep you subbed then you shouldn't lose your house if you're subbed.

---

Let me break it down for you since you don't seem to get it. She disagrees with the fact you need to enter the house every 44 days to keep it. She believes that you shouldn't lose your house as long as your sub is active. She backs this up with the argument that the purpose of housing is to keep you subbed and so as long as it accomplishes that then entering it shouldn't be necessary. I based my posts and my argument on exactly what she wrote and she put no qualifiers in her posts about "now the timer forces us to sub" or anything else that you decided to attribute to her. It's there in plain English.

If you are so willfully blind that you refuse to acknowledge it and would rather pretend it doesn't exist, then there's really no point in pursuing a conversation with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

housing started without the timer thus housing on itself was never something to keep us sub

---

I really don't know why you are arguing with me since this is exactly what I was saying.

And as for PvP, your example is still flawed. Houses aren't taken away from inactive players to punish them. They are are taken away to give other people the opportunity to access the features which would be otherwise unobtainable to them. Even if in your example they gave the Feast mounts to other PvPers who were still active, it gives them nothing that a regular mount doesn't except for a fancy skin. The only way to access crossbreed gardening or workshops is through housing. Now, I know the new owners might not access those specific features either, but at least they have the opportunity with the house being open.

I mean, it was not an unreasonable change. I think they were optimistic about how many housing instances they could pop out on a regular basis and pessimistic about how many people would be interested in this feature as I think they originally thought that only role-players would be interested in it.

If they added potted plants to apartments I think it would solve most the problems and/or benefits ofwning mansions. Problem is it would flood markets with gardeners then complaining about losing their revenue.

@Rymm: In the end her point was that a sub alone should be enough to keep the house and not also have someone go into this. Because right now thanks to the timer people are forced to sub a certain amount of time if they want to keep it and the point was that if they force it like that, sub alone should be enough. We can now argue endlessly about the semantics since she did not include the timer in her words (maybe without calling someone else blind and other things) but in the end if you want to own a house right now thanks to the timer you are forced to sub and visit it. And as the OP pointed out, this was something that goes against one of their promises, thus if they go against it make it at least so that sub is all you need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

@Rymm: In the end her point was that a sub alone should be enough to keep the house and not also have someone go into this. Because right now thanks to the timer people are forced to sub a certain amount of time if they want to keep it and the point was that if they force it like that, sub alone should be enough. We can now argue endlessly about the semantics since she did not include the timer in her words (maybe without calling someone else blind and other things) but in the end if you want to own a house right now thanks to the timer you are forced to sub and visit it. And as the OP pointed out, this was something that goes against one of their promises, thus if they go against it make it at least so that sub is all you need.

---

But that promise as the way the system we have stands is impossible to keep. The timer like it or not is a must as without it noone would have a house who didn't sign into the game at the beginning. And that's a way more unfair system then the timer. Fact is with what we have the system we got is the best and most fair you can make it. You want to keep your house, you must use it. Otherwise it's poof and someone else will use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ko_

But that promise as the way the system we have stands is impossible to keep. The timer like it or not is a must as without it noone would have a house who didn't sign into the game at the beginning. And that's a way more unfair system then the timer. Fact is with what we have the system we got is the best and most fair you can make it. You want to keep your house, you must use it. Otherwise it's poof and someone else will use it.

---

No, the most fair system would be you keep the house until your sub expires.