This is just appalling

[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.

[Greedalox]

Just going to clarify that when I state 'expectations' I mean societal expectations based off normal usage. Subscriptions generally are inclusive.

Nowadays I can think of way more examples of microtransactions under a subscription based model than not. Not putting weight to either side of the argument, but in recent years I feel the norm is microtransactions.

[Kaurie]

Nowadays I can think of way more examples of microtransactions under a subscription based model than not. Not putting weight to either side of the argument, but in recent years I feel the norm is microtransactions.

UGH, I already bowed out of this conversation! :P

Do you have any good examples? I can only really think of WoW, PlayStation Plus, Netflix, Hulu, Funimation, Crunchyroll, Microsoft Office, Magazine subscriptions. Of those, only WoW offers microtransactions.

[HPDelron]

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.

This is like calling someone shady because they put out a sign that says: "One Bunch of 6 Apples: $8.99" buying said apples, and then complaining you were mislead because "Everyone knows a bunch is at least 8 apples - that's the convention! Look at all the other apples they have! I should have those!!!".

If we're at the point where doing the text equivalent of yelling at the top of their lungs saying "We're only offering access to the servers" doesn't count as honestly informing the consumer, what exactly can they do to not be shady? Send over some guy to grab every new sub by the shoulders and shake them saying "Just so you know we'll also be putting some items up for sale in a cash shop! Just want to make sure you know!".

This isn't some fine print on page 7 written in dense legalese or anything. Should there be 9 pop-ups or something that say "Beware! Beyond here lies $30 kimonos"?

[Kaurie]

This is like calling someone shady because they put out a sign that says: "One Bunch of 6 Apples: $8.99" buying said apples, and then complaining you were mislead because "Everyone knows a bunch is at least 8 apples - that's the convention! Look at all the other apples they have! I should have those!!!".

It's like saying "One Bunch of Apples: $8.99" with fine print at One Bunch = 6 apples. Where the standard is one bunch = 8 apples. Yes.

Isn't this just like Amazon Prime Video where you pay 11$ a month to stream unlimited content, but certain/many films are not included and you have to pay extra money for them (which if bought is about equal or even more than a whole month of "base-sub" and renting [a digital good] still about half?)?

Thanks for the example =) I am unfamiliar with Amazon Prime Video, as I don't think that service has made it to Canada.