Isn`t just vanity. Is 2 diferent experiences and thats why is bad.

[craig_meredith2003]

While not.directly stated Luna hishino is right. endgamr is more or less what is defined unspokenly through se and most mmo as winning or the ultimate goal of the majority. And majority rules

Ot if youre the mook mook from 1.0 and was in Notorious, Spawn Mabus says hi.
Now on topic Just wait and see what the packages are.

[LunaHoshino]

I'm half joking BUT SRSLY BRUH! Its not "pay to win" in the definition that it gives you higher I.lv or morale gear like the most common definition of pay to win is to be interpreted by the community, I've admitted that in my previous post... But it is pay to win if you're goals are to collect the vanity/mounts/minions, which was actually a goal people said to do when someone complained there was nothing to do in XIV (back before even CT), since said items are unobtainable by any other methods.

You cannot simply redefine a word or phrase to mean what YOU want it to mean. You even admit that it is not "pay to win" under the standard definition, yet you're continuing to argue that the definition should be changed because you say so. That's not how words work, nor is it how the world in general works.

"Pay to win" has a very specific connotation in the gaming world. Buying mounts, minions and other vanity gear is not "pay to win" because it provides no advantage to the players who purchase those items.

I honestly don't care about the cash shop. I just think it's ridiculous how many people here are trying to twist the definitions of things to make themselves martyrs.

[silentwindfr]

@LunaHoshino: wait you don't care, but you are there to defend it... i miss something, why loose time to talk about something you don't care?

here people voice them concern about something that is about to happend and can lead to abuse that must'nt be allowed to happend. most of people arguing often say they don't care of the cash shop, then why do you defend it?
why don't you join the one voicing them concern about a detestable methode that SE want to use? because it's that, what they to plan to do is to create a freemium in a p2p game.

we can't allow SE do everything he want simply because is not "pay 2 win" by definition! because it's possible to go farer without be pay 2 win... like put almost all vanity option in the cash shop... it will still be not pay 2 win... make most of the secondary activity be gated partially behind the cash shop... and it will be not pay 2 win.

because it's not pay 2 win, it don't mean it's ok to do everything and anything! we must stand and say until where is ok to add stuff to them cash shop. or else... we will regret it later.

ps: SE have think that they are allowed to abuse the system and become extremely greedy because it's not pay 2 win. it our fault by allowing this first hand. pay 2 win or not, cash shop must be "controlled" we can't allows them to add every stuff that was develloped with the subs into it. or allows them to add a premium option for feature of the game...vanity or not! it's not normal, it's a greedy way that must be pointed out!

[MilesSaintboroguh]

I don't think Luna is saying "cash shop is fine because it's not pay 2 win" per se, but they and others are saying that people are twisting what pay 2 win means in order to justify their complaints, getting the term completely wrong and confusing others.

[silentwindfr]

probably, however my first point remain, why come argue if she don't care?
because actually we do have a threeway discussion, you have on one side the pro-cash shop, on the other the con-cash shop and you have a group between that come argue when they don't take position, actually them position is: "shut up, we don't care but shut up"

you know i can understand why a pro cash shop want it... but i fail to understand this people coming trolling the thread for... whatever the reason is.

because the concern evoked by the con cash shop is a serious matter, is not something that will have a small impact on the long terms, it can shape how will be FF14 on the long terms. people seems to miss this... we are in a subs game, but with the eternal bonding we do have a freemium option coming of... nowhere, because nothing justify this add. because every month every body pay the subs, they get already more than enough cash for the game.

and the point, is this: the freemium option is something that must'nt be allowed to exist into a sub game... we are not in free 2 play! we are in pay 2 play, we already support the game! we already paying our dlc every month!
people fail to realize that mmorpg is already costly... every 6 month you get a new tiers, leading to 12 dollars x 6 month = 72 dollars, it's the price of a game! every 6 month it's like we buy a game to SE...

often people come here and say other game do it... exept only one other game in subs have a shop... and never they have made a freemium option like the eternal bond one. this game is called World of Warcraft... and even with this shop, they add, maybe 1-2 mount and 3-4 minion per years. there SE in less of 1 month after the release of the cash shop they talk to add another mount and minion, we know that every past even will add more content to the cash shop...

god how is possible to not see how wicked and bad it's for the futur of the game... do you really think the press will forgive them to be that greedy? do you remember how EA was bashed for the microtransaction into Dead space 3? do SE really need this sort of... publicity?

ps: i did support this game while the V1 and i did try to get a lot of my friend play it... and how you want i justify this sort of wicked and greedy move?

[LunaHoshino]

I don't think Luna is saying "cash shop is fine because it's not pay 2 win" per se, but they and others are saying that people are twisting what pay 2 win means in order to justify their complaints, getting the term completely wrong and confusing others.

Yes, thank you. That's exactly what I'm saying. It irks me to see people trying to twist things around to support their arguments instead of just saying "I don't like the cash shop." There's nothing wrong with disliking it, and there's nothing wrong with liking it either. People are free to have their own opinions, they just can't try to change the definition of something to support their argument.

[FateAudax]

...and now to find out that I might have to pay to get the full experience has somewhat ruined the immersion of it for me.

Why do you assume that the free wedding isn't the full experience? Why can't the paid wedding be an extra experience instead of being labelled as full experience?

Perhaps SE originally planned for the free wedding to be the full experience, but since there are people willing to pay for more fluff. They added in an extra experience for the paid wedding.

[Riepah]

Perhaps SE originally planned for the free wedding to be the full experience, but since there are people willing to pay for more fluff. They added in an extra experience for the paid wedding.

Or perhaps they were talking about the mount several months ago already and you just didn't pay attention. How come what we've been teased with for over half a year is suddenly "extra"?

[FateAudax]

Or perhaps they were talking about the mount several months ago already and you just didn't pay attention. How come what we've been teased with for over half a year is suddenly "extra"?

Please, do point me to the link where they talked about the mounts and where they said it is free. I might need some enlightening. As far as I'm concern, they can tease us with both the full experience wedding and the extra experience wedding. In what ways they aren't allowed to tease us with contents that needs to be paid?

[Thistledown]

Why do you assume that the free wedding isn't the full experience? Why can't the paid wedding be an extra experience instead of being labelled as full experience?

Perhaps SE originally planned for the free wedding to be the full experience, but since there are people willing to pay for more fluff. They added in an extra experience for the paid wedding.

This guy gets it.