Alleo's Signature

[Rymm]

I am also quite sure that people did not say that housing itself was created to keep people subbed

the point of houses is to have more things to keep you subbed

It's the crux of alimdia's argument. And total BS, which is the whole reason I got drawn into a discussion with her in the first place.

About PVP:

(┛ಠ_ಠ)┛彡┻━┻

Please, go back and reread the end of my last post. I know it is a nuanced concept, but I really don't know how to explain my point any plainer. I am not now nor was I ever equating housing to pvp rewards. I merely brought that and other examples up as things you are not "paying real money for" and thus not automatically entitled to just by paying a sub. I mentioned it to counter a specific claim made by alimdia and was not applying it to the housing issue at large.

Also, for the record, I know exactly what was promised about housing and the consequences of Yoshida breaking that promise. I bought my first house back before the timer existed. I lost it when they implemented the auto-demos while I was on a break from the game due to getting married and moving to a different hemisphere. In spite of that, I still recognize the necessity of the demo timer and am strongly in favor of it. You suggest half a year would be a reasonable amount of time to demo a house, but how is that any less arbitrary than the time we have now? What makes it objectively better, other than being your opinion? Everyone has their own opinions about how long would be a good length, SE can't satisfy everyone. It's their call to make, and they settled on 45 days.

[MomomiMomi]

You suggest half a year would be a reasonable amount of time to demo a house, but how is that any less arbitrary than the time we have now? What makes it objectively better, other than being your opinion? Everyone has their own opinions about how long would be a good length, SE can't satisfy everyone. It's their call to make, and they settled on 45 days.

It's longer, therefore it's objectively better.

Matching the timer to patch cycles is also objectively not arbitrary. 45 is completely arbitrary. It doesn't match up with anything. 30, 60, 90, 180 days would match up with something (patch cycle), therefore isn't arbitrary.

[Rymm]

It's longer, therefore it's objectively better.

In your opinion. Opinions aren't facts, so please don't try to present them as such. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but they are the very antithesis of objective. Go to the housing forums and you'll find some posters who want it dropped to a flat 1 month. How does your opinion carry more weight than theirs?

And as I said before, content patches have no bearing on the housing argument. There are plenty of things in game to keep you busy between patch drops. Just because you opt not to do them doesn't mean they cease to exist.

[MomomiMomi]

In your opinion. Opinions aren't facts, so please don't try to present them as such. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but they are the very antithesis of objective. Go to the housing forums and you'll find some posters who want it dropped to a flat 1 month. How does your opinion carry more weight than theirs?

And as I said before, content patches have no bearing on the housing argument. There are plenty of things in game to keep you busy between patch drops. Just because you opt not to do them doesn't mean they cease to exist.

Content patches do have to do with the word arbitrary, though. Arbitrary means chosen at random or by whim. Choosing an amount of time based on patch cycle is not arbitrary.

And a longer amount of time keeping a house for someone who has it, that still accomplishes the goal of removing houses from those who are not using them anymore, is objectively better. It accomplishes both things and is more lenient for those who have already paid their dues.

[Rymm]

And a longer amount of time keeping a house for someone who has it, that still accomplishes the goal of removing houses from those who are not using them anymore, is objectively better. It accomplishes both things and is more lenient for those who have already paid their dues.

So why not a year, then? That's even more lenient for those who have already paid their dues. Longer is better after all. Hey! Why not two years?? It'll still open up the houses... eventually.

You are right about patch cycles not being arbitrary, I'll concede that one. But it still doesn't mean they should have any influence over the housing timer.

[MomomiMomi]

So why not a year, then? That's even more lenient for those who have already paid their dues. Longer is better after all. Hey! Why not two years?? It'll still open up the houses... eventually.

You are right about patch cycles not being arbitrary, I'll concede that one. But it still doesn't mean they should have any influence over the housing timer.

Because some people are willing to compromise, something which I'm not sure you understand how to do.

I would prefer no timer at all in all honesty. It's SE who should bear the burden of this housing system, not the players.

They should simply provide more houses when there aren't enough instead of jumping straight to taking them away from those who already have them. Alas, they get to have their cake and eat it, too. And then they even get defended for it by the players. It's pretty amazing.

[Lubu_Mykono]

Because some people are willing to compromise, something which I'm not sure you understand how to do.

I would prefer no timer at all in all honesty. It's SE who should bear the burden of this housing system, not the players.

They should simply provide more houses when there aren't enough instead of jumping straight to taking them away from those who already have them. Alas, they get to have their cake and eat it, too. And then they even get defended for it by the players. It's pretty amazing.

The problem is you are looking at it as it if's a specific problem rather than a general issue in the wider community. There are numerous things to consider

1. The overall population playerbase. Let's get real, this is only going to drop until the next expansion, therefore the longer you hang around the better chance you have of getting a house
2. The demand per server - this is the biggest. I'm on two moderate servers and there is plenty of small houses available. If you do not have the option of buying a house then you might want to transfer.
3. House sizing - You cannot win here. If you made more servers with large or medium people would complain either way, either they didn't get it on demand or that their small should be maede bigger.
4. The long-term. The only real impact on Square Enix for housing is server costs and how housing impacts the value of retaining subscriptions. A few afternoons with a good analyst would work this out (and probably has). There is no point putting up more housing if there is already a decent number of plots available from a commercial perspective.

Tl;dr Housing is a commodity. As a corporation SE probably will not change their policies on housing to suit the small few opinionated players on a forum page. If you really want a mansion you might have to be willing to
1. Change server
2. Merge or allocate resources to an FC
3. Grind out gil for months/a long time
4. Hawk out the property board at every opportunity.

I don't like it but it's more likely to get the house you want doing that than by complaining to corporate who are more interested in profit margins than housing in one of their games.

[Rymm]

Because some people are willing to compromise, something which I'm not sure you understand how to do.

I wouldn't be quick to make assumptions about people because, honestly, I really wouldn't care much if SE chose to extend the demo timer. Or shorten it for that matter. As long as it accomplishes it's purpose of opening up unused homes for active players, then I consider it working as intended.

If you look back at my posts, I never once argued that it shouldn't be adjusted either way. I at one point asked someone to clarify their reasoning for claiming their way was better, but that was the closest I ever got to even hinting toward disagreeing. The only two personal opinions that I expressed were A) believing that the timer is necessary in the current housing system and B) understanding SE's reasoning for tying the timer to entering the house and not the sub.

What I do take issue with is flawed arguments. Like people claiming one length of time is better than another (which there is nothing wrong with, everyone has their own opinions) but basing their stance solely on their personal feelings and then presenting it as an objective fact (which is the sort of thing that torques me off.) The whole reason I even got drawn into this thread wasn't about the demo timer itself, but because someone made an erroneous, unrelated claim about what they pay for and I pointed it out what it is that SE is actually charging for. Things sort of snowballed after that, largely because of people who missed the point of my argument and just saw me as someone who disagreed with them and therefore must be refuted.

And, of course, the system would be better with instanced housing or dynamic wards or whatever else they could come up with that would allow each and every player to own a home and never have to worry about losing it. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who would actually argue otherwise. I personally really liked the idea that I once saw suggested where the housing wards still exist but when you walk up to the placard you can select which version of the instanced house you want to visit. I think that would be awesome and the best of both worlds (instance and neighborhood housing.)

Sadly, such a thing does not and may never exist. Until the game does change to support housing for each and every player, I feel the demo timer is the lesser of two evils.

[Alleo]

It's the crux of alimdia's argument. And total BS, which is the whole reason I got drawn into a discussion with her in the first place.

Yes you can use a quote out of the context and state that she sees it that way but it does not change the fact that housing started without the timer thus housing on itself was never something to keep us sub until the timer came. And thats exactly what Alimdia meant. That now this timer forces people to sub thus houses as those are behind the timer, keep us subbed. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know that you dont see PVP and housing the same but as you use it as an example, I do too, especially since PVP is the only other ingame part where you have limited items. So my question was how it would be fine if they suddenly created a new rule for PVP too?

In the end if the timer stays than it either should just be sub only and/or longer. So you would still have it to demolish really old not used houses but also dont force the people that are normally using their houses but just want to take one break, to continue to sub and play it nearly all the time. Even increasing the timer to 90 days would be better because that would mean that people could take a break between patches if its too boring. (Its not like every single house owner would always take a break)

[Rymm]

Yes you can use a quote out of the context

The only one taking the quote out of context is you. Here, I'll quote the entire sentence so that there can be no doubt:

If the point of houses is to have more things to keep you subbed then you shouldn't lose your house if you're subbed.

Let me break it down for you since you don't seem to get it. She disagrees with the fact you need to enter the house every 44 days to keep it. She believes that you shouldn't lose your house as long as your sub is active. She backs this up with the argument that the purpose of housing is to keep you subbed and so as long as it accomplishes that then entering it shouldn't be necessary. I based my posts and my argument on exactly what she wrote and she put no qualifiers in her posts about "now the timer forces us to sub" or anything else that you decided to attribute to her. It's there in plain English.

If you are so willfully blind that you refuse to acknowledge it and would rather pretend it doesn't exist, then there's really no point in pursuing a conversation with you.

housing started without the timer thus housing on itself was never something to keep us sub

I really don't know why you are arguing with me since this is exactly what I was saying.

And as for PvP, your example is still flawed. Houses aren't taken away from inactive players to punish them. They are are taken away to give other people the opportunity to access the features which would be otherwise unobtainable to them. Even if in your example they gave the Feast mounts to other PvPers who were still active, it gives them nothing that a regular mount doesn't except for a fancy skin. The only way to access crossbreed gardening or workshops is through housing. Now, I know the new owners might not access those specific features either, but at least they have the opportunity with the house being open.