Forcing players to pay to keep housing is unfair.

[Jadub2k]

If it was an FC estate, FC members entering it resets the timer. Why can't the same be done to personal estates? Having your friend enter in your place should reset the timer if you share your estate with him.

Exactly this ^ Because this pretty much defeats the whole purpose of the shared estate feature because your basically a resident of the house.

As evidenced by Jade's post, with the proper permissions a friend can do a LOT with your private residence. If your friends are manipulating furnishings, gardening, stabling chocobos, etc, then personally I'd consider that house to be "lived in", even if the actual owner has to be away from the game for a while. Remember, the goal of auto demolition is (or should be) to free up housing that's not being used. If your friends are using your house, then yes, your house is being used.

I was sadly involved in this problem with a friend and watching her house (and all the time/work/gil we put into it) just vanish right in front me =/ (though some friends of a friend of mine were able to move in, it still sucks.) One way they could help with this is to give shared housing the ability to reset the timer but by accepting the shared housing feature you forfeit your right to buy a house because technically your already apart of one (gotta have give/take somewhere)


Leaving the shared house will give you your right back and put the house back into a state of demo after time has exceeded the limit

[worldofneil]

If it was an FC estate, FC members entering it resets the timer. Why can't the same be done to personal estates?

It's probably because if they do that, you'll hardly see any housing demolition at all. I've lost count of how many personal houses I've seen demolished and get new owners, but I don't believe I've even seen a single FC auto demolish, but obviously that's just based on what I've seen.

I'm not saying the system is perfect at all, but right now at least (on most servers) you have a chance to get housing if you actively check, if they let tenants also reset timers, people will be adding people to their houses just to save their houses until the end of time... and if you're actually actively using the house this shouldn't be a thing that really bothers you either.

[LineageRazor]

It's probably because if they do that, you'll hardly see any housing demolition at all. I've lost count of how many personal houses I've seen demolished and get new owners, but I don't believe I've even seen a single FC auto demolish, but obviously that's just based on what I've seen.

I'm not saying the system is perfect at all, but right now at least (on most servers) you have a chance to get housing if you actively check, if they let tenants also reset timers, people will be adding people to their houses just to save their houses until the end of time... and if you're actually actively using the house this shouldn't be a thing that really bothers you either.

As evidenced by Jade's post, with the proper permissions a friend can do a LOT with your private residence. If your friends are manipulating furnishings, gardening, stabling chocobos, etc, then personally I'd consider that house to be "lived in", even if the actual owner has to be away from the game for a while. Remember, the goal of auto demolition is (or should be) to free up housing that's not being used. If your friends are using your house, then yes, your house is being used.

And it's not as though this is issuing a free ticket to preserve your house forever: even if friends COULD save your house, just adding them is not enough. They'd presumably have to do exactly the same things you would do to save your house (i.e., walk through the front door every month or so).

Ideally, just having a subscription should be enough to preserve your home. If that's not going to happen, friends should be able to preserve your home, just as FC members can preserve FC homes.

[Alleo]

It's probably because if they do that, you'll hardly see any housing demolition at all. I've lost count of how many personal houses I've seen demolished and get new owners, but I don't believe I've even seen a single FC auto demolish, but obviously that's just based on what I've seen.

I'm not saying the system is perfect at all, but right now at least (on most servers) you have a chance to get housing if you actively check, if they let tenants also reset timers, people will be adding people to their houses just to save their houses until the end of time... and if you're actually actively using the house this shouldn't be a thing that really bothers you either.

Well I am checking on Moogle nearly daily for an open house and yet in the last few months I only saw around three opened up houses. Two small ones and one big. Either we have lots of active players or maybe I am always looking at the wrong time but I dont get the feeling that someone that is new, finally has the money and rank to buy it really has that much more of a chance thanks to the timer. Ironically the time where my old FC got the fc house and I get my own small too was before the timer.

At the same time this is not even near perfect, its in the end a really really bad bandaid..at least on the big servers even if you would need to check in each week we would never have enough housing for everyone. Its simple math. Number of players and maximum amount of housing -> far from enough.

And really if someone has tenants for their houses and they in some way are using it (even if its just going into it once or maybe planting some stuff) they would be still be using it. Also you would still need the owner to pay his sub. If I am quitting the game I will not continue to pay the sub.

At the same time I just looked in the party finder some days ago and around three people wanted to sell their houses..two people even had two small ones to sell and the third person had one small too..as long as people like that are not punished..as long as its still possible to buy multiply houses through the use of alt characters..that is the same time where I will post here complaining that those that just want their house for use will still be punished for a break or unfortunate situation.

[Keileia]

I could be hospital dying.

...if I want to be away for one short month I should be able to without being punished.

If you were unfortunate enough to be in the hospital dying I would hope that the first thing that you would be thinking when you came out would be "I'm glad i'm alive"
instead of "damn, i lost my ffxiv house "

They have to put a timer on house demolishing because otherwise houses that were bought years and years ago would become haunted. Where do you draw the line?
Personally I think that they have been very reasonable about many matters regarding housing.
If you were playing long enough you might remember that they extended the house log in time because of Japanese Earthquakes.
"not log in for one short month" is quite different from being hit by a disaster. Square Enix don't have a detector for every ffxiv player's personal problems but they still try.

[Colino]

They have to put a timer on house demolishing because otherwise houses that were bought years and years ago would become haunted.

I have a whole different feeling about my strangely empty neighbourhood now.

[Naunet]

If you were unfortunate enough to be in the hospital dying I would hope that the first thing that you would be thinking when you came out would be "I'm glad i'm alive"
instead of "damn, i lost my ffxiv house "

This is such a stupid comparison. I know that if I'd just recovered from a life-threatening illness, I would want to return to normalcy as soon as possible, and yes, I'd probably get pretty upset when/if I found out that the house I'd worked hard to obtain had been taken away.

[Rymm]

This is such a stupid comparison. I know that if I'd just recovered from a life-threatening illness, I would want to return to normalcy as soon as possible, and yes, I'd probably get pretty upset when/if I found out that the house I'd worked hard to obtain had been taken away.

This is ridiculous. You can say 'if I was' or 'I would probably' all you want, but until it actually happens, you can only guess what your priorities would be. And if losing a few 1s and 0s in a digital game is the worst thing you have to deal with after an extended hospital stay, you are lucky as hell.

This is wildly off topic anyway. I don't see the point to going on ad nauseam on a single, hypothetical example that isn't even the situation that the OP is in.

[DamianFatale]

You don't wanna pay? There's other people who would pay to have your house. In a world where housing is limited, there is no such thing as fair or unfair for you. As much as I hate the word, entitlement is what I smell from this post.

I'm sorry that money is tight though but the reality is the reality.

Edit: I'm saying this as someone who owns a house.

Entitlement? He sunk his own time, and bought a house. That took work. Everyone should be able to have one if they work for it.

[ThePatron13]

Entitlement? He sunk his own time, and bought a house. That took work. Everyone should be able to have one if they work for it.

Arguing that everyone should get one is entirely different than arguing that the demolition timer is unfair.