SE pls end X\FC# per account & remove GrndFathered multiple houses owned by 1 person

[Ruf]

Square enix,please abolish allowing multiple Free Companys for one account & therefore,empty several houses owned by the same person.

Please reconsider the grandfathering for multiple houses holders as many players are still homeless & while some servers "might" have plots still opened,I am 110% positive that a bunch of servers are actually stuck with clogged plots because of this.

It was ok to a specific point,but now players are bragging about it saying that they got harrassed as an argument if not as an excuse for owning way too many in my & many others opinion.

The current housing situation is just as unfair as the last time new wards got released & homeless players got blocked from purchasing because of the moratorium that was set.

[AriesMouse]

OR, better option: SE just fixes the housing issue by not making it a limited resource, since that is the real problem here. So long as people keep turning on each other and pointing fingers, and fighting over these petty things, SE will never do anything to fix the real problem, which is housing being a finite resource.

It would be a huge PR disaster for them to remove houses from people that earned them by breaking no rules(at the time). Even then, if they did go through with that, it would solve nothing. What minor amount of houses it would open up would be taken within a day, and then people would be right back to square one of there simply not being enough homes to go around on some servers, and people would find a new thing to be upset about, new people to attack/demonize. The cycle won't stop until we turn our sights on SE, rather than each other.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

OR, better option: SE just fixes the housing issue by not making it a limited resource, since that is the real problem here. So long as people keep turning on each other and pointing fingers, and fighting over these petty things, SE will never do anything to fix the real problem, which is housing being a finite resource.

It would be a huge PR disaster for them to remove houses from people that earned them by breaking no rules(at the time). Even then, if they did go through with that, it would solve nothing. What minor amount of houses it would open up would be taken within a day, and then people would be right back to square one of there simply not being enough homes to go around on some servers, and people would find a new thing to be upset about, new people to attack/demonize. The cycle won't stop until we turn our sights on SE, rather than each other.

It really wouldn't. While poorly implemented, they have outright stated numerous times they never intended for players to have multiple houses. Furthermore, you'd piss off less than a 100 people while making many more happy. Someone with twelve houses may throw a fit and quit, but that opens up twelve houses to other players. It wouldn't hurt their business in the slightest.

[QueenSophie]

Multiple house owners have put way too much time into the game, leveling characters, making gil, all with paid subscriptions, no different than any other player, if they retroactively did this, it would in fact be a PR nightmare, there are way more multiple house owners out there than people realize, and they would have to retroactively remove weapons, gear, levels, achievements, and so on just to make it fair acorss the board. Any rules they do in fact change in the future, won't involve any retoractive removal, just change things going forward, as one could point to 4.3. They will never take anything away in the game that was earned fairly within the rules......sorry....but this thread is a big fat dream.
OP says people are using harrassment and abuse as an "excuse" for owning multiple plots, how does that even make sense? They dont have a clue.
#multiplehouseownersunite

[Themarvin]

Multiple house owners have put way too much time into the game, leveling characters, making gil, all with paid subscriptions, no different than any other player, if they retroactively did this, it would in fact be a PR nightmare, there are way more multiple house owners out there than people realize, and they would have to retroactively remove weapons, gear, levels, achievements, and so on just to make it fair acorss the board. Any rules they do in fact change in the future, won't involve any retoractive removal, just change things going forward, as one could point to 4.3. They will never take anything away in the game that was earned fairly within the rules......sorry....but this thread is a big fat dream.
OP says people are using harrassment and abuse as an "excuse" for owning multiple plots, how does that even make sense? They dont have a clue.
#multiplehouseownersunite

ALmost got all classes on same character to max, what makes that different from having 8 alts doign the same just with 1-2 classes? it does not take years to level up up 8 alts, could probably be ready in a day per 1 alt, and if paying for it could have lvl60 same day all or something, please stop referering to stuff that is not a limited resource as well, that is just a request... 10 houses is like 15million gil if all small houses, 150millions if all medium and 500millions if all large... I don't get what make the people so special about it as it is?

[worldofneil]

they have outright stated numerous times they never intended for players to have multiple houses

Please can you demonstrate where you got this information from?

Before 4.2 the housing information has always said that the requirements were per character, not per account.

Or are you mixing this up with their dislike of people reselling housing?

[AriesMouse]

It really wouldn't. While poorly implemented, they have outright stated numerous times they never intended for players to have multiple houses. Furthermore, you'd piss off less than a 100 people while making many more happy. Someone with twelve houses may throw a fit and quit, but that opens up twelve houses to other players. It wouldn't hurt their business in the slightest.

The problem is, it opens the door for them to do this with other things. It sets a precedent for them to be able to do this kind of thing again, to anything. People did not break the rules, so they should not be punished. That is why they were grandfathered in. To go back on that now does not paint SE in a good light, and it will 100% effect more than just the multi-home owners. I have 1 house on my account (I don't own my fc, so I do not count that one), and I fully think that it would be a bad move for them to remove houses from people that obtained them before the new system. After the new system was put in? By all means, do what you want there.

I stand by what I said. People need to stop looking at each other as the problem, and start looking at SE and demanding that housing stop being a pointlessly finite resource.

[Dualgunner]

The problem is, it opens the door for them to do this with other things. It sets a precedent for them to be able to do this kind of thing again, to anything. People did not break the rules, so they should not be punished. That is why they were grandfathered in. To go back on that now does not paint SE in a good light, and it will 100% effect more than just the multi-home owners. I have 1 house on my account (I don't own my fc, so I do not count that one), and I fully think that it would be a bad move for them to remove houses from people that obtained them before the new system. After the new system was put in? By all means, do what you want there.

QFT. Grandfathering is important because it means nobody will be punished for breaking rules that didn't exist when they committed actions that would be considered in violation of those rules. It's about more than housing, it's about player trust.

[KuuroYuuki]

easiest way : review the ToS so ppl who had more than 2 houses(fc and personal) in a server per account is violating ToS.

*ps : sorry for bad english

[AriesMouse]

easiest way : review the ToS so ppl who had more than 2 houses(fc and personal) in a server per account is violating ToS.

*ps : sorry for bad english

That would be a Public Relations nightmare, and genuinely bad for business. It would damage the trust the consumers have for the company.