This is just appalling

[Kaurie]

SE isn't liable for poor spending habits. If you play within your means, spend what you set aside for you to spend- there's no reason to make this a notch against cash shop purchases. Everyone should know where they stand financially, and if you only just realized you spent thousands of dollars on a game unknowningly, you need to check your statements more.

I never suggested they were. The part you quoted wasn't really an argument against the cash shop, but was simply furthering the discussion on how people view money. The person I quoted was talking about the equivalence of spending money on alcohol, and added that money is relative.

Square can lose "Loyal" customers for doing literally anything. Someone might quite because they dislike the design of dungeons, or the commitment to the tomestone gearing system.

They might quit because they dislike the story, or they revamped their favorite class.

If the only moves they should make are ones that alienate no-one, that's an impossible task because anything they could do (including doing nothing) might piss somebody off.

There's plenty of evidence from other games that cash shops like this are innocuous. WoW didn't see a massive drop off in subs because of the Rainbow Unicorn, it happened because they released an expansion with no good content.

Unless we're about to see a massive break with industry trend, no amount of fancy dresses or dances being sold at high prices will put a meaningful dent in the game's playerbase.

It takes a lapse in core content to scare off players, and the stuff in the cash shop just isn't core content. It's fluff.

This reply shows a severe misunderstanding of my argument. One is a discussion of the product and the other is a discussion of the business.

As for the comparison to WoW, their cash shop is not nearly as harmless. I've seen very very few items added to it since Legion started, and in the same time, countless things have been added to FFXIV. Items purchased on the WoW cash shop are account wide, vs character wide. Further, you can actually purchase WoW cash shop items with WoW tokens (in-game gold).

No one cares about what they put into the cash shop until they add something that person cares about. For some people, glamour is everything. These people have been complaining about Mogstation items since they were added. Square just happens to be adding more items people want, so now they are getting pissed too.

I was stating that I don't care about the glamours to show that you do not need to care about the products available in the cash shop to be annoyed with the cash shop. It's not a pre-requisite.

[Greedalox]

The part you quoted wasn't really an argument against the cash shop, but was simply furthering the discussion on how people view money.

My mistake! I thought you were insinuating it was on SE if players spent thousands of dollars on cash shop items by mistake.

[HPDelron]

This reply shows a severe misunderstanding of my argument. One is a discussion of the product and the other is a discussion of the business.

Your argument fundamentally seems to be that square is at some risk of a meaningful loss of players because of their cash shop items. If that isn't your argument why should square - or anyone care? It's a non-issue if that's the case. It only matters if it will have a meaningful negative impact on the playerbase.

If that is your argument my point stands: Cash shops items are fluff. They are dresses and dances and nothing that matters. Core content is what drives the game and sub numbers. If I'm wrong I guess we'll see the game dry up as folks see everyone in their fc chats go "I'm sorry guys, I had fun with you all but I'm quitting the game because square is charging too much for emotes in the cash shop. Best of luck. I'll be trying {INSERT_MMO_HERE} ping me on discord if you wanna meet up with me there".

We are in the land of speculation obviously. We'd need a crystal ball to know for sure. However I wouldn't be going out of my way to wager that scenario will come to pass.

[Kaurie]

We are in the land of speculation obviously. We'd need a crystal ball to know for sure. However I wouldn't be going out of my way to wager that scenario will come to pass.

indeed, I am by no means saying that what I said will happen, but I am saying it could happen. It's the answer to the question of "what reason does Square have to not do this". Different companies weigh it differently.

For example, look at EA, you have BF1 and Titanfall 2. BF1 opted for the DLC approach and TF2 opted for the free DLC approach. Despite TF2 receiving praise for this stance, it seems pretty clear that BF1 has been more successful. In this example, your stance is absolutely the one that came to pass.

I would like to see more companies rewarded with loyalty for treating their consumers well, but perhaps it's just a pipe dream.

[HPDelron]

I would like to see more companies rewarded with loyalty for treating their consumers well, but perhaps it's just a pipe dream.

Putting aside the fluff thing for a moment:

They're offering people goods those people want at price they're willing to pay. It's not mistreating customers to simply give them a chance to buy things.

Everyone who paid $25.00 for an outfit or whatever wanted that outfit more than they wanted $25.00. There's nothing shady or dishonest going on. They're arguably better off for having had the opportunity to trade in their cash for something they wanted than they would have been otherwise.

I paid square $200+ dollars for the collectors edition of Stormblood because I wanted the goofy swag that comes in the box. It is expensive goofy swag but that hardly means I've been mistreated. I get my goofy swag. SE gets my money. Me & SE both get what we wanted and neither of us did it at gunpoint.

At the end of the day I'm better off for getting the opportunity to spend my money on things I want, than I would be not getting that opportunity.

Am I as well off as I would be in some hypothetical universe where they sold me the goofy swag for $80.00 instead? No. However that hardly makes me some kind of victim here.

[Kaurie]

Putting aside the fluff thing for a moment:

They're offering people goods those people want at price they're willing to pay. It's not mistreating customers to simply give them a chance to buy things.

Everyone who paid $25.00 for an outfit or whatever wanted that outfit more than they wanted $25.00. There's nothing shady or dishonest going on. They're arguably better off for having had the opportunity to trade in their cash for something they wanted than they would have been otherwise.

I disagree. I understand your argument that they wanted that outfit for the price, but I disagree that it's not shady/dishonest. A subscription has expectations that it is inclusive. Further to that, many companies continue to provide unfinished games and sell the extra parts separately. This, to me at least, seems pretty shady.

Also, I'm not sure what you are referring to with "putting aside the fluff thing".

I just want to add that while I do find it shady, it's not really important. It's not important if they are being shady or dishonest, it is important if they appear to be dishonest or shady.

[HPDelron]

A subscription has expectations that it is inclusive.

http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en

The Game includes software that is installed on your computer, as periodically updated by Square Enix ("Licensed Software"), as well as data that Square Enix maintains on its servers. Subject to your continued compliance with the conditions set forth in this User Agreement, Square Enix grants you a limited license to use the Game.

YOU ACQUIRE NO OWNERSHIP OR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ANY CHARACTER OR OTHER IN-GAME VIRTUAL GOOD, AND ARE ONLY LICENSED TO USE SUCH CHARACTERS AND ASSETS ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENTS. YOU AGREE THAT YOUR FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNT AND ANY VIRTUAL GOODS AND CHARACTERS DO NOT HAVE ANY MONETARY VALUE. SQUARE ENIX MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNTS, CHARACTERS, VIRTUAL GOODS, OR THE SERVICE ALTOGETHER, AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY TO YOU.

4.1 FINAL FANTASY XIV Subscription Fees. In order to access SQUARE ENIX's servers to play the Game, you must agree to a recurring subscription ("Subscription") with a minimum subscription term of 30 days, and pay a recurring subscription fee ("FFXIV Subscription Fee"). Square Enix may offer different subscription plans in its sole discretion. Further, Square Enix may offer you the chance to purchase additional features for your FFXIV Service Account, which we call "Add-ons" or "Options." Add-ons may be subject to either additional recurring fees or one-time fees. A "Recurring Fee" is a fee that will be charged on a recurring basis until you terminate your subscription. A "One-Time Fee" is fee that is only charged once. All fee rates will be posted at http://sqex.to/ffxiv.na.fees and any changes to Recurring Fee rates will be posted with 30 days' advance notice and notice will be provided to the Game community. Square Enix may change fee rates at any time in its sole discretion, and will use reasonable efforts to notify you at least 30 days in advance of any changes to any Recurring Fees. All FFXIV Subscription Fees are billed in advance. All FFXIV Subscription Fees are non-refundable, with the limited exception in Section 4.7 below.

Those expectations could only be founded out of willful ignorance as to the nature of the agreement between square and the player. They're rather openly - to the point of putting in bold all caps and underline on the first page of the agreement saying you're getting access to the servers for a limited time and nothing else. They're offering a service of limited a scope, a scope which you can pay them to expand if you wish.

This stuff is all in plain sight and above board. If folks aren't readin' it, well that's their own problem. Perhaps a problem borne of complacency becoming the SOP among consumers these days... but this stuff is all above board.

[Kaurie]

http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en

Those expectations could only be founded out of willful ignorance as to the nature of the agreement between square and the player. They're rather openly - to the point of putting in bold all caps and underline on the first page of the agreement saying you're getting access to the servers for a limited time and nothing else.

This stuff is all in plain site and above board. If folks aren't readin' it, well that's their own problem. Perhaps a problem borne of complacency becoming the SOP among consumers these days... but this stuff is all above board.

OK, well I think we are arguing two different things for pages now. I'm going to bow out, as I am probably approaching my post cap, and have said my piece. Just going to clarify that when I state 'expectations' I mean societal expectations based off normal usage. Subscriptions generally are inclusive. I did not mean that it stated it in their terms of service. The fact that the terms of service states things differently than the common usage of the word re-enforces that the usage is shady.

Again, the point is optics and that they might lose business due to poor optics, and not that they have broken a contract or are doing something illegal.

[Lycieus]

I was stating that I don't care about the glamours to show that you do not need to care about the products available in the cash shop to be annoyed with the cash shop. It's not a pre-requisite.

It's not necessarily a pre-requisite. I have always been vocal about my opposition to the cash shop and my position has been consistent. I don't care what's in it, I'm opposed to them diverting resources into content that only people willing to pay them extra cash get when it should be given to everyone since everyone financed the creation of that content in the first place.

That being said, for the most part, if people don't want a particular item they add to the cash shop, they don't care about this. This is just my experience from talking to people about this issue on this forum.