First article about the House pricing.

[Keyln]

A few thoughts here.

1) Do you think that Yoshida is blind to the amount of gil on each server? It's not exactly easy to hide how much gil each player has on any given server.

2) There are more economics in play, such as the amount of gil coming in from 2.1, as well as the general decrease of prices. Also, keep in mind that the cost born to buy a home isn't meant to be born by one person, but by relatively large groups.

This is something that Yoshida has to take in consideration when setting the prices of the houses.

The thousands of people complaining about the prices compared to the small numbers defending them (with flawed arguments or no arguments at all) is a lot less subjective.

My counter:

1) Anecdotal evidence
2) Fallacy of the numbers

*drops mike*

[Abriael]

A few thoughts here.

1) Do you think that Yoshida is blind to the amount of gil on each server? It's not exactly easy to hide how much gil each player has on any given server.

Are you arguing that Yoshida went to check the gil amount in everyone's pocket?

What he could have seen are metrics, that are normally based on gross approximations and averages. They're a very faulty way to decide the pricing of a relevant feature, without even giving it an entry level, basically punishing those that aren't very rich in order to drain gil from those that are loaded. Very bad design.

1) Anecdotal evidence

Anecdotal evidence trumps no evidence at all.

2) Fallacy of the numbers

The numbers are there for everyone to see. Have any to counter them?

They spent time crafting and gathering when the game launched instead of pew pewing in the dungeons

High engagement features should not be tied to a single playstyle, penalizing all others.

[Keyln]

Anecdotal evidence trumps no evidence at all.

Wrong. Anecdotal obscures the truth, and often leads to erroneous conclusions.

The numbers are there for everyone to see. Have any to counter them?

....

You really have no idea what fallacy of the numbers is, do you?

It's also known as Argumentum ad Populum

[Abriael]

Wrong. Anecdotal obscures the truth, and often leads to erroneous conclusions.

I'm afraid there's no erroneous conclusion here. People are annoyed. It's visible in the forums, in the game, on twitter, within the Japanese community, in the Japanese blogosphere and anywhere Final Fantasy XIV is discussed.

The only ones here trying to obscure the truth is you, and those that try (and fail) to defend the housing prices.

You really have no idea what fallacy of the numbers is, do you?

It's also known as Argumentum ad Populum

Which only works if the people are actually in favor of that argument.

Mind you, we're talking about a product for which people pay a monthly fee, so satisfying the "Populus" should be Yoshida's primary goal.

[Keyln]

I'm afraid there's no erroneous conclusion here. People are annoyed. It's visible in the forums, in the game, on twitter, within the Japanese community, in the Japanese blogosphere and anywhere Final Fantasy XIV is discussed.

The only ones here trying to obscure the truth is you, and those that try (and fail) to defend the housing prices.

The argument here is that the prices are too high, and people can't afford it. The fact that people are expressing annoyance is not evidence of this.

Which only works if the people are actually in favor of that argument.

Mind you, we're talking about a product for which people pay a monthly fee, so satisfying the "Populus" should be Yoshida's primary goal.

This is abject nonsense. You really don't understand what fallacy of the numbers is.

The fact that an argument is popular does not make it true.

[Shinebox]

High engagement features should not be tied to a single playstyle, penalizing all others.

I didn't craft because it was fun. I crafted because I wanted to make gil. You had this option too.

[Abriael]

I didn't craft because it was fun. I crafted because I wanted to make gil. You had this option too.

So you're basically saying that it's ok for a game that requires a monthly fee to require a playstyle that many don't find fun in order to enjoy relevant and highly anticipating features.

I'm thankful for the fact you don't make games. With my luck I'd end up having to review them.

The argument here is that the prices are too high, and people can't afford it. The fact that people are expressing annoyance is not evidence of this.

The fact that most people are expressing annoyance is evidence that they find the prices too high, which in a game that requires a monthly fee, is equivalent to the fact that the prices are too high. People are not forced to play and pay, and will do so only as long as they are satisfied.

For someone that accuses others not to be familiar with concepts, you really seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of "customer satisfaction," which is at the very base of the survival of a pay to play MMORPG.

[Sunarie]

Abriael, as another mentioned, you don't have to defend your blog post. It is very evident from the community that a huge chunk (and I don't even care if it's over half, though I would put money on it being well over that) of players are unhappy with the pricing. Those defending it aren't likely to be swayed as they keep throwing up strawman arguments.

Anyone with a lot of MMO experience, and experience browsing forums and trends, knows that complaining with a patch is completely and utterly normal. However, when you have the number of threads we've seen here, and in the Japanese forum.. and then again in the media with even previous directors of very successful games tweeting articles showing the housing prices as bad... well.. That is typically a sign of a big problem in game.

Complaints with patches are completely normal, people complaining on the forums also completely normal. People complaining in the magnitude that they have been, not so normal, and I can't think of a time that the masses were so unified in being against something where that something did not turn out badly enough to make that MMO revert their policy.

[Abriael]

Abriael, as another mentioned, you don't have to defend your blog post. It is very evident from the community that a huge chunk (and I don't even care if it's over half, though I would put money on it being well over that) of players are unhappy with the pricing. Those defending it aren't likely to be swayed as they keep throwing up strawman arguments.

Oh don't worry I'm not really defending my post, as much as discussing. I don't enjoy seeing people trying to obscure reality to defend bad design and elitism.

Here's the problem. You're using really bad argumentation to support your assertion. Resorting to logical fallacies and anecdotal evidence is not the way to go.

You saying that an argumentation is a bad argumentation doesn't automatically make it so.

The voice of the customer is very relevant when talking about a product, and even more so when talking about a product that requires continued payments. The fact that a very relevant area of the playerbase is very dissatisfied by how the feature is being handled is evident to anyone that has eyes, and it goes a lot beyond this forum.

You can keep throwing around dialectical tricks for the sake of arguing as much as you want, but that doesn't change.

[Keyln]

You saying that an argumentation is a bad argumentation doesn't automatically make it so.

True, but building an argument based on anecdotal evidence and logical fallacies is a bad argument. Which is exactly what you're doing.

The voice of the customer is very relevant when talking about a product, and even more so when talking about a product that requires continued payments. The fact that a very relevant area of the playerbase is very dissatisfied by how the feature is being handled is evident to anyone that has eyes, and it goes a lot beyond this forum.

Never said it was irrelevant, but the customer isn't always right. We players have a very limited access to information, no access to the plans (other than what the devs tell us), so we can't always make good judgements. There are times when a developer has to follow his vision. There are times when it's a good idea to not listen to the .1% player base.

You can keep throwing around dialectical tricks for the sake of arguing as much as you want, but that doesn't change.

Conjure up semantics all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you're using bad argumentation. It also doesn't change the fact that we're dealing with extremely limited knowledge and facts, and thus, unable to come to the proper conclusions at this time.