Reclamation of Inactive Housing announced

[Xerius]

It's not too much to ask for you to log in once per month and visit your house if you wanna keep it.
At least now other people who are playing have a real shot at owning land currently not being used

You say this now. Wait until you purchase a private estate and furnish it and then realize there's rarely ever a reason to enter your house once the novelty wears off.

[Blood-Aki]

The bolded text highlights the point I'm trying to make.

Nailen's argument was "You signed a TOS saying they're allowed to do this, so you shouldn't complain." My argument is that if you're going to make that argument, you have to apply it unilaterally, you can't just pick and choose.

This is where common business sense comes in, This scenerio is never going to happen, sure they can just "delete everything because you agreed to it" but that's never going to happen, freeing up highly in demand plot because people don't log on is a far more reasonable scenario.

Fine, since you can't get over the specifics of the example to focus on the actual point:

If you tried to log on tomorrow and SE had deleted all your glamour items/companions/mounts/titles/achievements, would your reaction be "Well, I agreed to the TOS that said they could, so that's fine"?

Read above, this is something that is extreamly unlikly to never will happen. You're just trying to hard. Deleting all that is actually unreasonable and no call for it, freeing up plots that aren't being used. is actually fair.

You say this now. Wait until you purchase a private estate and furnish it and then realize there's rarely ever a reason to enter your house once the novelty wears off.

Then why did you buy it to begin with? Thinking ahead goes a long way. IF you didn't think it would be worth the invesment, should have never bought it, It is a good idea to think hard about spending large amounts of gill on content that you know you will never get that money back for.

[Xerius]

Then why did you buy it to begin with? Thinking ahead goes a long way. IF you didn't think it would be worth the invesment, should have never bought it, It is a good idea to think hard about spending large amounts of gill on content that you know you will never get that money back for.

Why? What else is there to do with Gil?

I bought an estate for the same reason as everyone else, because I wanted an estate. I didn't plan on getting a return on my investment. It's a luxury item in its entirety.

[Ibi]

This is where common business sense comes in, This scenerio is never going to happen, sure they can just "delete everything because you agreed to it" but that's never going to happen

When the lead developer of the game specifically states "we're not going to have a system like this", most reasonable people would probably say that's a scenario that's never going to happen also.

I'd say it's bad business sense to delete any part of a players efforts in a game, rather than finding an alternative solution.

Read above, this is something that is extreamly unlikly to never will happen. You're just trying to hard. Deleting all that is actually unreasonable and no call for it, freeing up plots that aren't being used. is actually fair.

Your comment that "that is actually unreasonable", implies that you would agree that SE acting within the terms of the TOS can be unreasonable. You're just drawing a different (equally arbitrary) line.

As indicated above, it's my opinion that removing any part of a player's efforts in game is equally unreasonable. I think discriminating is ridiculous. Companions, mounts, etc. obviously all also take memory. If memory is the limitation (and that's what SE tell us) then this decision shows that anything that relies on that is, theoretically, up for restriction at some point down the line.

If they didn't have the necessary capacity to implement the system in such a way as to conform to the expectations that they themselves established, they shouldn't have implemented it as they did.

Then why did you buy it to begin with? Thinking ahead goes a long way. IF you didn't think it would be worth the invesment, should have never bought it, It is a good idea to think hard about spending large amounts of gill on content that you know you will never get that money back for.

I know this wasn't in response to me, but since I'm in a similar situation...

Not spending time in your house after some time has passed doesn't mean it wasn't worth the investment. I long since recouped the gil I spent on my house via the garden (and could make a significant profit if I decided to sell the plot), but to this day it has almost no furniture placed and I don't remember the last time I actually went inside of it. I do use it as a teleport location on a daily basis, but that's about the extent of it.

And before you accuse my other arguments of being self-serving, my sub's been active since the start of 2.0, I have no intention of cancelling any time soon, and even if I did I wouldn't be that bothered by the loss of the house (in fact, the 80% refund is an excellent addition for players who no longer want their house but don't want to feel forced to have to try to sell the plot to another player to recoup their investment).

One of the more productive steps SE could take would be implementing some encouragement/motivation for players like me, who find the house convenient but don't really care that much about it (or who enjoyed the house initially, but are no longer as interested as they originally were), to relinquish their plots.

[RiceisNice]

As indicated above, it's my opinion that removing any part of a player's efforts in game is equally unreasonable. I think discriminating is ridiculous. Companions, mounts, etc. obviously all also take

This already happens retroactively with vertical progression, and has happened with 2.0 gear going into 3.0 even for purposes of glamour.

[Waeksyn]

This already happens retroactively with vertical progression, and has happened with 2.0 gear going into 3.0 even for purposes of glamour.

Fine. This actually sounds reasonable. A reasonable housing solution would therefore be to add a new housing system that is scalable to the entire player base that will make the old housing less desirable.

[RiceisNice]

Fine. This actually sounds reasonable. A reasonable housing solution would therefore be to add a new housing system that is scalable to the entire player base that will make the old housing less desirable.

Of course that would be the end-all solution. We keep hearing SE saying how their problem is on their server-load. Even then, I don't recall them ever saying that this (eviction of inactive players) is the end-all situation to housing, but that it'll eventually be implemented to alleviate some housing issues. Specifically the players who own houses and don't even play the game anymore or honestly be assed to find a way to log in for one minute in a 45 day period.

[Neira]

This already happens retroactively with vertical progression, and has happened with 2.0 gear going into 3.0 even for purposes of glamour.

Fine. This actually sounds reasonable. A reasonable housing solution would therefore be to add a new housing system that is scalable to the entire player base that will make the old housing less desirable.

This almost made me want to clap. Bravo Waeksyn.

[Raxxon]

My FC saved up for a large house when housing prices were announced and around the time plots had fallen to ~50% we could afford one. We go in the house and afk, craft, hang out, sign up for DF, mend our gear or use the retainers all the time. We redecorate it if new housing items come out or we get bored of the look inside. We get a lot of use out of it.

When they added additional wards I bought my own personal house since I had some gil saved up and nothing to really spend it on. I managed to snag a small in The Goblet in a nice spot. Like many others here I didn't go to my personal house that often after decorating it and I completely understand why they don't, there wasn't much need to (for me) when my FC already had a large so instead I gave it away to an LS member that I knew had been struggling to get the money for a house together. I knew that even if he did get the gil for the plot itself he'd need even more for the relinquishing fee most people charge. He barely had the gil for the plot itself so I gave him the deed I got back when demolishing and now his FC has a house with airships to play around with and he'll get a lot more use out of it than I would have.

45 days is plenty of time to log in once and go in your house. If you're too bored to even log in once in over a month, why do you need a house? You obviously don't use it and someone else could get more enjoyment out of it. There are plenty of houses in my ward that are sitting there unused (one is just a plot with no house and has been there for months) and it's completely fair to have a timer when it's such a rare thing.

I understand that some people will have to stop playing for over 45 days (could be ISP screwing up your internet so you can't log in even if you wanted) but this is a necessary feature due to all the inactives with houses. Some of them will never be used again and it's better to put the timer in than have them sit there unused.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

When the lead developer of the game specifically states "we're not going to have a system like this", most reasonable people would probably say that's a scenario that's never going to happen also.

I'd say it's bad business sense to delete any part of a players efforts in a game, rather than finding an alternative solution.

I'm pretty sure he meant no maintenance fees, and the house wouldn't start turning into a run down looking pile of junk (aka breaking down), not that you would never lose the house. Especially considering that this system was supposed to go into play when housing was launched originally.