The devs are actually doing a great job

[MaybeOliverB]

I actually do think they're doing a great job with housing, in that they're adding a ton of diverse furnishings and doing their best to cater to player's desires.

But no one could argue that they didn't completely screw the pooch when they combined individual housing with FC housing. It was a terrible mistake, they've been paying for it ever since, and there's no way to fix it.

This. Personal housing should have been handled differently considering it hasn't done anything but prevent FCs from having access to housing by taking over more than half of the available plots on top of dramatically reducing the entry fee to housing. Higher demand and lower prices, what a great idea...

[Nyx_Nemhain]

Although a lot of the feedback people give have been worded rather negatively, all of it is just that- feedback; which is necessary for any product to evolve and thrive over time. I'm sure they probably take everything with a grain of salt, otherwise they would probably just rage quit so-to-speak lol I feel they have been doing a fairly good job of listening to its fans and consumers, but I'm sure there is probably only so much they can implement at a time with each patch so they are most likely picking and choosing their battles for each one (considering how much feedback and suggestions they get flooded with on a daily basis).

[Nolagamer]

Or players who want housing could choose to play on those worlds that have houses available instead of trying to pack into a few overpopulated worlds then complain they can't get a house.

SE's problem is they can't expand wards dynamically on a per world basis. To expand wards on one world requires doing it on all worlds and that would end up leaving wards emty on many worlds that still have housing available. It's a waste of server resources.

More wards is not the solution.

Majority of us are not playing this game to furnish a house. Granted some people do but the majority isnt. So we shouldn't have to server transfer or pick a low populated server due to lack of housing. It's something that SE introduced into the game and it wasn't thought out to well especially for high population server. It's their problem to solve not ours by server transfering.

[Duskane]

As I said, if it's so bad. Make a better game.

always a dumb argument for criticism
"well i don't see you do better"

[Kalise]

Dev's are doing a good job with housing.

Though, it's marred by some... Unfortunate, initial ideas. Which has left them in a situation where they're struggling to fix certain things and create workarounds to allow them to do others.

As far as "Negativity" goes, it's all feedback. Saying "I like X" doesn't help anyone. Maybe the dev's will feel a bit better, but in the long run, it's limited.

Providing feedback gives dev's a clear understanding of where they should invest their time, since they want to create content that us, the players, enjoy. Since happy players = more customers and more customers = more money.

If you've ever been involved in a development cycle, you'd know how critical things like this sort of feedback is, since without it you can get too focused on your own ideas which might not be something the majority of people even want.

So yeah, while things seem negative, it's not that people hate the devs or don't respect them, on the contrary, it's the exact opposite. Since, they feel that the dev's will want to make content they enjoy, they provide feedback so that they can see what's within their power to change to create that content.

Of course, there will be major issues that aren't addressed for a long time, but part of that would be not the fact that the dev's don't care or are ignoring it, but they're trying to figure out how they can fix it without rewriting the entire code for a large portion of the game because of some baseline conflicts they didn't think of in the initial development cycle.

[Daniolaut]

Because it’s not our job to “make a better game”. Our job, as consumers, is to provide feedback for a product. The developers job is to listen to that feedback, and consider it.

I assumed they meant "play a better game" but ok.

The developers job is to make video games. They dont have to listen to the player base at all. I'm 100% positive most artists do not listen to their fans. Some do for the sake of wanting more money, or as a courtesy but the best artists dont need to listen to their fans at all. You're a fan because you like the art.

A big problem with society these days is this mindset of you get to control people with your money, and thats frankly not correct. Especially in regards to the video gaming community. Which is actually why games are getting worse cause a lot of companies are trying to conform to the players and in reality the players dont actually know what they want, so you get messy sloppy games.

[Kalise]

A big problem with society these days is this mindset of you get to control people with your money, and thats frankly not correct. Especially in regards to the video gaming community. Which is actually why games are getting worse cause a lot of companies are trying to conform to the players and in reality the players dont actually know what they want, so you get messy sloppy games.

Actually, the issue with games getting worse is because companies are trying to conform to the shareholders.

It used to be that people made games so that people would have fun games to play. Thus, they earned money because people will pay money for good games.

But somewhere along the way, shareholders and marketing teams took over and now it's just people making games to maximize profit margins, to hell with games actually being good and made with the players enjoyment in mind.

Which, if you're aware of the current situation with some prominent companies, is backfiring hard for them as people are no longer buying their garbage they're crapping out in an attempt to milk people for all they're worth.

As such, it's FORCING these companies to try and think about how retail works. You only survive when your customers are happy. If your customers are not happy, they don't give you their money because they no longer want your product. This is basic economics. Whether you're providing a service, or selling a product, your entire existence hinges on people wanting to pay you for what you provide.

You bring up artists, but they're in a different situation. Many artists do what they do because that's what they like doing. Earning money is just a side effect that allows them to keep focusing on producing their art. If they didn't earn money, they'd have to make their art only part time (Which many people do).

Business, such as those in the video game industry, have to earn money. Due to the high development costs because of many different jobs involved (Story writers, voice actors, translators, world development, character development, music composers, art and design etc). Thus, it's necessary for them to ensure they're doing what people want.

If you want to see what happens when a video game company stops listening to their customers, go check out Blizzard. Though, I'd be quick if I were you, since they might not last that much longer...

[Factoree]

I assumed they meant "play a better game" but ok.

The developers job is to make video games. They dont have to listen to the player base at all. I'm 100% positive most artists do not listen to their fans. Some do for the sake of wanting more money, or as a courtesy but the best artists dont need to listen to their fans at all. You're a fan because you like the art.

A big problem with society these days is this mindset of you get to control people with your money, and thats frankly not correct. Especially in regards to the video gaming community. Which is actually why games are getting worse cause a lot of companies are trying to conform to the players and in reality the players dont actually know what they want, so you get messy sloppy games.

Their job is to develop a game that will make money for Square Enix. If the game doesn’t appeal to many players, they won’t make as much money. It’s nice to have an idea of “artistic integrity” but ultimately this is a business. If they didn’t take any player feedback, FFXIV would still be like it was in 1.0. If I don’t like the game, I’m not going to pay for it. It’s up to the devs to decide if they want to listen to feedback and try to improve, but either way they will make a decision whether my money is worth the investment to them or not.

One of the greatest powers one has as a consumer of a product is to not buy something that is not meeting their needs.
I’m sure most of us can agree that in general the dev team does a good job of making FFXIV fun (after all we probably wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t good enough to grab us as established players). That doesn’t mean there aren’t numerous areas for improvement that can be addressed. Making sure the devs are aware of those areas is the entire point, so that they can make an even better game I feel comfortable recommending to more people, which in turn makes Square Enix more money in the long run.

[Daniolaut]

Actually, the issue with games getting worse is because companies are trying to conform to the shareholders.

It used to be that people made games so that people would have fun games to play. Thus, they earned money because people will pay money for good games.

But somewhere along the way, shareholders and marketing teams took over and now it's just people making games to maximize profit margins, to hell with games actually being good and made with the players enjoyment in mind.

Which, if you're aware of the current situation with some prominent companies, is backfiring hard for them as people are no longer buying their garbage they're crapping out in an attempt to milk people for all they're worth.

As such, it's FORCING these companies to try and think about how retail works. You only survive when your customers are happy. If your customers are not happy, they don't give you their money because they no longer want your product. This is basic economics. Whether you're providing a service, or selling a product, your entire existence hinges on people wanting to pay you for what you provide.

You bring up artists, but they're in a different situation. Many artists do what they do because that's what they like doing. Earning money is just a side effect that allows them to keep focusing on producing their art. If they didn't earn money, they'd have to make their art only part time (Which many people do).

Business, such as those in the video game industry, have to earn money. Due to the high development costs because of many different jobs involved (Story writers, voice actors, translators, world development, character development, music composers, art and design etc). Thus, it's necessary for them to ensure they're doing what people want.

If you want to see what happens when a video game company stops listening to their customers, go check out Blizzard. Though, I'd be quick if I were you, since they might not last that much longer...

Their job is to develop a game that will make money for Square Enix. If the game doesn’t appeal to many players, they won’t make as much money. It’s nice to have an idea of “artistic integrity” but ultimately this is a business. If they didn’t take any player feedback, FFXIV would still be like it was in 1.0. If I don’t like the game, I’m not going to pay for it. It’s up to the devs to decide if they want to listen to feedback and try to improve, but either way they will make a decision whether my money is worth the investment to them or not.

One of the greatest powers one has as a consumer of a product is to not buy something that is not meeting their needs.
I’m sure most of us can agree that in general the dev team does a good job of making FFXIV fun (after all we probably wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t good enough to grab us as established players). That doesn’t mean there aren’t numerous areas for improvement that can be addressed. Making sure the devs are aware of those areas is the entire point, so that they can make an even better game I feel comfortable recommending to more people, which in turn makes Square Enix more money in the long run.

So lets get this straight about 1.0 first. 1.0 failed, per words of 2.0 team theirself, and the larger amount of complaints from the actual 1.0 players, was lag, bugs, and to the 2.0 teams words "2k polygons and 150 lines of shader for flower pots, being the same as a single player character."

2.0 was successful because they didnt "listen to all the feedback by the players" because 2.0 is 1.0, but runs better, and has different combat. No one said "change the battle system and make it a GCD instead of like FFXI's tp wait and hit system." No one said that. Most of the changes for 2.0 were complained about in fact. The large portion of the player base wanted an updated version of FFXI, which 1.0 was not. Neither is 2.0, but 2.0 is much closer to it. 1.0 didnt have jobs for example. There was no "Warrior, or Paladin" in 1.0. (.... until after Yoshida/2.0 team took over.)

(Note: this is a brief recap of why 1.0 failed and 2.0's success. There are numerous factors in this, and going over every single one would be absurdly time consuming. The gist of why 2.0 was successful was bugs were addressed quickly, it was created more with "Final Fantasy" and "ease/smoothness of gameplay." To argue differently would be none factual, per stated by Square-Enix and the 1.0 player base greatest complaints.)


Second, every "artist" is in a business. From musicians, to painters, to book writers, you name it. Musicians have record labels, writers work for magazines, or publishing companies, so on so forth. All of which are part of a business, with share holders....

Also just for a little side fact, a lot of shareholders are just regular consumers, but yes the bigger investors are not regular consumers no. Just wanted to point out that there are shareholders who are just regular consumers.

This goes back to my statement of people trying to control others with money. So its the fault of the company to listen to others when creating their art. Video games are an art form. They also encompass many art forms. Some of the greatest games were created by the vision of a collection of artists, without listening to anyone else but their own vision.

This idea that "artists need not listen to the fans" does not apply to things such as "come visit us in Brazil" or "can you put an Aetheryte shard near the market boards in Ul'dah." I'm speaking of "Eureka is bad, stop doing it" or "I give you my money, and I want Viera so you have to make Viera, and Viera cannot be gender locked, and if it is, because you only gave me half of what I wanted you wont get my money anymore!!!"


TLDR/Synopsis:
Companies, and artists start to fail, when they put money first. The passion, and drive and focus needed to make quality art is lost when the root of the inspiration is cash money. This was my point, after the main point, of the developers do not have to listen to the players. In my opinion they shouldnt, as their focus should be on the game, and creating something that they like, and its my opinion if that is achieved, then the likelihood of the art or "product" of the inspiration thereof will be well received.

[Kalise]

TLDR/Synopsis:
Companies, and artists start to fail, when they put money first. The passion, and drive and focus needed to make quality art is lost when the root of the inspiration is cash money. This was my point, after the main point, of the developers do not have to listen to the players. In my opinion they shouldnt, as their focus should be on the game, and creating something that they like, and its my opinion if that is achieved, then the likelihood of the art or "product" of the inspiration thereof will be well received.

Truly in the best case scenario, there are no definitives.

The best art comes from both artist and consumer working together.

The artist puts in the work and makes what they want to make and the consumer provides feedback which the artist can then use to see if they can make improvements.

As I mentioned before, if you're actually in a development team, outside feedback is crucial because if you focus too heavily on just making what you want, you get tunnel vision.

But likewise, if you literally incorporate every change suggested then you end up also making a poor product.

It's a balancing act of responding to feedback whilst also pushing your own ideas in order to create the best product.

Even something like "Eureka is bad, stop doing it" can be used to let the developers stop and think if there's anything they feel could be improved. This, in addition with you know, far more helpful feedback that some people have provided on the topic, with details about what sucks about Eureka. Can allow the developers to still make content they want, such as Eureka, but then put on some fine tuning to make it a more pleasant experience for players.

Again, if you want to ignore your playerbase, which is a huge wealth of feedback as well as the direct audience for your product, you'll end up like all the companies that made the same decision. Which is haemorrhaging money from poor products because they're too busy spending all their time designing what they want in a vacuum rather than actually getting any experience of their content from someone who actually played it (Since developers don't always get a bunch of time to play their games)