With regards to the possible upcoming housing relinquishments. . . . .

[Blitzace]

just wondering, Lets say people paid 50-60M+ for a house and due them not being able to play or just want a break from the game they are removing their houses? Am i getting this right

[Syrehn]

just wondering, Lets say people paid 50-60M+ for a house and due them not being able to play or just want a break from the game they are removing their houses? Am i getting this right

Essentially, yes this is correct unless SE implements a refund tactic (doubtful). However, we have no idea what the timer/rules for this removal system are going to be. We don't know if it's 30 days, 60 days, half a year etc. We also don't know if it will affect current subs that are "inactive" not logging in or just un-subs or if you have to step foot inside your house in x amount of days. We also don't know if they're going to backdate the decay timer (if it is a decay timer at all). We'rejust going to have to wait for SE to release more info as anything we put here is just speculation.

[ZodiacSoldier]

just wondering, Lets say people paid 50-60M+ for a house and due them not being able to play or just want a break from the game they are removing their houses? Am i getting this right

I agree they have to implement some sort of check on this. I have a friend who has a in game house but he is on active military duty and won't be able to log in for 6 months. It would suck for him to lose his house just cause he is not able to log on.

[Ayerinn]

I agree they have to implement some sort of check on this. I have a friend who has a in game house but he is on active military duty and won't be able to log in for 6 months. It would suck for him to lose his house just cause he is not able to log on.

Requiring a log in would not be good. Requiring an active subscription? yes. Disallowing the same character from owning multiple plots? Yes. Limiting the number of plots owned by an account on a server basis? Yes. There is someone on my server that owns 5 plots next to each other...that should not be allowed if housing is limited.

[ZodiacSoldier]

Requiring a log in would not be good. Requiring an active subscription? yes. Disallowing the same character from owning multiple plots? Yes. Limiting the number of plots owned by an account on a server basis? Yes. There is someone on my server that owns 5 plots next to each other...that should not be allowed if housing is limited.

Yea I agree, it should be subscription based, and I think they really need to implement a system so that one house is shared between all your characters. I know there are a few people on my server that bought multiple houses for resale / different characters.

[Nymeria2x]

I agree they have to implement some sort of check on this. I have a friend who has a in game house but he is on active military duty and won't be able to log in for 6 months. It would suck for him to lose his house just cause he is not able to log on.

This right here is exactly why SE should not be doing the reclaim system. There are just too many variables they aren't taking into account or just plain not caring about. People have lives outside of the game and sometimes crap happens. People get deployed, get sick, injured, have unexpected expenses forcing them to do without internet, or just plain get burnt out for awhile and need to take a break. I know several people who take breaks from the game while in school so they only log in for holidays and summer. The houses are really expensive and with barely over 1000 per server they are a rare commodity. If someone spends the gil they worked their butts off for on a house and then they can't log in for whatever reason, they shouldn't be punished. Imagine if you were hospitalized for a couple months or deployed and when you came home and you're finally able to play your game, you log in to find all your stuff has been reset because according to the devs you were obviously not using it. You'd loose your mind on SE if they did that. Well reclaiming a house that costs millions of gil is about the same as yanking someone's progress. We worked hard for that house and because of real life we're punished by having that work stripped from us. Honestly the only time I could understand reclaiming a house is if the toon or FC was deleted. Just inactive is not a good enough excuse for taking away someone's stuff, especially when you don't even know why they're inactive. SE should have thought it through before implementing the player housing. They purposefully made it so only about 1% of the player base can get a house and now its backfiring. The steps they are taking won't fix it, this is only going to blow up in their faces as a PR nightmare. I really hope a Dev reads this and relays it back to the rest of SE.

[Naunet]

good stuff

All of this, exactly. I can understand why reclaiming houses may seem appealing, but it's going to cause more upset than it's worth. And it won't make a real dent in the housing system as it is.

[Ayerinn]

All of this, exactly. I can understand why reclaiming houses may seem appealing, but it's going to cause more upset than it's worth. And it won't make a real dent in the housing system as it is.

well they clearly don't want to add any more wards than they have to so this is a solution for them to meet the goal of minimizing the number of wards. I don't see the issue - if you are not paying your rent (subscription) then why should you get to keep limited property? Something this limited has to be tied to active subscriptions - 90 days (inactive) would be the minimum that would be fair, 180 days would be preferred. I would much rather they add a bunch of new wards so that everyone who wants a home (and can afford it) can have one then implement a reclaim system, but you don't want a bunch of dead neighborhoods either.

[Kaiser-Ace]

Business Jargon 101:

Incapability: Adverb
Origin: Corporate Finance

Definition: Lacking Motivation to expend finances or resources to pursue a suggested course of action.

Basically, it's not that they CAN'T make instance housing but simply have no desire to completely scrap months of work and resources spent on the current system only to replace it with a fundamentally different system with it's own unique set of issues that will inevitably arise and put them back at dev step one.

As far as the devs have come, and as much time and effort as they put into developing and fixing things, from a Risk vs Reward perspective overhauling the system to make instanced housing is just logistically unadvisable. I don't blame them for staying their course and powering through the current issues. Success always makes more money than popularity. And as divided as the Final Fantasy fan base usually is, the Popular Decision still won't be "The Right One".

[Zorlinta]

...
Definition: Lacking Motivation to expend finances or resources to pursue a suggested course of action.

Basically, it's not that they CAN'T make instance housing but simply have no desire .. the Popular Decision still won't be "The Right One".

so in proper words means the game policies or SE vision is that house system was never intended to be for everyone own a house, just the lucky rich ones, and it gives some kind of achievement/status. And against that no matter player thoughts, kinda like savage mode wich is intended not for everyone.