Square, the hatchling plushie bonus makes zero sense.

[RaideDuku]

And how to get access back if that happens? Now i am more confused than before ^^

It's the same warning they slapped on to all furnishings. Basically to avoid these situations:

1. Don't share an estate with a jackass, or put it in the free company house where jackasses have access to decorating the house.
2. Make sure to take the thing with you if you leave your free company, don't be a jackass and get kicked from it, and don't join a jackass FC that would kick you for lols.
3. See number 1.
4. If you plan on quitting long enough that you'll lose your house, but wanna keep your furnishings "just in case" you come back at some point, take them out of your house before you leave.

[Sakuraluna]

This is excellent news, thanks!

[Chiapet]

This is great news.

But on a side note lets just abolish this "Breaks on pick up" stuff while we're at it. It makes no sense. Once its placed you cant sell it yea.. but the breaking is just unnecessary. There are better ways in game to keep it from trade. Certain tags keep items from storage.

[Mimilu]

Greetings,

Thanks for pointing this out. After investigating this we found that there was an error in the description for the hatchling lamp and it has been corrected.

This item will not be destroyed upon removal; however, the owner may lose access to the furnishing under the following conditions:

• If it is removed from the estate by another player.
• If the owner leaves, or is discharged from, the free company.
• When losing access to a shared estate.
• In the event that the estate is demolished.

We apologize for the confusion this may have caused.

That's a really big difference in wording then what you originally had... >w>

[Canadane]

And how to get access back if that happens? Now i am more confused than before ^^

You buy a new one.

[CyrilLucifer]

That's a really big difference in wording then what you originally had... >w>

Yeah, I can't help but think this was a change in policy due to outcry (let's face it: it is absurd that you lose an item you've basically paid for when it's removed) rather than a translation issue or something similar.

[Ultimatecalibur]

Yeah, I can't help but think this was a change in policy due to outcry (let's face it: it is absurd that you lose an item you've basically paid for when it's removed) rather than a translation issue or something similar.

It could have very well been a case of miscommunication from the Dev team to the Store team. The Dev says something like "standard furnishing rules apply" and then one of the people passing it or even the person who wrote up the ad thinks that includes "breaks on removal." The wording is stupidly common on furnishings.

[Canadane]

Yeah sounds like a easy mistake, just copying the wrong preformatted text and then running with it for the announcement.

[Lexia]

Yeah, I can't help but think this was a change in policy due to outcry (let's face it: it is absurd that you lose an item you've basically paid for when it's removed) rather than a translation issue or something similar.

Unless buy the plush was for the sole reason of getting the in game item (guess some people have money to burn), then you didn't pay anything for the item as it a bonus along with the plush. They mostly would of charged the same price for the plush even if it didn't have the bonus item with it.

[Yukiko]

@RaideDuku: Can you at least be a bit more serious? Its no joke and "things" can happen even if you don't like it to happen! Your points are not the norm and pinpoint just one possibility of many, so please stop trolling and take it a bit more serious! thanks. Well... if you like to keep trolling we can make it into a war and i will give to each points possibility's too where you did not violate any "security" issues!