Forcing players to pay to keep housing is unfair.

[Niwashi]

I feel like basing housing demolition off of active subscription isn't exactly the best idea because it's open for potential "abuse."

Housing demolition exists so that players who have left the game don't keep holding those plots in perpetuity, leaving the housing wards as ghost towns of former players. But players who have left the game aren't going to keep their subscription active. (Well, maybe briefly if they forget to turn off auto-renewal, but not for long at any rate.) The ones who are still paying their sub are still continuing the game, and should have the same rights as any other active player.

The "abuses" you describe are nothing of the kind. Sure people could keep their house without making good use of it, but they can already. You don't have to do anything more with it than step inside. (You can also already lose an estate while making regular daily use of it if your use is outside in the garden and you're not keeping careful enough track of that demolition timer.) Demolition isn't about giving plots to people who will use them better.

If the 45 day demolition timer only counted how long you went without an active subscription, and the NPC who holds your goods for you after demolition did so permanently, for the sake of players who take breaks longer than that, it would be a much more balanced and fair system. But SE would still need to deal with their housing shortage issue. Even if their design doesn't allow for keeping houses for all past players (as instancing them could), they do need a system that can readily accommodate all currently active players.

[HyoMinPark]

My issue is busybody thinking like this. Whatever someone does with something they invested millions to tens of millions of gil into is nobody's business but their own. Fact of the matter is, they allocated their time and resources into getting that house, and they got it before any competition managed it. In my mind 'fair' stops factoring into the equation after that point and it becomes a game of haves vs have nots.

So if we equated this situation to something in the real world, would you still stand by what you said then? If someone invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into a nice home, but then never used it? What would even be the point? Perhaps this is unrelated to the topic at hand, but if this is your opinion, would it still apply to different situations?

That's fine if you consider it okay to own things and never use them. But it's also fine for others (and myself) to think you're just wasting your money (or gil), and that people who would use the item should have the opportunity to do so, something that isn't possible in this game with housing so limited.

And I would hardly call my thinking "busybody." Thinking that it's silly for people to own things they never use, and think they have the right to keep owning stuff they never use just because "this is my sub, I pay for it" is not meddling, nor is it prying.

[Lexia]

How about SE stick in a pop up before persons buys house that says house will be reclaimed after 45 days of no use do you agreek? If they still click yes they would have no room to say they didn't know about the reclaim timer.

[Nyerieri]

<< Still going to be the minority that is the 1-3% on this forum who thinks 45 days is way to long. Ive seen 60-75 days being floated around on this section, get out of here with that. If you can't be bothered to log in ONCE every 44 days then you do not deserve a house, period. I don't care about your Rl issues or anything else, because that should be #1 priority. Soon as you start getting attached to pixels.. well i'm just going to leave it at that. Go buy an "apartment" if you want to call it that, and dont worry about ever logging in again. Problem solved.

P.S Should be 25 day FC lead pass and 30-35 day house demo. Best idea out of the 10 days presented so far was a gil system or token system to reduce the demo countdown on peoples houses that are obv not coming back, etc (so in theory, with enough gil thrown at it, it could be purchased the next day). Also think individuals shouldn't be able to purchase m and large houses, make small just for personal, but thats a different topic for a different day

[Niwashi]

How about SE stick in a pop up before persons buys house that says house will be reclaimed after 45 days of no use do you agreek? If they still click yes they would have no room to say they didn't know about the reclaim timer.

The complaints, or most of them anyway, aren't coming from people who don't know about the reclaim timer. They're coming from people who don't like it (either at all, or the specifics of how it was implemented).

[Nyerieri]

The complaints, or most of them anyway, aren't coming from people who don't know about the reclaim timer. They're coming from people who don't like it (either at all, or the specifics of how it was implemented).

There coming from people who actually own houses (Fun fact, I have a FC house). I also lost my small personal a long time ago, and I still am the minority here (in the fact that I own a house, and think its way to long the current system) that think if you can't log on for 44 days, you don't deserve it. Was I kinda upset I lost the house? Yeah, maybe for a few minutes, but I moved on. It took me all of a day to craft everything again that I had in it in case i ever do decide to purchase a small again.

[Dualgunner]

-snip-

It is a thing in the real world. Storage facilities make a lot of money off of people who own things but don't use them--a monthly fee, in fact. And unlike in the game there is no way to just instantiate storage facilities irl.

I never said meant to imply people weren't allowed to have thoughts and opinions separate to mine. It's fine if you think that people are silly for owning things they don't need or use. I don't even disagree that it is silly and, in real life, a dangerous habit to have. My line in the sand is when people advocate for those resources to be forcefully taken from people just because they aren't using them.

In response to the last paragraph there, I'm not entirely sure how to interpret what you mean.

"Thinking that it's silly for people to own things they never use," I wouldn't consider this a busybody type of thought, either.

"and think they have the right to keep owning stuff they never use just because "this is my sub, I pay for it"" If that is how you feel, then were are birds of a feather. If you just misplaced a 'not' somewhere, then that is exactly where, like with that other user, we'll have to agree to disagree. If they own it, and don't use it, they still own it and they still support the game even if they don't play it. This sentence in particular:

"If a player is only going to use their house once a month, why even invest so much gil into it, or even own it in the first place? Like with the OP, if someone is going to invest millions of gil into an estate, I would hope that they would use it more than just once a month." Smacks of busybody to me. "If they're not going to use a house the way I would/would want to, they're just wasting the plot and should give it up."

If this was not your complete thought or idea regarding the subject, then I apologize for pulling you out of context. The quote I mined in particular, however, is emblematic of the issue I have with a lot of people arguing that players should have their homes auto-demoed.

EDIT:

If you can't be bothered to log in ONCE every 44 days then you do not deserve a house, period.

This is the kind of sentiment I'm talking about. "If you don't use your virtual property the way I deem necessary, you do not DESERVE that and must give it up."

A) They put the initial time and resource investment into the game (gil) to get the house. The house is a onetime payment.
B ) They got there before anyone else
C) In this hypothetical the player is still paying their sub, thus still supporting the game so they're doing as much for the game as they would be if they used their house obsessively

Ideally housing would be overhauled to be more like WildStar's, but as it is it feels like an endless spiral of Team Hoarder VS Team Vulture.

[Lexia]

The complaints, or most of them anyway, aren't coming from people who don't know about the reclaim timer. They're coming from people who don't like it (either at all, or the specifics of how it was implemented).

That my point of the pop up to shove it in their face and if they don't like it or think it too short they have to option to decide not buy the plot.

[Gemina]

You dont' get to keep your real life apartment if you don't pay rent because other people are willing to pay the price. I view FFXIV housing the same.

Yup. It's essentially the same as telling the landlord that you'll be away for a couple months, and feel that you shouldn't have to pay rent during this time since you're not actually occupying the residence. It is then within their right to give that space to someone who is going to pay. And if you don't move your stuff, they can also do whatever they want to it. Luckily, with the game it's not a breach of contract like it would be with renting.

The solution to your problem is simple, and sorry if someone else has already mentioned it: The cost of your subscription needs to be absorbed elsewhere. Take a look at how much you're spending on starbucks, smokes, lotto tickets, or whatever your vice is make the adjustment to your expenses so you don't have to lose what you've invested time in.

[HyoMinPark]

Housing demolition exists so that players who have left the game don't keep holding those plots in perpetuity, leaving the housing wards as ghost towns of former players. But players who have left the game aren't going to keep their subscription active. (Well, maybe briefly if they forget to turn off auto-renewal, but not for long at any rate.) The ones who are still paying their sub are still continuing the game, and should have the same rights as any other active player.

The "abuses" you describe are nothing of the kind. Sure people could keep their house without making good use of it, but they can already. You don't have to do anything more with it than step inside. (You can also already lose an estate while making regular daily use of it if your use is outside in the garden and you're not keeping careful enough track of that demolition timer.) Demolition isn't about giving plots to people who will use them better.

Tying housing demolition strictly to just paying your subscription would just make it even easier for people to continue to hold on to plots they aren't using. If it is so hard for people to just ENTER their estate ONCE every 44 days, then I really don't think that they should even be owning one. Because to do so literally only takes a minute out of your playtime, and if you can't be bothered to do that then... I'm sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense to me to invest so much time in saving up anywhere from 4 to 50 million gil (which can take some considerable time and effort), and then buy a house and NEVER MAKE GOOD USE OF IT.

You say that demolition is to prevent the wards from turning into ghost towns of homes that were owned by people that left the game ages ago, and not about giving up the plots to people that would use them, but that is kind of what the demolition is about: kicking those who didn't bother to enter their house for 45 days, and giving those who want to purchase a plot the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the next owner would actually use it, and I know there's nothing that can really be done about that other than kicking them as well if they also don't bother to enter it once every 45 days.


It's also worth pointing out that the OP wanted to keep their plot, but at the same time, take a break and NOT have an active subscription. If housing demolition was based on active sub time, and houses were demolished if people didn't pay their sub in 45 days (like you suggest), then the OP would probably have still lost their plot anyways. Since they were complaining about "feeling pressured" to pay money monthly for the game in order to keep a house.