Who is Optional – A Question of Consumer Value

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teryaani

No, they haven't. Pay to win refers to games that allow you to purchase weapons, armor, buffs that give you an edge over a player in end game content (the "win" portion of pay to win). You're trying to change the definition to fit your argument. Minions, mounts, and glamours give no advantage in end game, therefore they are not pay to win.

---

It's a PvE game. Nothing gives you adventage over other players. What other players do in their time doesn't affect you at all. If player A buys raid gear (that you can get it anyway by farming) and kills X boss, what adventage does it have over others when others can kill it aswell. What do they win, the interwebz? You're wrong if you think buying items with stats give you adventage over others when they don't even play with/against you in a game where you can get the same items anyway. It's just pay to be lazy, and not pay to play the game. Now, if you could buy PvP gear, that would be different, because your stats are affecting other players. And still it's not pay to win because you're not getting any adventage that other players can't. If you played real p2w games where cash shop sell you items that allow you to kill your opponents in way less hits while tanking their tickling hits, now that would be pay to win. Again, it's a PvE game, learn to mind your own business instead of focusing so much in what others get just for the e-peen (and btw, I do raid).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malevicton

I have this problem in other games too. Hopped onto a Call of Duty server, and no one else knew how to play the diplomacy mini-game I'd made up;

---

Diplomacy game = entirely made up and has no support whatsoever from the actual game, which also happens to be a very specialized fps. CoD = Focus on FPS action and nothing else essentially.

FFXIV on the other hand, nobody is making anything up here. Said vanity content does exist within the game and it's existence as well as them making use of a cash shop is entirely based upon peoples want of said vanity in the first place. The 'want' of vanity has been supported by the game for a long time now. It is also an MMO which while focused on dungeons is less specialized than something like CoD because it is also intended to be an open world with alternative aspects to facilitate socialization and etc.

I don't really want to get back into this discussion about stuff, but your attempted analogy here is awful and even people who are for the cash shop or disagree with people who are all about vanity should be able to see that it's not a good one. I'm all for using analogies to help explain things, but please think about it a lot more before you do. :P


In any case, despite any views on whether vanity is optional, not optional, or whatever else. I think people ought to be trying to get the best deals for their money rather than just accepting 'extra ways to pay' straight off. Their goal is to get our money, as customers our goal should be to give them as little of our money as we can for the best deal we can. It should be looked at both ways. Sure it's fine they want to make a profit, but it's also certainly fine that we want to get as much out of our money (Sub fee) as we can!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyvid

If SE really needs more money then raise the month sub fee but don't nickel and dime us with paywalls. I would much rather pay $2 extra a month and have Slepnir drop from Odin EX than be required to spend $20 to get him.

---

Maybe you would, but many people would not. If I'm not interested in the cash shop content, I simply don't buy it. If that content was "given to me" at the expense of raising my subscription, it's not really free anyway.

Oh hey look, another cash shop topic. Wheeeeeeeeee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KodiHivaer

You've heard it here people, minions give your character advantages over other players...

---

If you want to brag about it with your friends and FC-mates....yeah yeah they do.

Edit: was a nice OP and I can relate a lot with what you said, but unfortunatly you are beating a dead horse trying to get ppl to empathize or think stuff rationally.
As I said yesterday in another thread, this argument is like watching an atheist and a theist argue, they won't reach an understanding and will both end the discussion angry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edeline

It's a PvE game. Nothing gives you adventage over other players. What other players do in their time doesn't affect you at all. If player A buys raid gear (that you can get it anyway by farming) and kills X boss, what adventage does it have over others when others can kill it aswell. What do they win, the interwebz? You're wrong if you think buying items with stats give you adventage over others when they don't even play with/against you in a game where you can get the same items anyway. It's just pay to be lazy, and not pay to play the game.

---

Stop there. You're changing the subject. You stated that the definition of pay to win had changed. It hasn't. You're trying to change it. Pay to win is purchasing an advantage in end game (or possibly in PVP). This has nothing to do with my perception of things at all. What SE is selling doesn't allow you to conquer the end game any faster. Therefore, not pay to win.


See, I'm not a raider (achievements are public, have a look), but others here are. I'm sure your statement will cause them to fume, but for me I'm just trying to understand how you reconcile that attitude with thinking that pets and mounts matter. Because, by your statement there, buying pets and mounts isn't pay to win either because hey! it doesn't give you any advantage over another player and what other players do in their time doesn't affect you at all. Right?

Quote:

---

Now, if you could buy PvP gear, that would be different, because your stats are affecting other players. And still it's not pay to win because you're not getting any adventage that other players can't. If you played real p2w games where cash shop sell you items that allow you to kill your opponents in way less hits while tanking their tickling hits, now that would be pay to win. Again, it's a PvE game, learn to mind your own business instead of focusing so much in what others get just for the e-peen (and btw, I do raid).

---

I love the tactic of trying to paint me as a jealous raider worried about e-peen. Nicely done. Not biting though. Pay to win is a widely understood and accepted thing. Vanity <> Pay to Win.

So initially this thread focused on the definition of what was 'optional' and the simple irrefutable fact that such a term is subjective and cannot be defined. What is optional to one is not optional to another. There is no argument to be had. It is irrelevant what one's personal opinion on the matter is, having one does not lessen the value of another’s. The only entity in this equation with the ability to do so with any weight and lasting ramification is Square Enix themselves and as many have pointed out, this is their game and we signed on the dotted line.

Now around the middle off the thread we were able to establish that Square's position on the matter was that end game raiding and those who enjoy that aspect were the primary focus of their development and any alternate features and thus players are to be considered optional and susceptible to being price tagged, placed on a shelf, and in the case of the latter lost without a tear.

The remainder of this debate seems to have shifted toward another equally undefinable designation and that is what it means to 'win'. Like optional, this term is relative to the goals set by the individual and not by an outside party. If a player pays their sub, joins a free company, and finds a group of lifetime friends they may consider themselves to have won regardless of having failed to achieve some arbitrary milestone set by the developers.

Which takes us back to the ugly truth at the heart of this debate. Square Enix is the only party able to force upon anyone 'their' definition of these terms. They can tell us the rules and thus how to win their game and as such can then categorize any element not directly related to the achievement of that goal as optional.

Now that still does not change the individual player's personal and valid position on the subject as this and many threads like it have proven. Each of us is allowed to define those two terms any way we see fit as they only have value when measured against our own perspective. This, unfortunately, does not change though that in this world Square writes the rules and our only recourse is to express our dissatisfaction with that decision and in the possible eventuality of failing to change their mind, no longer being a customer.

So that is where we stand. Two separate groups have established that they each have their own valid definitions of what it is to win because they are based on the goals they have set for themselves. Likewise, any aspects not directly related to the accomplishment of those goals will be logically considered optional to them even if they hold great worth to another. Both positions are worthwhile and should be taken into consideration by the development team as it is their position alone that will determine which of these will determine the course of the game’s development, the treatment of its customer base, and by cause and effect the loyalty of the same.


What we really need here is a clear cut, black and white statement from Square but as I am sure we all know that is never going to happen. It is far more likely we will continue to enjoy half-truths, double talk, or complete silence from the people that expect us to continue to shell out our hard earned money without question like good little cash cows… does sound a lot like politicians now that I think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadex

What we really need here is a clear cut, black and white statement from Square but as I am sure we all know that is never going to happen. It is far more likely we will continue to enjoy half-truths, double talk, or complete silence from the people that expect us to continue to shell out our hard earned money without question like good little cash cows… does sound a lot like politicians now that I think about it.

---

We have a clear cut statement on what they consider pay to win.

"I would consider in terms of items, optional things that would change the aesthetics like your skin color or your race but not your stats. If it’s like the Ring of Yoshida, it’s cool but it can cross the line and help you clear end game content and help you beat certain monsters. That has the risk of people calling the game pay-to-win. That’s not something I want to do." - Naoki Yoshida

That would make a good concluding post to the topic, but we'd rather continue to argue this into the ground until we're 6 feet underground, because the forums were made so we can flame each other over the smallest things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teryaani

We have a clear cut statement on what they consider pay to win.

"I would consider in terms of items, optional things that would change the aesthetics like your skin color or your race but not your stats. If it’s like the Ring of Yoshida, it’s cool but it can cross the line and help you clear end game content and help you beat certain monsters. That has the risk of people calling the game pay-to-win. That’s not something I want to do." - Naoki Yoshida

---

Ah thank you, so the gospel has been written. If 'clearing end game content and beating monsters' is not the goal you personally have set for yourself, Square Enix considers you optional and not in keeping with the design of their game. Stay at your own risk but this particular MMO was not constructed for anyone outside that mentality and those who choose to remain do so with full knowledge that their concerns and needs are secondary and can be dismissed without notice.

This is a matter of buyer beware. Always research a product or service to the best of your ability prior to purchasing. Should the details of the service alter at a later date and they are no longer to your satisfaction always feel comfortable enough to discontinue that service and seek out one better suited. It is unfortunate, in this particular case, that this will be the only service providing the Final Fantasy world that many have grown up enjoying but as time progresses and we see more and more of that world altered to be more 'mainstream' and clone friendly perhaps it is for the best. Like Lucas' last attempt to bring the magic of Star Wars to a new generation only to have it fail miserably and disappoint millions of fans this may not be the droids many were looking for. It may be time for many to choose to forget this incarnation exists and simply hold to the memories of Final Fantasies past.

Past FF's were also all RPGs with a heavy focus on battle and story. I don't know what about them would fool someone into thinking that this is a social-focused game. Nor anything about the advertising, etc. All available clues already pointed to the conclusion you apparently needed word of Yoshi for, so I don't get why you're surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacost

I don't know what about them would fool someone into thinking that this is a social-focused game.

---

It's an MMO, one of the big draws and factors behind an MMO is the social aspect. Even in regards to the raid content and etc, it involves parties because it's a social game. Dungeons, Raids and gear may be the primary 'goals' but those goals are meant to be achieved by coming together in groups, working together and finding common ground so that you can go on to defeat said challenges.

I'm not sure why or how you would miss that a major basis of it being an MMO in the first place is social interaction. :P

Oh hyperbole, how I love you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadex

Ah thank you, so the gospel has been written. If 'clearing end game content and beating monsters' is not the goal you personally have set for yourself, Square Enix considers you optional and not in keeping with the design of their game. Stay at your own risk but this particular MMO was not constructed for anyone outside that mentality and those who choose to remain do so with full knowledge that their concerns and needs are secondary and can be dismissed without notice.

---

I love the leap from "we consider selling gear for end game content PTW" to "Screw casuals". I'm genuinely curious how you got there. Because I'm certainly not able to make that leap of logic. Look a little further down and you'll see why I'm having such a hard time.

Quote:

---

This is a matter of buyer beware. Always research a product or service to the best of your ability prior to purchasing. Should the details of the service alter at a later date and they are no longer to your satisfaction always feel comfortable enough to discontinue that service and seek out one better suited. It is unfortunate, in this particular case, that this will be the only service providing the Final Fantasy world that many have grown up enjoying but as time progresses and we see more and more of that world altered to be more 'mainstream' and clone friendly perhaps it is for the best.

---

Very true. If you aren't having fun, why pay for it? That said, lets look at the root complaint shall we?

SE added three companions (from 1.0), one mount (brand spanking new), and several 1.0 halloween items to the cash shop. During that time they also added (in game):

2 new mounts
8 new minions
Hordes of new glamour fashion items and furnishings.

This is why I can't make the leap you did above. SE, as of right now, is leaning toward publishing vanity items IN GAME. Should they start heavily pushing everything cash shop, I will join you in complaining, but right now they certainly aren't.

Quote:

---

Like Lucas' last attempt to bring the magic of Star Wars to a new generation only to have it fail miserably and disappoint millions of fans this may not be the droids many were looking for. It may be time for many to choose to forget this incarnation exists and simply hold to the memories of Final Fantasies past.

---

You being disappointed doesn't mean everyone is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teryaani

Oh hyperbole, how I love you.

---

I am sorry you feel that way. My statements were what they were and I make no excuses for them. Please don't forget that my take on the situation, like every else, is ours to hold how we see fit. Should you not agree, that is your right. If you wish to be hostile however and start tossing insults... it does nothing more than paint a picture of you as a person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadex

I am sorry you feel that way. My statements were what they were and I make no excuses for them. Please don't forget that my take on the situation, like every else, is ours to hold how we see fit. Should you not agree, that is your right. If you wish to be hostile however and start tossing insults... it does nothing more than paint a picture of you as a person.

---

I love passive aggression too Shadex. Which you mercifully provided here. My comments aren't hostile, they simply disagree with you and site why. You're getting defensive and attempting to paint me as hostile and insulting. At no point did I insult you (edit: or feel any hostility toward you, it should be said). I disagreed with you and you're taking it personally. That reflects on you, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teryaani

We have a clear cut statement on what they consider pay to win.

"I would consider in terms of items, optional things that would change the aesthetics like your skin color or your race but not your stats. If it’s like the Ring of Yoshida, it’s cool but it can cross the line and help you clear end game content and help you beat certain monsters. That has the risk of people calling the game pay-to-win. That’s not something I want to do." - Naoki Yoshida

---

Thanks for pulling that. There it is. You don't have to like it or agree with it. But the guys that make the game make the rules and define what constitutes an advantage and it's there in black and white. The law of the land is stats are p2w. Aesthetics are secondary content. You can type till your fingers fall off but if it doesn't have stats it's not p2w. There are plenty of reasons to support or fight the cash shop, but one thing it unequivocally is not, is p2w.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

Thanks for pulling that. There it is. You don't have to like it or agree with it. But the guys that make the game make the rules and define what constitutes an advantage and it's there in black and white. The law of the land is stats are p2w. Aesthetics are secondary content. You can type till your fingers fall off but if it doesn't have stats it's not p2w. There are plenty of reasons to support or fight the cash shop, but one thing it unequivocally is not, is p2w.

---

They even said that the cash shop isn't going to be P2W at the fan festival.
How much "proof" is needed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KodiHivaer

They even said that the cash shop isn't going to be P2W at the fan festival.
How much "proof" is needed?

---

What they said beforehand didn't really end up being "proof" back with the Personal Housing fiasco, now, did it? They just turned around and claimed that we "misinterpreted" what they said, even though their statement was quite clear.
You should take stuff that's said with a grain of salt, they don't always keep their word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riepah

What they said beforehand didn't really end up being "proof" back with the Personal Housing fiasco, now, did it? They just turned around and claimed that we "misinterpreted" what they said, even though their statement was quite clear.
You should take stuff that's said with a grain of salt, they don't always keep their word.

---

Most people trying to argue that statement about housing ALL read only part of the quote taking it out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riepah

What they said beforehand didn't really end up being "proof" back with the Personal Housing fiasco, now, did it? They just turned around and claimed that we "misinterpreted" what they said, even though their statement was quite clear.
You should take stuff that's said with a grain of salt, they don't always keep their word.

---

Granted, and if they do something along these lines, I'll be more alarmed about it. Thus far though they've been firm on this one. Their actions seem to line up with their statement.

As a note, if they start dumping tons of content into the cash shop at the expense of in game content (as in, the balance shifts to cash shop), I'll be right there with the cash shop dislikers in complaining. If they stick to the same model that Blizzard did in wow (through Mists) of having a few select things, then I'm not seeing an issue with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M0xie

Most people trying to argue that statement about housing ALL read only part of the quote taking it out of context.

---

(regarding housing) He made a pretty definite statement that they didn't clarify later. That was all on SE, not the fans. They tried some damage control after that was poorly done and then ultimately got things quieted down. Not their finest hour.