White Raven earring given out at The Rising event 2018

[Miste]

Yes, but as I said, that makes it clear that it's about the game telling them how special they are, which is an unworthy consideration. It's time for them to grow up and find a more stable sense of self-worth.

So...from a neutral observer....

This is kind of a hypocritical argument?

You're telling them to "grow up" and not put any worth into digital video game items, but people could also "grow up" and not care if the same digital video game item is simply named differently from the original item?

Both sides are caring about a digital item, just in different ways. If people need to "grow up" and not put any worth into video game items then why does it matter if the item is named replica or not?

[Nixxe]

So...from a neutral observer....

This is kind of a hypocritical argument?

You're telling them to "grow up" and not put any worth into digital video game items, but people could also "grow up" and not care if the same digital video game item is simply named differently from the original item?

Both sides are caring about a digital item, just in different ways. If people need to "grow up" and not put any worth into video game items then why does it matter if the item is named replica or not?

You're making a rather unfounded assumption. I don't care about the item at all. I don't care if I get it in any fashion or not. I do, however, care about the attitude that is reflected in being upset by this development, as it's one that I think harms game development when developers allow it to influence them. Perhaps some people care about the item, but most of the posts I see arguing against the OP likewise seem to be more concerned with the attitude than the item per se.

For what it's worth, issues in life are rarely perfectly mirrored dichotomies. If you reflexively seek to understand an issue as a conflict between two sides that are equal, but opposite, you will generally fail to understand much of anything.

[Miste]

You're making a rather unfounded assumption. I don't care about the item at all. I don't care if I get it in any fashion or not. I do, however, care about the attitude that is reflected in being upset by this development, as it's one that I think harms game development when developers allow it to influence them.

I never claimed you care about the item or that you care if you get it, so I am not sure where you got that from? So, like, you don't have to defend that to me?

I was pointing out that what you posted is hypocritical....which you didn't bother to address. In fact nothing you've said here has anything to do with what I said?

Why do you care about the attitude? How does it harm game development?

[Nixxe]

I never claimed you care about the item or that you care if you get it, so I am not sure where you got that from? So, like, you don't have to defend that to me?

I was pointing out that what you posted is hypocritical....which you didn't bother to address. In fact nothing you've said here has anything to do with what I said?

Why do you care about the attitude? How does it harm game development?

Your accusation of hypocrisy rests on the assumption that I care about the item while telling people they're juvenile if they care about the item, so naturally if I don't care about the item, your accusation is shown to be unfounded. I'm surprised that actually needed explaining. If you need further explanations of such trivial reasoning, I will not bother responding again.

The attitude harms game development because it constrains the potential future directions of the game under threat of a bunch of overly sensitive players getting their feelings hurt via retroactive "depreciation" of their experiences, rather than leaving the developers free to focus solely on producing content that will be enjoyable at the time it is current, which is the product they're selling and how it creates value to consumers.

[Dualgunner]

Your accusation of hypocrisy rests on the assumption that I care about the item while telling people they're juvenile if they care about the item, so naturally if I don't care about the item, your accusation is shown to be unfounded. I'm surprised that actually needed explaining. If you need further explanations of such trivial reasoning, I will not bother responding again.

She said the argument was hypocritical, first off. And no, it isn't founded on you caring about the item while telling people they're juvenile; it is founded on the response to OP suggesting they be called "Replicas" instead of just handing out the original items.

The attitude harms game development because it constrains the potential future directions of the game under threat of a bunch of overly sensitive players getting their feelings hurt via retroactive "depreciation" of their experiences, rather than leaving the developers free to focus solely on producing content that will be enjoyable at the time it is current, which is the product they're selling and how it creates value to consumers.

TIL: Adding the word "replica" to earrings harms the game and its development overall.

[Noriyu]

As a non-legacy player I had always had an interest in what the 1.x experience was like and have been slowly absorbing the available resources that document that era of this game. I had very surface-level knowledge about these earrings and hoped that this event would be an opportunity for legacy players to be reminded of the particular encounters (hopefully good memories) and possibly initiate some discussion surrounding it--perhaps even initiating some interest to non-legacy players to what these earrings were about. I would like to think this was a partial reason for why these earrings were selected, after all it is "The Rising." I expected some controversy as well, but not such hostility.

I am still quite the novice in the game: I play mostly two jobs; I do not PvP, raid; and I have not cleared all of the extreme trials, so feel free to paste over my thoughts. In my reading and interpretation of the argument of staff's comments stating such items to be "unobtainable" those many years ago, I believe, in context, was to mean that since such items were associated with legacy encounters and such encounters no longer being available in ARR or able to be incorporated at that time and foreseeable future, then these items would no longer be obtainable post 1.x. One (I think) can reasonably extrapolate exclusivity to these items for those who first obtained them. I suppose whether this is then expected to apply for all time can be debatable. Then there is the opposing argument citing the Terms of Service whereby Square-Enix can essentially do what they wish with this game. There is also some debate concerning encounter difficulty equivalences.

Parading such arguments and then mic-dropping in my view is petty, and so are assigning time or dollar-value contribution comparisons. I believe such use of these and other technicalities do not address the actual issue of value and devaluation that people have: actual or realized; intrinsic or not. These issues are more varied and complex that do not have a silver-bullet solution that will satisfy every individual. I am not choosing a side, and do not know what the "correct" action is.

In the end the event is going to (probably) happen and each individual must decide to take it however they will. There are persons who are legacy/non-legacy, have/do-not-have, that advocate and oppose the earring being now available. Making this such a vitriolic wedge-issue and spouting some conspiratorial notion of abandonment of some base or appeasement of another I believe just saps both the FFXIV team, the players and community. None of what I addressed progresses the issue at hand, I admit, but do we have to be so in love with such hostility toward each other?

(I mean come on, Mr. Soken kicked a box for percussion--like holy cow how awesome was that? Remember that? Remember when we all got a kick out of that, too?)

[Magic-Mal]

As a non-legacy player I had always had an interest in what the 1.x experience was like and have been slowly absorbing the available resources that document that era of this game. I had very surface-level knowledge about these earrings and hoped that this event would be an opportunity for legacy players to be reminded of the particular encounters (hopefully good memories) and possibly initiate some discussion surrounding it--perhaps even initiating some interest to non-legacy players to what these earrings were about. I would like to think this was a partial reason for why these earrings were selected, after all it is "The Rising." I expected some controversy as well, but not such hostility.

I am still quite the novice in the game: I play mostly two jobs; I do not PvP, raid; and I have not cleared all of the extreme trials, so feel free to paste over my thoughts. In my reading and interpretation of the argument of staff's comments stating such items to be "unobtainable" those many years ago, I believe, in context, was to mean that since such items were associated with legacy encounters and such encounters no longer being available in ARR or able to be incorporated at that time and foreseeable future, then these items would no longer be obtainable post 1.x. One (I think) can reasonably extrapolate exclusivity to these items for those who first obtained them. I suppose whether this is then expected to apply for all time can be debatable. Then there is the opposing argument citing the Terms of Service whereby Square-Enix can essentially do what they wish with this game. There is also some debate concerning encounter difficulty equivalences.

Parading such arguments and then mic-dropping in my view is petty, and so are assigning time or dollar-value contribution comparisons. I believe such use of these and other technicalities do not address the actual issue of value and devaluation that people have: actual or realized; intrinsic or not. These issues are more varied and complex that do not have a silver-bullet solution that will satisfy every individual. I am not choosing a side, and do not know what the "correct" action is.

In the end the event is going to (probably) happen and each individual must decide to take it however they will. There are persons who are legacy/non-legacy, have/do-not-have, that advocate and oppose the earring being now available. Making this such a vitriolic wedge-issue and spouting some conspiratorial notion of abandonment of some base or appeasement of another I believe just saps both the FFXIV team, the players and community. None of what I addressed progresses the issue at hand, I admit, but do we have to be so in love with such hostility toward each other?

Answer: "It's mine, not yours"

And unfortunately, that's all there is to it. At the very core. Page 70, page 100, page 150. It can't be argued. As I said earlier in the thread here, just wait it out. Use the earrings or don't. It won't matter, unless you make it matter.

[Miste]

Your accusation of hypocrisy rests on the assumption that I care about the item while telling people they're juvenile if they care about the item, so naturally if I don't care about the item, your accusation is shown to be unfounded. I'm surprised that actually needed explaining. If you need further explanations of such trivial reasoning, I will not bother responding again.

Do you need to read my reply again? Because you seem to be missing my point entirely.

This is kind of a hypocritical argument?

You're telling them to "grow up" and not put any worth into digital video game items, but people* could also "grow up" and not care if the same digital video game item is simply named differently from the original item?

Both sides** are caring about a digital item, just in different ways. If people need to "grow up" and not put any worth into video game items then why does it matter if the item is named replica or not?

Let's go over my reply again so you can understand.

* I said "people", not "you", there is a difference between using the general term "people" and using "you".

** I said "both sides", not you, there is a difference between the general term "both sides" and using "you".

The hypocrisy of the statement you made has nothing to do with if you personally care about the item or not. You still made the statement regardless.

You seem to be under the impression that I accused YOU of being hypocritical, but if you actually read my replies no where do I accuse you of such. I said the statement is hypocritical or the argument is hypocritical. Reading thoroughly will help you follow the discussion properly.

I am surprised this actually needs to be explained? If you need further explanations of such trivial reasoning, I will not bother responding again.

I don't know why you feel the need to do these mental gymnastics instead of just admitting you messed up. /shrug

The attitude harms game development because it constrains the potential future directions of the game under threat of a bunch of overly sensitive players getting their feelings hurt via retroactive "depreciation" of their experiences, rather than leaving the developers free to focus solely on producing content that will be enjoyable at the time it is current, which is the product they're selling and how it creates value to consumers.

So putting the words "replica" into the item name somehow harms game development?