Never Have I Felt My Time & Support So Disrespected In Over a Decade of Online Gaming

[Edax]

Storage is not expensive; there is absolutely no excuse for not holding onto furnishing indefinitely, in the same way that the game holds all your gear/glams/tokens etc if you decide to take a break.

But you just stated that stored isn't free. That's absolutely reason to not hold onto a huge amount of data for a player that might not even return.

OP said she knew the risks, so she could have taken the simple step of storing her furnishings indefinitely. Instead the OP decided to feel disrespected because SE did what they said they would do according to the housing rules.

[Solarra]

But you just stated that stored isn't free. That's absolutely reason to not hold onto a huge amount of data for a player that might not even return.

By that logic Square should consider cutting their expenses even further by deleting gear, pets, mounts etc that we haven't used in a while! I have pets I haven't got out in years, I wouldn't miss them surely?

Being serious though, my point was that storing 'huge amounts of data' doesn't cost the company very much (and we are paying a sub which among other things, goes towards those costs).
Storage used to be expensive and some very old games apparently did delete virtual assets such as gear when people stopped playing, but with nothing to come back to, customers rarely returned.

Here we have a rather strange situation where most of your stuff is safe but some of your items can be deleted, even if you are paying your sub. I love this game, I have great respect for the developers but I am not going to say this is justified or good practice because it simply isn't.
I understand the need for demolition but cannot see any reason why furnishings should be treated differently from gear, mounts or minions, all of which the game will save indefinitely if you take a break.

[Jojoya]

I understand the need for demolition but cannot see any reason why furnishings should be treated differently from gear, mounts or minions, all of which the game will save indefinitely if you take a break.

Mounts and minions are part of collections once learned instead of being items in inventory storage. They work differently.

Items stored on your retainer or in your chocobo saddlebags "belong" to the retainer or chocobo with you having sole access to retrieve the items stored there. No other player will ever own those specific retainers or chocobos so the items are still there if you return from a long break.

Likewise, items placed in a house "belong" to the house plot and not the owner of the house BUT a house plot can be owned by multiple players over time. As long as you remain the owner of the house, you're free to retrieve the items as you like. If the house gets demolished, the items "belonging" to that house are sent to the Resident Caretaker for storage pending reclamation by the previous owner.

I suspect the programming code isn't set up to allow tracking of all previous owners of a plot and separate out which furnishings belonged to which previous owner. Without some sort of separating factor, any previous owner of a plot would be able to claim items still in storage that had belonged to that plot. Come back from your 8 month long break and - sorry, the guy who bought the plot a month after you left and let it demo 3 months later came back 5 weeks ago and claimed every item that had been in storage for that plot.

To at least give players a chance to reclaim the items they had placed in a house when they were the owner, SE sets a time limit less than the length of time it will take a house to demo. That way the Resident Caretaker will have a empty list of items for the plot before it can be demolished again. That's guesswork, of course, but it makes sense with what they've told us about how item data storage works.

Is it a great system? Of course not. Could they reprogram things to attach storage to the character instead of some other "container"? We don't know the limits of the code they're working with and how it might break other things in the game for them to attempt to change it. You can search google and find all sorts of fun developer stories about how seemingly small and innocuous changes related to one part of a game ended up severely breaking another part.

[Solarra]

...snip

Thank you for a well thought out and interesting response. I do take your point that housing items are stored differently to everything else and you may well be right that the storage is tied to the plot and not the individual player. I'm not sure if furnishings from FC rooms were subject to a time limit before we had the Demolition Timer. If they were, or if two people owning a room and being kicked in quick succession would lead to the first player losing their furnishings, then your theory would appear to be correct.

However, even if you are right, I don't think that justifies the present situation where people can lose items they have paid for in the Mog-shop, or in-game rewards that will cost real money to replace.
If the present system doesn't allow for indefinite storage of furniture then it would be nice if they said so; at least then we'd know the devs had actually considered the issue. I know the game was re-built in a hurry and on very shaky foundations, but as paying customers I don't think we should just accept what we've been given if we feel (as I do), that improvements should be made.

[Jojoya]

Thank you for a well thought out and interesting response. I do take your point that housing items are stored differently to everything else and you may well be right that the storage is tied to the plot and not the individual player. I'm not sure if furnishings from FC rooms were subject to a time limit before we had the Demolition Timer. If they were, or if two people owning a room and being kicked in quick succession would lead to the first player losing their furnishings, then your theory would appear to be correct.

However, even if you are right, I don't think that justifies the present situation where people can lose items they have paid for in the Mog-shop, or in-game rewards that will cost real money to replace.
If the present system doesn't allow for indefinite storage of furniture then it would be nice if they said so; at least then we'd know the devs had actually considered the issue. I know the game was re-built in a hurry and on very shaky foundations, but as paying customers I don't think we should just accept what we've been given if we feel (as I do), that improvements should be made.

I absolutely agree there is nothing wrong with asking for improvements.

But we also need to be realistic. Not everything we want is necessarily possible. Much depends on the limits of the game engine and how much SE can modify it over time without breaking various parts of the game or opening up exploits that will greatly upset game balance.

While it would be nice for real money purchase items to be replaced if lost, there are also valid reasons why SE chooses not to do it. When viewing housing items on mogstation, the following text appears on the item page:

* This is a furnishing item for housing. Please note that the following may result in the loss of this item:
・The removal of this item by another player.
・Leaving or being discharged from a free company.
・Unsharing an estate.
・The demolition of an estate.
* This item will be distributed to a single character on the selected account.

You are clearly warned that you could lose the item under certain circumstances. If that is not a risk you are willing to take, you should not purchase the item.

[Andromea]

Well, I must agree with the OP. This system is not optimal nor it is client friendly. Yes, I do know how it works, and even if all the informations are not nicely put together.. well at some point you figure it out, on your expenses or not.

But do we really need to agree with every one thing SE puts in place ? I guess losing your furniture is an heritage that comes somehow from an old storage system that was launched a while ago.

I lost my lovely medium house once and all the items as well (my fault). Did I argue ? No. I read the rules and well… what's gone…

But still, knowing the rules I think I have the liberty not to agree with all of them (citizen initiative after all). Those rules shouldn't apply for the unique items, cash shop items… Those things should be tied to your character and not to the housing system.