Since we are all getting what we want...

[Istaru]

See, this argument doesn't work because it applies both ways. You are no less entitled, by technical definition, advocating something stay exclusive because you want it to remain special.

Please share your technical definition of exclusive.

This is the one I use:

Limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group.

In this case, that group is the people who met the requirements to obtain something within the time allowances set by the issuer, in this case, SE. It is limited by their definition.

My reasoning is detailed below.

Why do you (generalizing) care? Because, in your subjective view, the item loses value if everyone can have it. That is entitlement.

I care because, when purchasing an item as exclusive, or of limited release, artificial or not, there is supposed to be a limit on the release of that item. That limitation is set by the seller of the item, in this case, SE. It is also accepted by the purchaser, in this case, that would be us, the players.

Without that, they can release 100,000,000 for all I care.

An example would be the Post Moogle Plush. They never said it had limits on it, so I don't care about how many they make or release. The fact that they can't keep many of these items in stock is another issue. It would be better if they worked that out, but that is another matter all together. It was released about 3 years ago and the code is still obtainable.

For some items, may or may not apply in all cases, exclusives are usually tied to first run or pre-order items, which go way beyond just FFXIV and not limited to video games. In those cases, those bonuses are exclusive to that pre-order or first run only are an agreement that the seller will limit the release of that item, in exchange for the seller to get something they want. Gaining money prior to delivering the good or charging a premium are examples of the gains that the seller receives. Obtaining an item of desire prior to its removal from the marketplace is the gain for the buyer.

Changing that agreement, by removing the agreement of limitation on the quantity without agreement from both parties is them breaking that original contract.

That is my sticking point. It is a business contract. That item, that is to be limited in quantity, is part of that contract.

That is my dislike. There is more on that below.

Not everyone feels the same way, even those who benefited from the exclusivity. Calling them childish and professing how "adult" you are comes across silly. So let's shelve that argument since it really boils down to just pointless name calling.

Good enough.

A better one is the simple differing of opinion. Some think exclusives are fine, others are very unique circumstances and the rest disagree with them entirely. No one is inherently wrong here because, once again, value on exclusives is all subjective.

Personally, they could NEVER do another exclusive ever again, and I would be perfectally happy. I have not said that I am a fan of them making exclusive items. That is because I'm not a fan of them. They are a tool used by businesses to manipulate us.

I don't like it personally, but I understand why companies do and why we go along with it. Changing it after the fact, without prior agreed compensation is fraud.

Fraud is an act of deceiving or misrepresenting. The seller, SE, stating an item is to be limited in quantity, then changing it to be unlimited is exactly that.

However, if they (SE) says something is to be exclusive in some way, I expect them to honor that.

You want to start a new thread "No more exclusive content"? I'll comment and agree.