is selling housing bannable?

[Zelas]

Keeping it isn't an alternative?

Selling it isn't.

I already said keeping it's fine.

[MomomiMomi]

Selling it isn't.

I already said keeping it's fine.

Well that's the alternative I was talking about. Keeping it. I'm fine with keeping it. But it definitely doesn't mean more houses are available.

[Zelas]

If you want to keep it, it's perfectly fine, though. You paid for it, you have every right to keep it if you want. That's entirely up to you.

The thing we're discussing/denouncing here is the reselling of plots (see title?) so that's what I'm talking about.

[Niwashi]

Well that's the alternative I was talking about. Keeping it.

Then your post misquoted what you were responding about. As written, your "Well that's the alternative they've given us" referred to Zelas's "Trying to bribe someone into giving you back the money you spent for it"

[MomomiMomi]

And I was talking about this:

Which you could otherwise get for only one of the fees if they were being honest and just let it go as they should.

Just because someone is being honest doesn't mean you're going to get the house for only one fee. It can mean you're not going to get the house at all.

Then your post misquoted what you were responding about. As written, your "Well that's the alternative they've given us" referred to Zelas's "Trying to bribe someone into giving you back the money you spent for it"

Keeping it, no. Trying to bribe someone into giving you back the money you spent for it is.

That's what I quoted, emphasis mine. That was the whole post when I quoted it. I was replying to the whole post.

[Niwashi]

Just because someone is being honest doesn't mean you're going to get the house for only one fee. It can mean you're not going to get the house at all.

But if someone is giving up a house they no longer want (which was the scenario being discussed there), then the honest way to do that is simply to release the plot. If instead it's a house you want to keep, then the situation doesn't even come up.

[MomomiMomi]

But if someone is giving up a house they no longer want (which was the scenario being discussed there), then the honest way to do that is simply to release the plot. If instead it's a house you want to keep, then the situation doesn't even come up.

I no longer want it, but I can still make use of it. My options are: Give it up for free, or keep it and keep using it. The situation does come up. The only reason I'm keeping it is because I have no method of selling it.

Just because I don't want it doesn't mean it's worthless to me.

[StouterTaru]

Again, similar but not entirely the same.
I don't condone selling runs, because I think it's a pretty stupid practice and promotes laziness, but at least, there, they're selling something. The person actually GETS the kill/drop/whatever, and if they don't, they have sufficient evidence they got double-crossed (through screenshots, chatlogs, etc.).

For housing, you're not paying the player for anything at all other than a sort of bribe ("I'm holding this house hostage until you give me back the money I paid for it."). You're technically being asked to pay for the seller's purchase (or sometimes, several times their purchase) on top of your own. You pay for THEIR past entertainment/use of the house, and then buy the house AGAIN for yourself. Which you could otherwise get for only one of the fees if they were being honest and just let it go as they should.

It's closer to scalping than bribery. And if you are selling your relinquishment of the plot at the time of the buyer's choosing, they would also "have sufficient evidence they got double-crossed (through screenshots, chatlogs, etc.)." Playing the MB would be bribery by your definition.

Off MB sales over 1M are the same way, the person could take your 20M, 1M at a time, then not give you the item on the last trade. Fraud is fraud, following through on an agreement isn't fraud.

Run/pony sales are closer to bribery than house flipping, you pay the group to do something for you and to pass on the drop(s).

Player casinos aren't against the ToS, but people have been given warnings for spamming chat with them.

[Zelas]

-snip-

Well, English isn't my first language, so I don't know all the fancy words. But I'm sure you catch my drift.
Also, depending on how it's done, runs/pony sale is closer to paying for a service than anything. It's something one can do themselves with time and practice, but that they think is faster/easier if they ask someone more experienced to help them with it.

No matter how you look at it, house flipping is a blatant rip-off. They know you cannot otherwise get what you want, so they try to profit from it. So in that sense, it's worse.

I do get what you mean, though, and I agree with some parts. But that hardly makes the house reselling any more justifiable, imo.

[worldofneil]

Most people recognize that housing really is/should be a one per player kind of thing

Sorry I must have missed that survey.

offer account holders with multiple personal homes/plots a choice of which one they can keep, then compensate them with the purchase price of the plots being relinquished.

What about their items in the house though? Yes they could go to the Resident Caretaker for 35 days like when a house is demolished and that person could somehow try and find all the inventory space to hold them all (200 items for a large!), but what are they to do with them then? Their other house is probably already furnished and SE are unlikely to give back items that aren't binded and could be sold on. So essentially a lot of items that person has to find storage space for, indefinitely, or discard. Even worse if they currently have multiple houses on their account they'd need to find even more space.

But worse... what about the unremovable items? Should they just get lost? And what about decorations you can't get back like light fixtures, floor and walls? What about the exteriors that have been crafted in a workshop? None of those are removable and some like the workshop creations are a lot of parts and take a lot of time and effort. I know this from making an exterior for a small house, I can't imagine the effort needed for a large.

Yes SE could give back the exact items so someone could reuse them, but if you don't have multiple houses you're unlikely to want to reuse them and if you can't see them... giving back the items doesn't compensate the person for the time they put in to decorate the house.

Right now someone is allowed to buy up to 16 houses per Square Enix service account. Whether the community likes it or not, that was how SE set it up so the player shouldn't get massively penalised because SE later changed their minds. Square Enix aren't going to force houses away from someone, other than by updating the system for newer accounts and grandfathering older ones (i.e. if a house is reclaimed that account can't buy another one unless below the limit etc) and I can't really see them doing that either as people would just complain it's unfair that someone has more than they do and they can no longer even have a chance to do the same.

Further, explicitly limit FC housing to one house per FC.

That actually is already the case. What you're seeing with one FC having multiple houses is actually multiple FCs, all having been levelled up to rank 6, but all having the same short name (the long name has to be unique, the short name/tag can be the same as another one).

Implement a transfer system so that if you decide to move house and purchase an equivalent plot elsewhere, you can transfer your entire home, lock, stock and barrel for a nominal fee.

The moving system is planned for some time after 3.4, but we know how much after and we also don't yet know whether that'll let us transfer things like airship progress or just automated buying/relinquishing. It's very unlikely to move furniture automatically though, unless you were moving to the same size house it wouldn't even fit the same way.

I can't see the tiny minority of players who are in that situation screaming too loudly

Probably because most players don't use the forums?

No, limiting *personal* housing to one per account is reasonable.

And I don't disagree with you, but it's much too late now.