Reclamation of Inactive Housing announced

[SuperZay]

I'd argue that "regularly playing" means logging in at least once a week, myself. Routine. Having an on again off again pattern is the norm for many people, I know, but they're not "the regulars." The regulars are the people you see at the bar every Tuesday for happy hour. The regulars are the ones that go to your restaurant for dinner at least once a month. The regulars are the ones who run active XIV role play blogs and you know them by sight or name on Tumblr communities. Someone who pays for a month and then takes a 2 month break is not a "regular" by any generally accepted definition of the term.

But would you refuse to serve non-regulars in your restaurant just because they don't visit it every month?

[Catwho]

But would you refuse to serve non-regulars in your restaurant just because they don't visit it every month?

No, but I wouldn't give them a loyal customer discount either.

[Nalien]

But would you refuse to serve non-regulars in your restaurant just because they don't visit it every month?

I'd refuse to permanently reserve seats for non-regulars... Why should I turn away the actual physical paying customer in front of me, from that seat, just because someone who shows up once every month feels they deserve to have it reserved indefinitely?

You can pay me to reserve that seat, and if you don't show up, that's the same as paying a subscription and not logging in. If you're not paying me to reserve it though? Why on earth would I hold it for you? Someone who actually wants to use it, who is actually paying me for their meal, can use it instead.

By all means, go open a restaurant and use the same logic we have here for housing. You'd have to be spicing your food with narcotics to get people coming back regularly enough... You simply cannot welcome every customer, go "This is your seat FOR LIFE" and then start turning away new customers because all your seats are taken, even though the seats are reserved by people who, for all you know, have passed away. You simply would not be able to run a successful business if you just optimistically sit there going "My first customers who own these chairs will be back today, I'm sure of it!"

That is the issue SE is dealing with here. They have a finite amount of (presumably expensive) server space to hold all this housing data. That's why we have a finite number of plots, a finite number of items we can set. Then they have plots which are owned, effectively, by people who are not using them. No matter what way you try to paint this, that is a waste of resources. Do I have absolute proof that plots are being wasted? No. You know who would have that information, though? SE. It is their servers that are potentially being wasted on non-customers, after all. If they can look at that data, and go "Bloody hell, we have an entire Wards worth of plots owned by people who haven't logged on since March 2014!", then the only logical thing to do is go "Why should we spend money adding these new Wards, when we can just clear up the old ones?", that is what's happening here. The only fault I can peg on SE over all this is not implementing this from the very start in 2.1, anyone could have seen this issue coming...

[SuperZay]

I'd refuse to permanently reserve seats for non-regulars... Why should I turn away the actual physical paying customer in front of me, from that seat, just because someone who shows up once every month feels they deserve to have it reserved indefinitely?

Because they paid you already for permanent spot the price you've asked for. It was your own rules to begin with. And now you are changing them to your liking after being paid.

[Nalien]

Because they paid you already for permanent spot the price you've asked for. It was your own rules to begin with. And now you are changing them to your liking after being paid.

No where in the ToS does it say that a single subscription fee payment affords you the right to hold onto, indefinitely, the server space allotted to housing. Doesn't even say that for your character data from what I remember, in fact I'm fairly sure it states something to the opposite effect; That at any time they could effectively delete you character for whatever reasons they want.

There was never an agreement that housing plots were yours for life. There was never mention of losing them in this manner, either, but I'm fairly certain the ToS, which we all agreed to, lets them hold the right to do things exactly like this. Actually, if anything I recall mention that SE could demolish your plot if they suspected RMT involvement, this then, is nothing more than an addendum to that.

[SuperZay]

There was never an agreement that housing plots were yours for life.

Likewise, there was never an agreement that housing plots weren't yours for life. SE can change the rules to their liking, yes. But should we really agree with these changes if they take away from players? I can't speak for myself because I'm regular, but these changes are definitelly casual players unfriendly.

[worldofneil]

But should we really agree with these changes if they take away from players?

Take away from the minority of players that actually own houses that are affected because they don't play so that their houses can go to players that do regularly play? A resounding yes from me!

I can't speak for myself because I'm regular, but these changes are definitelly casual players unfriendly.

Well with all due respect, maybe you should let those people complain then... or possibly they're too inactive to even do that :P

[Nalien]

Likewise, there was never an agreement that housing plots weren't yours for life. SE can change the rules to their liking, yes.

There was though, there was always an agreement that SE can do pretty much whatever they damn well like with your character data, virtual items (and thus housing) included.

But should we really agree with these changes if they take away from players? I can't speak for myself because I'm regular, but these changes are definitelly casual players unfriendly.

Find me the casual players who are upset over losing their non-existent houses then. This entire argument feels like it's made of straw... You have people like me, who own plots and are fine with this because we accept that is is necessary, arguing against people who have seemingly no vested interest in the topic... They either own no land, aren't the kind to take frequent breaks, or were already thinking about quitting anyway... I've yet to see a single person who is solely invested in this game because of housing, and is dreading the life time subscription they'll now have to pay because of this...

The ideal out of this, is that more Free Companies can obtain land, meaning more Private Rooms can be opened up and offering more options for casual players.

[Neira]

Find me the casual players who are upset over losing their non-existent houses then. This entire argument feels like it's made of straw... You have people like me, who own plots and are fine with this because we accept that is is necessary, arguing against people who have seemingly no vested interest in the topic... They either own no land, aren't the kind to take frequent breaks, or were already thinking about quitting anyway... I've yet to see a single person who is solely invested in this game because of housing, and is dreading the life time subscription they'll now have to pay because of this...

You can probably throw me in that category. I subscribe roughly half of the year currently and I have a small home that cost me 5m with about 40m in furnishings, 15m+ of it will be destroyed. I don't do a lot of end game, it doesn't interest me much in this game. I log on, play with/talk to my waifu, as well as friends, garden some, and run around doing random tasks. I am now dreading the life time subscription I will have to pay because of this change. I've been off and on since ARR launch, I've had a home since subdivisions were added, and I don't always have the money to play even if I want to. Do I fit your criteria for someone that this actually effects?

Also, some of the analogies I'm seeing are ridiculous. A reserved spot at your restaurant for frequent and infrequent customers? Why not go with a much more obvious comparison of active diners that night. Someone comes in, orders a meal, and stays at their table to read a book after they finish; this is your inactive player. Someone else comes in while that person is reading and is waiting for a seat; this is your active player. Do you boot the guest sitting there reading, who has already finished their meal but was still a paying customer? That's up for every owner/manager to decide, but my opinion is a very emphatic "no". Whether a customer is brand new, hasn't been around for years, or comes every day without fail, they all deserve the same treatment and the same first come, first serve behavior. If you want to chat more with the regulars, have at it, but don't expect customers to take kindly to being treated as less important because they don't visit you as often or as recently.

Another analogy that's bothering me is the paying rent/mortgage one. They're both completely inaccurate since we as players have purchased both the property and the home that we built on it outright, without any taxes or insurance required to this point. The only plausible comparison here is equating it to newly instated property taxes, as we obviously haven't been paying any the rest of this time, which would indeed cause a significant uproar. Additionally, it's like having a property tax that must be paid with in gold instead of the USD or other national currency, as it's a different currency we're using to pay the tax than that which we purchased the land and home with(purchase in gil and subscription with cash). If you think that someone who purchased land and home outright with no fees would tolerate a required payment in a new currency laid upon them with less than righteous indignation, I'm quite sure there are historical examples proving that such a scenario is not accepted readily. Even further, since it's not the physical payment that is required, but the use of the land as well as payment, the idea that the ruling body in this example requires the person on the deed to pay and utilize the property is too ridiculous to even consider in reality. Of course, realistic analogies also go out the window when my mailbox will magically self-destruct if I try to move it.

Additionally, as for the repeated mentioning of finite resources, I would like to again reiterate why that is the case. Is it your fellow player base, active or inactive, utilizing their home or not, that are deciding to keep the majority of people out of homes? This isn't some Occupy Eorzea movement, you aren't the 98% trying to overcome the shackles of the 2% of land owners. We're all equals in this system, some came along sooner than others and some prioritized getting a house while others didn't. There isn't some magic entitlement or birthright to this system. Square Enix provided limited homes for FCs to save money, Square Enix scrapped the concept of unique personal housing in favor of an obviously flawed idea of combining personal and FC homes to save money, and Square Enix is now introducing a system that adds nothing but enforces subscriptions. It's about money, plain and simple, and some of you are turning on each other so quickly when we should all be standing against SE on this one and demanding that they properly invest in their incredibly successful MMO.

Finally, even though I have a personal stake in this issue, I'm rather unbiased with my stances in general. I oppose the retainer rental system despite not needing the extra space, I oppose the removal of in-game vendor seasonal purchases to be added to the cash shop despite owning every previous item put on the Mog Station so far, and I oppose this game's housing system that tries to advertise as content despite being completely unavailable and only ever being accessible by a select few. SE is trying to run a business, yes, but they're doing a horrible job at providing quality products and services at a reasonable price to paying customers. And instead of complaining about that fly in your soup, that scratch on your new car, that console that broke within a year, or that internet that keeps cutting out, I see many people showing misguided appreciation for what would be considered unacceptable in many other industries. It's our money that's paying to keep these servers going and is making SE millions, we shouldn't have to fight each other just to enjoy what we're paying for, or even participate in it at all.

[Kyonika]

Doesn't mean they don't deserve to own content everyone has access too. That's discrimination based on your subscription days.

Likewise, there was never an agreement that housing plots weren't yours for life. SE can change the rules to their liking, yes. But should we really agree with these changes if they take away from players? I can't speak for myself because I'm regular, but these changes are definitelly casual players unfriendly.

Disclaimer: not aimed solely at you, per se, but to all those who share your views.



45 days is more than fair. Personally, I feel it should be closer to 30 days. But anyways... the devs made the call, and I fully support it.

I'm sorry for those that feel that it should be longer than 45 days, or that you should not have to worry about losing your house -- when you take several months breaks at a time -- but...

.... the game does not revolve around you. Other players do not revolve around your schedule. If you can't be arsed to take 5 minutes out of your busy schedule once every 44 days, then a house is wasted on you. Owning a house is both a responsibility and an investment. If you are unable or unwilling to do both, simply put, you neither deserve nor require a house: it's a privilege, and not a right.

If you need to take a break, great, you could always just switch your sub to like 60 days recurring or something like that, and quickly login for 1 minute once every 44 days to keep your house. What I don't get is ... Is that really so hard? ... Really??....

If it really is too difficult for you to do so little to keep your house, then you deserve to lose it, so other players, more active than you (or more deserving than you), should have the opportunity to buy your unused space.

This is about fairness, and we all have to accept that -- especially, the ones that don't want to.


Btw, I'm casual, and I don't own a house, as I don't need it. I belong to a guild that has a wicked awesome house, so that is good enough for me.