Can I report people for buying multiple houses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by worldofneil

Also, additional evidence that they aren't bothered is when the initial restrictions came in they grandfathered in anyone with multiple houses and said no action would be taken against them.

---

On this particular point, I think SE needs to get their priorities straight. They are worried about offending the four people in the datacenter who are buying all properties in a single neighborhood and just sitting on them, at the expense of the thousands other players.

I say those grandfathered players can suck an egg. If SE tomorrow came out with an announcement saying: "All FC's that are found to be holding more than one property have one month to reduce their holdings down to one FC property. Afterward, there will be systematic closings of ownership as properties at random will re-enter the market."

Very few people would be angry at this announcement. Those that are, can put on their big boy/girl shorts and deal with it. If SE wants to reimburse these grandfathered player's Gil per house value, that's MORE than fair. It's more than they should expect though. I honestly don't think these people deserve reimbursement, as they KNOW the intention Devs have for the housing system, and they've made a conscious choice to find work-arounds/exploits to go against that intention.

Housing availability is woefully sparse and SE for years has essentially buried their heads in the sand when asked about people who horde this limited resource.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by worldofneil

I feel it's fair to point out that it also doesn't mean it's against the rules either.

---

Yet we know in this case that it is against the rules.

How do we know? https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/

It clearly states the limit on houses per world per service account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alaeacus

On this particular point, I think SE needs to get their priorities straight. They are worried about offending the four people in the datacenter who are buying all properties in a single neighborhood and just sitting on them, at the expense of the thousands other players.

I say those grandfathered players can suck an egg. If SE tomorrow came out with an announcement saying: "All FC's that are found to be holding more than one property have one month to reduce their holdings down to one FC property. Afterward, there will be systematic closings of ownership as properties at random will re-enter the market."

Very few people would be angry at this announcement. Those that are, can put on their big boy/girl shorts and deal with it. If SE wants to reimburse these grandfathered player's Gil per house value, that's MORE than fair. It's more than they should expect though. I honestly don't think these people deserve reimbursement, as they KNOW the intention Devs have for the housing system, and they've made a conscious choice to find work-arounds/exploits to go against that intention.

Housing availability is woefully sparse and SE for years has essentially buried their heads in the sand when asked about people who horde this limited resource.

---

I don't agree that those who purchased prior to the rules changes in 4.2 should have action taken against them since SE specifically said they'd be allowed to keep the additional houses. They did nothing wrong at the time they made those purchases.

It's the players who have obtained the additional houses since 4.2's release in clear violation of what's been published by SE that should be penalized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alaeacus

They are worried about offending the four people

---

I don't have figures any more than you do, but clearly there are more than 4 people who have multiple houses. There might be only a handful of people who have "ward size" amounts of houses, but I believe most people with multiples are too scared to say anything because everytime someone owning multiple houses comes up, a mob forms to lynch them and chases them off the forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alaeacus

If SE wants to reimburse these grandfathered player's Gil per house value, that's MORE than fair. It's more than they should expect though. I honestly don't think these people deserve reimbursement, as they KNOW the intention Devs have for the housing system, and they've made a conscious choice to find work-arounds/exploits to go against that intention.

---

I'm sorry, but you are assuming it was not SE's intention for the system to run this way, but all the evidence suggests the opposite:

A) Every standard account includes 8 characters and there were no limits on house purchases for over four years. In this time there were also multiple housing expansions (we started off with only 6 wards in the original 3 areas and no subdivisions). Even now there's only a limitation on personal houses.
B) There's nothing to actually say in-game, anywhere, that you are limited to only one house, except when you now try and purchase more than one personal house because of the temporary restrictions (semi-permanent at this point?)
C) Temporary restrictions on FC purchases were added to the game and removed after only a week or so.

Going back to what you wrote though, yes you can reimburse Gil for the cost of the property, but you can't reimburse for any furniture purchased or time spent crafting/gathering as well as effort involved in actually decorating. Yes they'd be able to pick up the items before they were demolished, but where exactly would they put them? We don't have enough inventory space to store entire house(s) worth of items, other than in a house... It's not possible to sell them once used and it's cumbersome to even trade them except via placing in another house and someone else picking them up.

So I'm sure you'll say that they shouldn't have bought multiple in the first place? That is of course your right to think that, but that is your opinion. As long as the game allows them to do this they are doing nothing wrong and clearly SE sees that hence they've already confirmed they won't be taking them away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

It clearly states the limit on houses per world per service account.

---

Yes it indeed does, in the "Temporary Changes to Purchasing Land" section and they did indeed enforce that rule, but they don't any more. Temporary sounds exactly like what has happened here. It was restricted, now it's not.

But that's conflicting information if the game says one thing and the website another. So which is right? The game where you actually buy the houses where SE have also demonstrated that they can block it they want to or a website which isn't even mentioned in game that most players have probably never even seen?

If the game had never had a restriction then it could be argued it's honour based etc, but since they game did have it, but doesn't any longer... surely that must be the correct information? If they still wanted to block FC purchases, they'd turn that restriction back on.

I just wish they'd update the website to clear up this confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alaeacus

On this particular point, I think SE needs to get their priorities straight. They are worried about offending the four people in the datacenter who are buying all properties in a single neighborhood and just sitting on them, at the expense of the thousands other players.

I say those grandfathered players can suck an egg. If SE tomorrow came out with an announcement saying: "All FC's that are found to be holding more than one property have one month to reduce their holdings down to one FC property. Afterward, there will be systematic closings of ownership as properties at random will re-enter the market."

Very few people would be angry at this announcement. Those that are, can put on their big boy/girl shorts and deal with it. If SE wants to reimburse these grandfathered player's Gil per house value, that's MORE than fair. It's more than they should expect though. I honestly don't think these people deserve reimbursement, as they KNOW the intention Devs have for the housing system, and they've made a conscious choice to find work-arounds/exploits to go against that intention.

Housing availability is woefully sparse and SE for years has essentially buried their heads in the sand when asked about people who horde this limited resource.

---

It's funny when people like you come in and start blaming those "four people", who actually use their houses mind you, when the biggest problem is the majority *cough* personal housing *cough* of the house owners. There is no workaround. There is no exploit. Those only exist in the alternate reality you choose to live.

You speak of housing as being sparse. Back in the days, there was 27,450 plots... total. Now the game is currently sitting at 342,720 plots, with a dozen thousand plots available.

Catch up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by worldofneil

Yes it indeed does, in the "Temporary Changes to Purchasing Land" section and they did indeed enforce that rule, but they don't any more. Temporary sounds exactly like what has happened here. It was restricted, now it's not.

But that's conflicting information if the game says one thing and the website another. So which is right? The game where you actually buy the houses where SE have also demonstrated that they can block it they want to or a website which isn't even mentioned in game that most players have probably never even seen?

If the game had never had a restriction then it could be argued it's honour based etc, but since they game did have it, but doesn't any longer... surely that must be the correct information? If they still wanted to block FC purchases, they'd turn that restriction back on.

I just wish they'd update the website to clear up this confusion.

---

That was updated in October last year. Give that page another look. Doesn't seem so temporary when they update the page with the same rule 18 months after the initial post.

It is their official published information about housing. There has never been anything published by SE stating that the rule is no longer in effect.

Lack of visible enforcement does not mean a rule does not exist. That's like trying to claim the speed limit posted on your local highway doesn't exist because you frequently drive over that speed limit but never get pulled over and ticketed by law enforcement. You never know when that day will come that you finally do get stopped for a ticket. You continue to do it at your own risk.

What I wish SE would do is enforce the rule. It would take one element out of the housing drama equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

That was updated in October last year. Give that page another look. Doesn't seem so temporary when they update the page with the same rule 18 months after the initial post.

---

Yes I can read the page, but could you please then explain why SE do now allow multiple FC house purchases? They've demonstrated that they have the ability to block it and they've decided that they no longer want to do that. You keep falling back on a webpage that isn't even referenced from inside the game. Why? Is that just because it says what you want it to say when the evidence in game, where you actually purchase houses, says the opposite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

It is their official published information about housing.

---

I think it's arguable that the housing NPCs in the game are pretty official too and they you all about housing and don't say anything about temporary restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

There has never been anything published by SE stating that the rule is no longer in effect.

---

That's pretty much normal for Square Enix I'm afraid. One related example that springs to mind is the 2.1 patch notes where it states:

Quote:

---

From patch 2.2 onward, a free company will automatically relinquish its land if its estate is unused for a prolonged period of time.

---

But that never actually happened. Reclamation of inactivate housing didn't come in until 3.1, two years later, but there was never any update/patch notes to say that the 2.2 update was no longer happening. Just because they didn't say something, doesn't mean they didn't change their mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Lack of visible enforcement does not mean a rule does not exist. That's like trying to claim the speed limit posted on your local highway doesn't exist because you frequently drive over that speed limit but never get pulled over and ticketed by law enforcement.

---

I agree in principal, but not with your analogy. To get a driving licence you have to pass a driving test and whilst that doesn't ensure you know/read everything, it is at least implied effort was made. There's also speed limit signs continually reminding you of the speed limit (or at least there is my country...)

But when it comes to purchasing a house in the game, you click the placard and click purchase. There's no "Hey you're actually only allowed 1 FC house per account". It just lets you do it. It did tell you and stop you... and they removed that. I don't see how that can be interpreted as anything other than "it's okay now". The restriction was listed as temporary and in reality it was temporary... There can't be a rule in about something if the game no longer enforces it.

We're going round in circles here. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't know why they make housing so scarce like they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Lack of visible enforcement does not mean a rule does not exist. That's like trying to claim the speed limit posted on your local highway doesn't exist because you frequently drive over that speed limit but never get pulled over and ticketed by law enforcement. You never know when that day will come that you finally do get stopped for a ticket. You continue to do it at your own risk.

What I wish SE would do is enforce the rule. It would take one element out of the housing drama equation.

---

Your government wrote that going over the speed limit will result in getting fined, potentially license revoked, and even jailed if severe. Yoshida and his team never wrote anywhere that going over the housing limit would result in a fine, potentially houses revoked, and even banned if severe. The GM Logs confirm exactly that.

Buying up make-believe houses does not rise to the level of urgency of auto safety which concerns actual people's lives. I'm sure if Yoshida himself were to say the same words as that GM, people will sit around all day saying "But maybe Yoshida REALLY meant this..." It has to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

I don't agree that those who purchased prior to the rules changes in 4.2 should have action taken against them since SE specifically said they'd be allowed to keep the additional houses. They did nothing wrong at the time they made those purchases.

---

I respect your position. But this isn't the U.S. Bill of Rights here. Rules change all the time, whether anyone was following them correctly or not. Games change their systems and sometimes it is a detriment to people who were following the rules. It isn't a punishment, even if you come out on the losing end. This happens every single day. When SE retired Diadem, it was not a punishment. It was an improvement. I KNOW there are people who saw it initially as a detriment and groaned that they couldn't get the achievements anymore, but they've already gotten over it. Look at all the decisions surrounding Blue Mage. Some people like them, some people don't. You cannot please everyone, You MUST make decisions that improve the game for the greater population, even if it is technically at the expense of a few.

Possessing multiple houses is not some right grandfathered players have claim on, and SE is 100% legally within their power to do what ever they want with their game. My thoughts are merely my opinions on what they should do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by worldofneil

I don't have figures any more than you do, but clearly there are more than 4 people who have multiple houses. There might be only a handful of people who have "ward size" amounts of houses, but ...

---

Sure, my comments were really only targeting those who are grossly taking advantage of the system to buy half-ward sized holdings. What would appease you then? Letting players have two houses? Three houses? What is acceptable and "fair" to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by worldofneil

I'm sorry, but you are assuming it was not SE's intention for the system to run this way, but all the evidence suggests the opposite:

---

I'm not assuming anything. Nowhere did I ever claim to know what SE's intentions were. I merely stated my opinion for what I think they SHOULD do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yshtola

It's funny when people like you come in and start blaming those "four people", ... blah blah yadda yadda ... Catch up.

---

I have a house. My comments are for the benefit of those who don't. Thanks. :)