Alleo's Signature

[Alleo]

But the changes to housing were only 1 or 2 years after those promises were made. Kind of disingenuous to pretend these changes are recent.

It is funny how some are saying that its such an old quote while completely forgetting that this change did not happen recently. So yes somehow they went back to their words in a quite short amount of time.

The "point" of houses is... to access housing features. Decorating, gardening, workshops, etc.

The auto-demo timer isn't some sort of conspiracy to make people stay subbed to the game, no matter what the tinfoil hat-wearing posters would have you think. The auto-demo timer is to make sure houses aren't sitting unused indefinitely. Forcing you to actually go inside your house a bare minimum of once every month and a half is probably the least tyrannical way that SE can "nudge" you toward using it. But as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

And I'll say it again, since my point seemed to go over your head. SE does not charge for specific features (raiding, housing, pvp, etc.) they charge you access to the game servers. What you choose to do after that point is moot. You don't pay for a house, you pay to play, just like everyone else (homeless and homeowners alike.)

The problem is, that having to go into your house every 45 days does not mean that you are using it a lot. Workshops only work for FC, gardening wont be done in the break either and nobody has a list of what you need to do with your house to keep it. I for example sometimes use the garden plots but I did not buy it for that. I just like to decorate and craft my stuff but you also cant always decorate because of the limit and because you wanted a certain look. So I have used hours to decorate the FC and private house but right now its done thus I use it mostly to craft in there in peace and to have a nice little spot to visit. So with your list I should lose the house because I dont necessarily "use" the features. And I am quite sure that there are quite some people or FC that barely use their house or might not be interested in decorating it much. Maybe some just own it because they want to hold a event in this once per months.

There are so many different reasons for having a house and there are no rules how you have to use it. So some might be angry because someone bought a house and only visit it once per month to party in this. But its their right and they should not lose it because someone believes that they are not using it enough.

I do agree that those that dont play anymore should not keep their house forever but this could have simply be solved by saying that you need to sub for a certain amount of days or cant have a big break between your sub. This way SE gets money from those that want to keep their house but might not be able to play right now for reasons and anyone that truly does not plan to play anymore wont keep ghost houses. Win Win for everyone imo. (Other than those that feel like only certain people deserve a house.)

(A PVP player also dont need to access their limited mount to keep it, no matter if that person will ever use it again or not. )

[addz3]

Many good points here but just because someone doesn't use an item for a period of time doesn't mean they should lose it forever. I might not touched my geared pld for 4 months if I'm lvling other jobs, it doesn't mean I don't want it's gear.

[Bahati]

I personally don't even think they should have offered housing if there was not enough for every subscribed member to have one. I don't understand why they would gate any content or housing items behind a house if they were not prepared to supply all their players with a place to enjoy said content and housing items.

[Rymm]

So with your list I should lose the house because I dont necessarily "use" the features.

Whoa, back up. I think you misunderstood me here.

The person I was quoting directly before bringing up housing features was claiming that SE added housing (and the demo timer) solely to force people to stay subbed. I brought up the examples of features housing offers only to point out that they are why housing was added, not some crazy conspiracy by a mustache-twirling, money-grubbing SE dev. The list of examples I gave have no bearing on my argument about the demo timer itself and was merely to counter that specific claim brought up by that specific poster.

I know this discussion comes up a lot (A. Lot.) and that one of the ideas often kicked around is if SE should have other requirements in place for players to keep their houses; minimum number of furnishings, move things around inside every so often, etc. Let me just be clear that I am not one of the people in favor of these type of suggestions.

SE obviously wants housing to go to people who are going to use it in some way, shape or form. They could, theoretically, add any number of convoluted, authoritarian requirements to make sure that you are actually "using" the house. Instead they went with a softer touch (which I agree with) and just require you to visit it a bare minimum of once every 6ish weeks. They are leading the players to water, but leaving it up to the individual whether or not they choose to drink.

(A PVP player also dont need to access their limited mount to keep it, no matter if that person will ever use it again or not. )

I just knew someone was going to take what I said in that post out of context.

Again, the feast mount (and other examples) were only brought up to counter a specific argument by a specific poster. Namely that-

you are paying real money for that house

My point (as succinctly as possible) is that the only thing your sub fee guarantees you is the right to log on. That is what you are paying for. Everything else is determined by how you choose to spend your time/effort in the game. If you want the pvp mount you have to meet the minimum in-game requirements; i.e. finish in the top 100 of Feast. If you want to keep your house, you have to meet the minimum in-game requirements; i.e. visit it once every month and a half.

[Alleo]

The person I was quoting directly before bringing up housing features was claiming that SE added housing (and the demo timer) solely to force people to stay subbed. I brought up the examples of features housing offers only to point out that they are why housing was added, not some crazy conspiracy by a mustache-twirling, money-grubbing SE dev. The list of examples I gave have no bearing on my argument about the demo timer itself and was merely to counter that specific claim brought up by that specific poster.

I know this discussion comes up a lot (A. Lot.) and that one of the ideas often kicked around is if SE should have other requirements in place for players to keep their houses; minimum number of furnishings, move things around inside every so often, etc. Let me just be clear that I am not one of the people in favor of these type of suggestions.

SE obviously wants housing to go to people who are going to use it in some way, shape or form. They could, theoretically, add any number of convoluted, authoritarian requirements to make sure that you are actually "using" the house. Instead they went with a softer touch (which I agree with) and just require you to visit it a bare minimum of once every 6ish weeks. They are leading the players to water, but leaving it up to the individual whether or not they choose to drink.

I just knew someone was going to take what I said in that post out of context.

I am also quite sure that people did not say that housing itself was created to keep people subbed because housing started without the timer. (And I agree with one poster, somehow recently people that own more than one FC and private house were grandfathered in but those that bought houses before the timer did not, which imo is also not quite fair) But since the timer started people are not only forced to sub nearly constantly but also visit the house in that time limit. At the same time Yoshida more and more stated that people should just go play something else between patches if they are bored..this is kinda ironic since the timer exist thus people cant just play something else without paying and playing anyway. So for me its completely understandable that we house owners are a bit annoyed to have to be punished for their bad system.

I am also gonna be honest and say that I have never read that anyone would want much stricter rules that includes moving stuff around. The only thing that I remember are fees for house owners.

The thing is, SE never truly cared for housing. They created this limited system and was fine with it. Until the playerbase got more and more (rightfully) pissed of because they could not get houses. And instead of fixing their system so that everyone can have a house they just punished us owners by creating a timer which also includes that you need to go into the house. They were completely fine with letting people sell and buy houses until the players were annoyed about this again and then they said that this is not good but never really enforced it either...and on top of that after all the time were even the timer is not enough to give people houses, they release a new zone which ends in another housing war and lots of backlash. Thus they were forced to release many more wards which still does not solve the real problem. So for me they never cared how many people get a house because the system itself makes it impossible to have one for everyone. Even if only truly active people own a house it would not be enough. So the timer is nothing but another bandaid fix (and a broken promise) which ultimately never solves the problem, while keeping people forced to sub if they dont want to lose it.

To battle all the unused plots from players that never play again, they could have simply created a system where you get a mail after half a year of not paying a sub and if they dont react on this the house would be demolished. Half a year should be enough for someone to decide if they want to play anymore and if someone has something happening to them in real life they have the time to sort it out and if they cant go back soon they still could simply sub to not fall under this. I know that there would be some people annoyed because in their view such a person has no right to own a house but honestly that just opens the door to the question of "who really deserves to own one?"

About PVP: So would you be fine if they suddenly made a rule (because they noticed that the limited mount is not used in a certain way and people are angry that they lost their chance to it) that anyone who does not use it in a certain amount of time will get it taken away? Because that is exactly what happened with housing. There was no timer and a promise to not have it. People probably worked hard to get one (since it was more expensive and you did not get Gil so easily) and bought it with the knowledge that it would stay with them. And suddenly thanks to SEs bad system they could lose it if they want to take a break that goes longer than 1 1/2 months..and it also did not solve the problem at all. Yes after the first time quite some houses got demolished but after that its was barely the case. (Its not like houses did not get demolished without the timer)

[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.