And the last bastion of non-Mog Station items gets put on Mog Station

[Talraen]

And here I thought buying the game, the expansions and paying a sub was enough to access all the games content.

What, exactly, are they allowed to charge for, in your view? If they changed the game to a free-to-play model, would you be OK with charging for this kind of thing? Or is there some other criteria which decides what they can and can't charge for?

[ThunderGodThor]

What, exactly, are they allowed to charge for, in your view? If they changed the game to a free-to-play model, would you be OK with charging for this kind of thing? Or is there some other criteria which decides what they can and can't charge for?

They can charge for whatever they want. Is what I said controversial to you? Is the base game, expansions and a monthly sub fee not enough money to be able to enjoy the full game?

And for the record, yes- A cash shop would be a better fit in a free-to-play game. Though I think thats stating the obvious.

[Talraen]

They can charge for whatever they want. Is what I said controversial to you? Is the base game, expansions and a monthly sub fee not enough money to be able to enjoy the full game?

And for the record, yes- A cash shop would be a better fit in a free-to-play game. Though I think thats stating the obvious.

Square Enix thinks (correctly) that they can make more money by selling optional items. To not do so would be illogical from their perspective. Given that, if we consumers convince them that selling optional items is not allowed because they're charging a subscription fee, the only way they'd be able to increase their profits would be to go free-to-play. And that might benefit you or me, but it's going to be at the cost of whales, and I'm not comfortable having a small minority of people subsidizing my game. I'm more than happy to contribute extra money to a game I love, because I can afford it. But if they go free-to-play, I'm cancelling my subscription immediately. So no, I don't think it's obvious that a cash shop is not a good fit for a subscription-based game, nor do I see any reason all content should necessarily be free because you're paying a subscription fee. I may want everything to be free (and who doesn't?) but I see no moral, ethical, legal, or philosophical reason that must be the case.

[Alleo]

What, exactly, are they allowed to charge for, in your view? If they changed the game to a free-to-play model, would you be OK with charging for this kind of thing? Or is there some other criteria which decides what they can and can't charge for?

The same amount they charge for it outside the game for a digital download version? Which is kinda half the price then what we got for the mog station which is bad since you can hear them even less then outside.

[Talraen]

The same amount they charge for it outside the game for a digital download version? Which is kinda half the price then what we got for the mog station which is bad since you can hear them even less then outside.

If it's not worth it, don't buy it. I have no issue with people not buying things. I only take issue with making it a moral crisis for Square Enix to sell them.

[Vhailor]

They are reinvesting into the game, the fact that the team size has doubled and that they are still searching for more ppl it does shows that they are investing big into the game.
If they were just giving yoshida dimes we wouldn't be the game with one of the biggest team size in the sector

Also let us stop pretending that throwing money to something equates directly to a better product it's simply not true and has been shown countless of times alreadt. You can't buy talent a much as we'd like otherwise

Of course you can; it's how the world works. The reason why money does not always equate directly to a better product is that people spend it foolishly and assess talent improperly. It's always a prerequisite, however, particularly when you're trying to maintain success rather than create it in the first place.

The team size has doubled? Source please.

I second this.

If it's not worth it, don't buy it. I have no issue with people not buying things. I only take issue with making it a moral crisis for Square Enix to sell them.

I don't get the impression anyone's making these things out to be a 'moral' crisis. I'd also argue that consumers are absolutely within their rights, and indeed obligated, to throw companies under the bus when they demonstrate incompetence or engage in deceptive practices. SE charging half as much for a more flexible and higher-quality MP3 vs. a Mog Station purchase is absolutely, without question, a demonstration of incompetence at best, and a deceptive practice at worst. Why is it they shouldn't face criticism for it? Wouldn't you criticize a construction company that charged you twice as much relative to another customer across town, simply because you live in a different zip code?

It's important to keep in mind that the 'not worth it, don't buy it' approach doesn't effectively guide corporate behaviour in a capitalistic marketplace if goods and their prices aren't easily compared with one another. Like in the construction example I offered above, it's often quite difficult to tell what the crew typically charges for a given piece of work, and it's not even all that easy to find out what competing crews charge: you have to dig around. This makes it relatively easy for a consumer to be over-charged, whether by design or by accident. It's very much worthy of criticism.

[Talraen]

I don't get the impression anyone's making these things out to be a 'moral' crisis. I'd also argue that consumers are absolutely within their rights, and indeed obligated, to throw companies under the bus when they demonstrate incompetence or engage in deceptive practices. SE charging half as much for a more flexible and higher-quality MP3 vs. a Mog Station purchase is absolutely, without question, a demonstration of incompetence at best, and a deceptive practice at worst.

Two things. First, it's not unequivocally deceptive or incompetent. One could make the argument that the orchestrion roll is a much better value than the mp3 when the person in charge of the playlist in FC housing buys it and shares it with a few dozen FC members, something which they can't do (legally) with the mp3.

But second, it doesn't matter if this was a strictly inferior product. Who are you to decide how much Square Enix can charge for it? Why do you conclude that the orchestrion roll is overpriced, rather than the mp3 being underpriced? Are we talking in terms of maximum profit for Square Enix here? What's your criteria? It seems to me that the people who are upset about this are arguing from a standpoint that this is somehow "wrong," which is why I said they were "making it a moral crisis." I initially chimed in to counter the argument that a cash shop shouldn't exist in a game with a subscription, for instance. We're talking about entirely optional luxury items. The market can handle this. I'm glad people have pointed out that there is a cheaper alternative, and I hope people take advantage of that. But trying to induce artificial market forces on the pricing of luxury items is likely going to lead to more exploitative models (see: free-to-play games).

[Vhailor]

Two things. First, it's not unequivocally deceptive or incompetent. One could make the argument that the orchestrion roll is a much better value than the mp3 when the person in charge of the playlist in FC housing buys it and shares it with a few dozen FC members, something which they can't do (legally) with the mp3.

Fair point - and one I'll admit to overlooking.

But second, it doesn't matter if this was a strictly inferior product. Who are you to decide how much Square Enix can charge for it?

A consumer. One who is free to exert their opinion not simply with their wallet, but with their voice. Perhaps I'm someone who resents the cash store in its entirety (I do); perhaps I'm someone who wants to purchase more optional items, but can't afford them at the current price point; perhaps I'm a teenager who REALLY wanted that Orchestrion Roll, but whose parents drew a line at $3. Each of these views might oppose the current pricing for some reason or another. Some might even purchase the product despite this opposition. And all have the right to voice complaints about the price point and offering, in addition to the monetary vote they cast with their wallet.

[Talraen]

A consumer. One who is free to exert their opinion not simply with their wallet, but with their voice. Perhaps I'm someone who resents the cash store in its entirety (I do); perhaps I'm someone who wants to purchase more optional items, but can't afford them at the current price point; perhaps I'm a teenager who REALLY wanted that Orchestrion Roll, but whose parents drew a line at $3. Each of these views might oppose the current pricing for some reason or another. Some might even purchase the product despite this opposition. And all have the right to voice complaints about the price point and offering, in addition to the monetary vote they cast with their wallet.

I don't have any issue with people taking issue with the price. I only take issue with the tone and the presumption. Just because I can't afford something doesn't mean that it should be cheaper, and I never hear that kind of language outside of video games. My point wasn't that you're not allowed to criticize the price, it's that you're trying to decide what the price should be. Do you take the same issue with the pricing of Bayer vs. generic aspirin?

The thing about all the example arguments you made is that all of them are decided by the market regardless of the feedback. (Well, aside from buying it under protest, but honestly I think the purchase is more honest than the feedback there.) If enough people resent the cash store enough not to buy an item, or enough people can't afford it, Square Enix will make less money off of it. If they overcharge, they suffer for it (likewise if they undercharge). To my mind, the "correct" price is whatever maximizes their revenue, and I've seen no convincing arguments why that price for these orchestrion rolls isn't $5. I mean, I seriously doubt it is $5, but I don't have access to any more data than you do. Despite the constant protestations on the forums, the Mog Station has gotten more products at a higher price as time has gone on. To me that makes it pretty clear that people are buying.

I propose that the correct price is whatever price leads to the greatest revenue (i.e., sales * price) for Square Enix. Do you agree, and if not, by what methodology would you determine the correct price?

[Remedi]

Of course you can; it's how the world works. The reason why money does not always equate directly to a better product is that people spend it foolishly and assess talent improperly. It's always a prerequisite, however, particularly when you're trying to maintain success rather than create it in the first place.

Which is why I said that showering something in money doesn't mean it's a good product if ppl spend money poorly, yet ppl insist that the reason that something aren't good here in their opinion is because this game doesn't get enough money and it's just getting money for other SE products, which is not true.

Want a source?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...ges_over_time/

The numbers of the first appearing names after 2.0 should be interesting btw

Pester this guy if you want, he uses several infos that were shown at fanfest and has good stock on infos on the game as a collection of various interwiews and things said by the dev team and plenty of sources.

Since we are at it:

On cash shop stuff
https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...wow_and_other/