This is just appalling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savageink

And 9 weeks different throughout an entire product cycle is nothing.

---

If we were truly getting a patch every 12 weeks (equal 3 months). 9 weeks is almosy another patch cycle. But to you just blow it off. They almost miss a whole patch big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

You don't "take people out of university and train them" lol.

They are looking for a specific skillset. The battle content team has doubled since 3.0 DOUBLED. apparently you didn't understand that.

---

Because skilled people just A) appear out of thin air B) can not be developed in house. I also believe it was mentioned in passing about training in house. Simply put two problems Japan has a very weak MMO market. Two they have trouble(not impossible) hiring non japanese staff. Which equals a small pool. You must have also missed the point where the amount of content will go down. If this is a training/cohesion issue. They waited way to long. 4.1 will not have two dungeons plus diadem 3.o it will only have 1. My math might be weak but double staff two years to hire/train equals less content?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lycieus

So I've had cash shop defenders tell me that I have no idea how the funds for these were allocated. This is why my original post included a statement about resources, and the fact that people making assets for the cash shop would need to be trained on XIV systems, requiring time etc. This is not refutable.

The point regarding money on the other hand... is a double-edged sword. You can't claim that the investments were within the xiv budget and not outside of it, just as I can't claim the opposite. You don't know if they would have been financed otherwise.

---

Yes I can because I understand how accounting works (its what I am trained at) and since corporations tend to try and keep accounting standards uniform (due to regulation and reporting across countries) the hints given give a pretty strong hints on how SE structures in revenue streams.

Even then IF, and this is a big IF, they did have the cash shop times created from FF14's budget then that budget would have been allocated taking into consideration earnings from the cash shop meaning that without the cash shops earnings FF14's budget would have been reduced as the cost of developing cash shop items would have increased the amount of funds allocated to the game.

Simply put your sub isn't paying for those items. If your not buying them off the cash shop you haven't paid for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonlite

If we were truly getting a patch every 12 weeks (equal 3 months). 9 weeks is almosy another patch cycle. But to you just blow it off. They almost miss a whole patch big deal.

---

As you said, 9 weeks is NOT even a full patch cycle. There are 5.5 patches. not counting the in between 'fix broken stuff' patches, which if you use your trick of averages, including those fixes would make each patch only missing by a few days, and ignoring the little ones, a week and a couple days. Yeah, I would call that making a mountain out of a mole hill. Since obviously you didn't look up WoW patches, there was over a year between The Siege of Ogrimmar and WoD, the patch before that over half a year. Patches for Cata were as bad as those for MoP, and there was only a marginal improvement during WoD. A week or so delay per patch (On average) isn't anything.

Plus, I'm not sure if they ever specified a new patch exactly every 3 months. Where is that written?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savageink

Since obviously you didn't look up WoW patches, there was over a year between The Siege of Ogrimmar and WoD, the patch before that over half a year.

---

I really don't think you should compare a patch that had more bosses in a single raid instance than HW had over the entire course of the expansion and bash the single patch for its length.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterLucie

I really don't think you should compare a patch that had more bosses in a single raid instance than HW had over the entire course of the expansion and bash the single patch for its length.

---

I really don't care how many bosses were in the seige of Ogrimmar. Lol! I'm trying to give this guy a sense of perspective. And I never said anything bad about the patch itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savageink

I really don't care how many bosses were in the seige of Ogrimmar. Lol! I'm trying to give this guy a sense of perspective.

---

An extremely flawed sense, maybe. Don't use patches that contain tons of class changes, revolutionary mechanics for dozens of bosses in massive, sprawling environments, and large amounts of side content with the little fluff patches full of the same routines and the same mechanics and the same everything that SE pushes out every few months.

Blizzard's patches take time because they put everything they can into them. SE's are (relatively) consistent because they have their stale formula that they reuse every. single. time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterLucie

An extremely flawed sense, maybe. Don't use patches that contain tons of class changes, revolutionary mechanics for dozens of bosses in massive, sprawling environments, and large amounts of side content with the little fluff patches full of the same routines and the same mechanics and the same everything that SE pushes out every few months.

Blizzard's patches take time because they put everything they can into them. SE's are (relatively) consistent because they have their stale formula that they reuse every. single. time.

---

LOL! ummm.. not going there.


Edit: I do need to point out once again, that I said nothing about the content of said patches. We were discussing the time between them. (And obviously you been hooked on Blizzard crack.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savageink

LOL! ummm.. not going there.


Edit: I do need to point out once again, that I said nothing about the content of said patches. We were discussing the time between them. (And obviously you been hooked on Blizzard crack.)

---

If I was "hooked on Blizzard crack" I wouldn't be playing FF14, I'd be playing WoW. I was simply pointing out that you were making a stupid comparison. I love 14, but to act as if their patch cycles aren't incredibly flawed simply because they have a fairly consistent timer is beyond fanboyism.

I'm done talking about this particular matter, though. It's derailing the intent of the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savageink

As you said, 9 weeks is NOT even a full patch cycle. There are 5.5 patches. not counting the in between 'fix broken stuff' patches, which if you use your trick of averages, including those fixes would make each patch only missing by a few days, and ignoring the little ones, a week and a couple days. Yeah, I would call that making a mountain out of a mole hill. Since obviously you didn't look up WoW patches, there was over a year between The Siege of Ogrimmar and WoD, the patch before that over half a year. Patches for Cata were as bad as those for MoP, and there was only a marginal improvement during WoD. A week or so delay per patch (On average) isn't anything.

Plus, I'm not sure if they ever specified a new patch exactly every 3 months. Where is that written?

---

I also said 9 weeks is a lot closer to a whole patch then a oh we had a bug and delayed a till Thursday. They have repeatedly in live letters mentioned a three month cycle. But one of the media tour videos said 4.0 would use 3 to 3.5 months. It is not written in stone/blood anywhere. Don't just come out and preen the whole three month thing. We had a patch that was 16 weeks but in theory fell in three months. I am sure that is not a translation error.

This is WoW cycle for the 2.X series.

2.0 December 5/06 2.1 May 22/07 2.2 Sept 25/07 2.3 Nov 13/07 2.4 Mar 25/08

16 instances 8 raids 63 weeks.

3.0 Oct 14/08 3.1 April 19/09 3.2 Aug 4/09 3.3 DEC 8/09

16 instances 10 raids 63 weeks

We got 18 instances over a much longer time. Raids are a little bit odd one boss isn't a raid how would you like to count the trials/raids?

But when 14 gets to 5 or 6 I will revisit how well they are doing in comparison. I posted 2 and 3 from WoW for you I consider a ARR a base game considering what 1.0 was. But if you want to consider ARR the first expansion the info still stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonlite

I also said 9 weeks is a lot closer to a whole patch then a oh we had a bug and delayed a till Thursday. They have repeatedly in live letters mentioned a three month cycle. But one of the media tour videos said 4.0 would use 3 to 3.5 months. It is not written in stone/blood anywhere. Don't just come out and preen the whole three month thing. We had a patch that was 16 weeks but in theory fell in three months. I am sure that is not a translation error.

This is WoW cycle for the 2.X series.

2.0 December 5/06 2.1 May 22/07 2.2 Sept 25/07 2.3 Nov 13/07 2.4 Mar 25/08

16 instances 8 raids 63 weeks.

3.0 Oct 14/08 3.1 April 19/09 3.2 Aug 4/09 3.3 DEC 8/09

16 instances 10 raids 63 weeks

We got 18 instances over a much longer time. Raids are a little bit odd one boss isn't a raid how would you like to count the trials/raids?

But when 14 gets to 5 or 6 I will revisit how well they are doing in comparison. I posted 2 and 3 from WoW for you I consider a ARR a base game considering what 1.0 was. But if you want to consider ARR the first expansion the info still stands.

---

A decade ago Blizzard was on the ball. Not sure that's relevant, but hey, I'm done. I don't see your point but feel free to feel neglected.