Square, the hatchling plushie bonus makes zero sense.

[Teryaani]

Yup, I get the complaints and I totally agree that it shouldn't be destroyed. Just the "I paid real money for this furnishing" is not a good reason or leg to stand on when arguing it, since it is in fact a bonus, listed as such and has all the information. Could be worse, could be a * with tiny text at the bottom of the page saying it could be destroyed. lol

If they were selling the furnishing on mog station as a stand alone thing, then it would be a better argument. I did edit my post above, which you may have missed.

Let's clear this up. Do you think this is, or is not, a terrible bonus item to include with the plush? Which is my point here.

Follow up to that, for those of us for whom the bonus item is actually what we're interested in (and there are a lot of us), do you understand why people are looking at square and shaking their head?

[Imoen]

Let's clear this up. 1 -Do you think this is, or is not, a terrible bonus item to include with the plush? Which is my point here.

Follow up to that, for those of us for whom the bonus item is actually what we're interested in (and there are a lot of us),2 - do you understand why people are looking at square and shaking their head?

1-

Shady sale incentive? Yes, considering they know that there is a certain amount of people that won't give a crap about the plushie and will just get it for the furnishing.

2-

Yup, I get the complaints and I totally agree that it shouldn't be destroyed.

There you go.

[Teryaani]

There you go.

Thank you kindly!

[Imoen]

Thank you kindly!

Not a problem, I was responding to those implying (edit) you paid for the furnishing, which isn't the case, as soon as they say "bonus".

It seems nit picky, but it is an important distinction.


Clarification:

Implying the thing paid for was the "furnishing", continues then to imply you are being ripped off.

As a request/demand for change, it will never gain traction in that context. You can't argue you paid for a product when that wasn't the product being sold to begin with, that makes no sense either.

[Teryaani]

As a request/demand for change, it will never gain traction in that context. You can't argue you paid for a product when that wasn't the product being sold to begin with, that makes no sense either.

But it does make sense to point out that it's a crummy add-on given the limitations in the hopes that they will fix that and in the future make more of an effort with add-on bonus codes.

I'm going to put on my prognosticator's hat and say that this particular item isn't going to meet the sales forecasts set for it.

Edit: It would be great if a DEV can tell us what will happen if it gets destroyed.

Yeah, right now all we know is that it will be destroyed. No mention of them throwing it on the calamity salvager (perfectly acceptable fix from my point of view).