Just say no

[Vstarstruck]

His point is that shady practices have already happened. Them prioritizing releasing an app over fixing problems that currently exist in game is shady and even if you like the app and don't think it's pay to win, you have to see how this looks.

Additionally, we've always been told that the changes we want are too hard on the server. Yet here we are able to pay for these changes that were supposedly too hard on the server. This is shady and I feel like I'm being lied to in order for them to take more money from my wallet.

Yes, its mocking what has happened while what might happen in the future. Hyperbole sure but at the same time it is more of serving a warning to be more mindful in the future and companies like this are capable of "tin foil hat" theories such as:

https://youtu.be/eZJ7D9BzBu0

I submit this in the spirit of broadening perception, not defense of what COULD be lying for profit.
What they've said is they cannot expand our inventory because of server limitations. This means they cannot give the entire playerbase more inventory because the servers or bandwidth cannot handle it. All accounts. What they're offering is : to those willing to pay a fee they'll unlock further inventory slots. This isn't ideal, but if it's only a few people doing it (and with most inventory expansion for money it's always only been a few) I'm sure the servers can handle it, if it becomes more than they can handle then they have the money to upgrade since it would be a large influx of income.

All of that is speculation, as is the perception that they lied about limitations to sell inventory space. Two simple ways to look at what's probably a very complex issue.

Problem with this theory is right in the video I linked. This is a VERY bad time to be pulling something like this, as people are on edge on other situations. Plus you cant tell me a 125 EUR statue gating an emote has anything to do with server stress. Blocking a basic UI feature behind a paywall is no different then this to me :
https://youtu.be/bUX4fGCd_dk

At the end of the day, I will forever be in disagreement in charging us more money because of rushing 2.0 out. Ill gladly start a movement for everyone donate 100 EUR to SE to fund revamping core coding of this game and let us play a stable game for once my GOD! (stable as in criticism of the slow response the servers have to like everything in this game, moogle mail, gm helpdesk letters, people's movements updating on your side properly, input lag, slow retainer menus, why do i need to wait for them to walk to the bell each time? so PTW app can be paid to get around it? etc)

AH! FOUND IT! lets streamline moogle mail though the app for another 5 dollars a month!

[RedHerb]

How about they take the sub we're already giving them and fix the servers with that?

I submit this in the spirit of broadening perception, not defense of what COULD be lying for profit.
What they've said is they cannot expand our inventory because of server limitations. This means they cannot give the entire playerbase more inventory because the servers or bandwidth cannot handle it. All accounts. What they're offering is : to those willing to pay a fee they'll unlock further inventory slots. This isn't ideal, but if it's only a few people doing it (and with most inventory expansion for money it's always only been a few) I'm sure the servers can handle it, if it becomes more than they can handle then they have the money to upgrade since it would be a large influx of income.

All of that is speculation, as is the perception that they lied about limitations to sell inventory space. Two simple ways to look at what's probably a very complex issue.

Lets take your logic to an extreme degree: (please note, I understand your point 100%, just bear with me.)

Let's say 100% of the playerbase pays for the premium subscription. Doesn't that immediately mean that the infrastructure to provide these inventory slots already exist? Would that not prove that they outright lied to their customers about what was possible? There is currently no limit on how many players can pay for the premium, this means they can provide for no limit of players obtaining these inventory slots. Do you suspect Square Enix would simply allow their game to crash because too many players purchased from them? Just something to think about while people debate this back and forth.

[Krotoan]

How about they take the sub we're already giving them and fix the servers with that?

Lets take your logic to an extreme degree: (please note, I understand your point 100%, just bear with me.)
Let's say 100% of the playerbase pays for the premium subscription. Doesn't that immediately mean that the infrastructure to provide these inventory slots already exist? Would that not prove that they outright lied to their customers about what was possible? There is currently no limit on how many players can pay for the premium, this means they can provide for no limit of players obtaining these inventory slots. Do you suspect Square Enix would simply allow their game to crash because too many players purchased from them? Just something to think about while people debate this back and forth.

Network planning is an interesting back and forth of planning for the worst, setting up for projected and scaling back for falling short. I state this as someone who plans, maintains and decommissions networking equipment and structures. While in your situation it would most assuredly show that they had the network infrastructure to support the upgrade from the getgo, it still wouldn't necessarily mean they were being deceitful about their assessment. It may be right at the limit, it may put lifetime reducing stress on the system they did not plan for or be one of many other reasons NOT to add load to the network.

I understand what you're saying but I don't feel it can be so very cut and dry as "well you could've so you should've".

[Metalwrath]

Plus it introduces a way to put yet more stuff locked behind a paywall, or even the appwall of kupo nuts.

It doesnt introduce anything that doesnt exist already.The people who pay to win with gil already have that gil kept to one side.They've done it from hording houses and selling them off for profit or buy buying low and selling high on market or selling clears to noobs to pay for raid gear..Literally the only thing that will change is there will be more undercutting so it will devalue the worth of items.
Is that a bad thing? No.
The only pay2win model that exists currently or in the future is the story skip and level skip.I think the story skip is fine but the level skip well that shouldnt have been allowed.If people were arguing over the level skip id be behind you.But im not gonna support the market board fear mongering.
Also stating it gives them a way to put a pay wall in.They can do that at any time anyway and it doesnt require an app.

[Alleo]

We ARE getting less new things, but we are not getting less in quantity.

That is imo completely subjective. I dont find stuff like Eureka high quality content especially with all the re-used monsters and weapon.

Small changes to the UI should also be something that we get on top of that and not in beta versions like the glamour commode.

They also only got us that housing update because people raged that much that it got them negative press.

In the end they sold more expansions, they have an increase in sub at least at the start, they sell more stuff in the cash shop and more..So I wont accept less content since they got more money from us.

[Remedi]

That is imo completely subjective. I dont find stuff like Eureka high quality content especially with all the re-used monsters and weapon.

Small changes to the UI should also be something that we get on top of that and not in beta versions like the glamour commode.

They also only got us that housing update because people raged that much that it got them negative press.

In the end they sold more expansions, they have an increase in sub at least at the start, they sell more stuff in the cash shop and more..So I wont accept less content since they got more money from us.

Quality yes is subjective but quantity isn't.
When talking about quantity you need to be objective and not use just what you like.

edit: When talking about something that can be objectively proven it's better to not have personal feelings clouding the judgemnt, if I were to say that we got less content because I don't consider PVP additions as content since they don't strike my fancy, pvpers might come to be and correctly say that I'm talking nonsense.
MMOs target massive audience, which means that you are more than likely to not enjoy a part of them, which is why ultimate was in the end a good addition for the game especially for how game changing it actually was.

[Alleo]

Quality yes is subjective but quantity isn't.
When talking about quantity you need to be objective and not use just what you like.

Sorry about the quality and quantity stuff. x_x Misread it and thought that you meant that we got less but those in more quality.

My problem is that I dont find it good that we lose more dungeons (we already lost one in HW) to get new content. For me with all the things that they can use to earn money we should have had more content on top of all the basics content still being the same amount. For example we got PotD and Diadem in HW and still had more dungeon than SB. We also got PVP maps in HW without losing dungeons for that too. Its just sad that we have to give up basic content if we want different new stuff.

[Remedi]

Tbf the dungeons we lost were mostly reused assets so they didn't get much more time to work on new features (though I suspect that if they kept doing 2 hard mode/patch they would've have to cut them because they would be out of dungeons out of which make hard modes by now)

I think that the 3.5 months /patch is a bottleneck tbh in regards to implementations of new features, which in turn is why some are implemented in an not so ready state. Personally I feel that there are 2 ways they should consider
1) is keeping the patch structure to the formula BUT frontloading all new features during the expansion releae
Or
2) stagger patch releases more to have time to finish new features

edit: BTW sometimes it's good to go an extra mile when analyzing things.
To give you an example, everyone hates Jar Jar Binks, but without the tech created for him we wouldn't have the motion capture of today
While ppl opinion of eureka might wary, the technology used in it for cross server functionality will be useful in the long game for the game