Taxes to put off auto-demo

[Jojoya]

Expecting to be able to keep something you paid for is not self entitlement at all.

It is when the purchase comes with rules and restrictions to retain ownership attached, and you don't think those should apply to you.

If you don't like the rules and restrictions, don't make the purchase.

I am absolutely with you on all this. Though I wouldn't specifically object if they increased the length of the timer to 60 or 90 days instead of the 45. Two or three months isn't unreasonable either, that's still less than a patch. And for the folks who have RL emergencies crop up it would save a considerable amount of pain and anguish. Although granted, it would also allow those who aren't really using their houses more chance to hang onto them as well. Still, it may benefit more than it harms in this case.

There's always going to be those who want to argue that it's not long enough and that it should be longer.

To me, 45 days is plenty of time. How often are people away from their homes more than 2 weeks at a time let alone 6? It lets someone skip a month on their subscription if they need to but still come back to their house.

I'd still rather see SE implemented an enhanced instanced housing system where everyone can get the house they want when they're ready to buy and don't have to worry about a demo timer because their ownership doesn't prevent others from also owning. But as long as housing is a limited resource, we need the demo timer and 45 days is reasonable length of time to allow people to take a break for real life conflicts that prevent them from logging in. Far better than leaving a house in the hands of people who go "I deserve to have this thing even though I don't want to play the game most of the time".

[Kytrin]

To me, 45 days is plenty of time. How often are people away from their homes more than 2 weeks at a time let alone 6? It lets someone skip a month on their subscription if they need to but still come back to their house.

I can think of enough life events that can keep someone from logging into game for a month to justify something a bit longer than 45 days.

- You or your loved one (parent, SO, child) gets into a severe accident or some other equally severe hospital worthy event. Your priority is no longer game. It's getting to the hospital, dealing with doctors, visiting hours, severe drugs, putting on a brave face, and trying to get better. 45 days can go in an instant before you even remember to think of that

- You have a child. You're not thinking about game with that. You're thinking about diaper changes, feeding times, weird sniffles or fevers, sleep deprivation, doctor visits, post-partum depression, and a ton of other stuff. You'll be lucky if you manage to even remember game exists let alone your house in a month. (Granted, new parents seem to have a problem remembering that sort of things in the first SIX months, and there's no way the timer should be that long, but the point stands)

- You move, and there's some problem with your internet. Bad signal, incompetent setup, lengthy delays for one reason or another. All of that can add up quick. I admit this is the weakest one in general, since theoretically you would still have SOME kind of access SOMEWHERE these days, but if may not be powerful enough to let you log into game. Or you may not have a laptop. Good luck setting up a desktop at your local Starbucks because Comcast is stupid in your area.

- There's a natural disaster that destroys all your things. SE is pretty good, if slow, about turning off the demolition timer (even if they leave it on forever afterwards) for large scale disasters, but it generally takes them more than a month to even make that decision. Which leaves you SOL if you were one of the first affected. And that doesn't cover things like your house catching on fire, flood, blizzard, whatever disaster might strike a person individually. It can take literally MONTHS for insurance to go through in the worst cases, and there's not a thing you can do.

There are others I'm sure, but those are the ones off the top of my head.

Now I know there's always the whole 'have a friend log in for you' angle, but that doesn't work for everyone either. Some people may not have anyone irl who can do that for them. Or anyone online they trust enough to log in for them like that. And THAT is why I would back them lengthening the timer a little. It would cut anyone who fell into the above categories a little more slack without it being absurd, and I don't see how that's a bad thing.

[NanaWiloh]

I can think of enough life events that can keep someone from logging into game for a month to justify something a bit longer than 45 days.

- You or your loved one (parent, SO, child) gets into a severe accident or some other equally severe hospital worthy event. Your priority is no longer game. It's getting to the hospital, dealing with doctors, visiting hours, severe drugs, putting on a brave face, and trying to get better. 45 days can go in an instant before you even remember to think of that

- You have a child. You're not thinking about game with that. You're thinking about diaper changes, feeding times, weird sniffles or fevers, sleep deprivation, doctor visits, post-partum depression, and a ton of other stuff. You'll be lucky if you manage to even remember game exists let alone your house in a month. (Granted, new parents seem to have a problem remembering that sort of things in the first SIX months, and there's no way the timer should be that long, but the point stands)

- You move, and there's some problem with your internet. Bad signal, incompetent setup, lengthy delays for one reason or another. All of that can add up quick. I admit this is the weakest one in general, since theoretically you would still have SOME kind of access SOMEWHERE these days, but if may not be powerful enough to let you log into game. Or you may not have a laptop. Good luck setting up a desktop at your local Starbucks because Comcast is stupid in your area.

- There's a natural disaster that destroys all your things. SE is pretty good, if slow, about turning off the demolition timer (even if they leave it on forever afterwards) for large scale disasters, but it generally takes them more than a month to even make that decision. Which leaves you SOL if you were one of the first affected. And that doesn't cover things like your house catching on fire, flood, blizzard, whatever disaster might strike a person individually. It can take literally MONTHS for insurance to go through in the worst cases, and there's not a thing you can do.

There are others I'm sure, but those are the ones off the top of my head.

Now I know there's always the whole 'have a friend log in for you' angle, but that doesn't work for everyone either. Some people may not have anyone irl who can do that for them. Or anyone online they trust enough to log in for them like that. And THAT is why I would back them lengthening the timer a little. It would cut anyone who fell into the above categories a little more slack without it being absurd, and I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Increasing the timer will not help or change things. Enough time for one person is not enough time for someone else. We will end up right back at this point with someone saying the timer is not long enough.

[Dzian]

It is when the purchase comes with rules and restrictions to retain ownership attached, and you don't think those should apply to you.

If you don't like the rules and restrictions, don't make the purchase.

And if the purchase was made prior to those restrictions being implemented what then?

Anyway 45 days is not enough. The game and the developers need to be consistent and on the same page.

So what this means is when the development team repeatedly say it's a acceptable to unsubscribe and take breaks between patches. The game systems need to reflect and allow that.

Any demo timers then should be at least a full patch cycle.so if patch 5.2 lands and someone smashes it all within a week if he then chooses to unsubscribe until patch 5.3 or 5.4 if you only count main patches and not catch up patches. his house should be safe when he comes back.

As I've said before I'm not opposed to them reclaiming unused houses from long standing inactive players. But there needs to be consistency between what the devs say and what the game policies say.

Right now the game policies and the devs contradict each other. That's the problem.

In order to be consistent the either the devs should turn around say nope sorry no breaks allowed... or the demo timers should be extended to cover a patch cycle that will then support the devs instead of contradict them

[NanaWiloh]

And if the purchase was made prior to those restrictions being implemented what then?

Anyway 45 days is not enough. The game and the developers need to be consistent and on the same page.

So what this means is when the development team repeatedly say it's a acceptable to unsubscribe and take breaks between patches. The game systems need to reflect and allow that.

Any demo timers then should be at least a full patch cycle.so if patch 5.2 lands and someone smashes it all within a week if he then chooses to unsubscribe until patch 5.3 or 5.4 if you only count main patches and not catch up patches. his house should be safe when he comes back.

As I've said before I'm not opposed to them reclaiming unused houses from long standing inactive players. But there needs to be consistency between what the devs say and what the game policies say.

Right now the game policies and the devs contradict each other. That's the problem.

In order to be consistent the either the devs should turn around say nope sorry no breaks allowed... or the demo timers should be extended to cover a patch cycle that will then support the devs instead of contradict them

They also want houses to be owned and used by active players not someone who plays for 2 weeks then is gone for 6 months. The house is better used by a player who is present and playing a majority of that 6 months.

[Jojoya]

I can think of enough life events that can keep someone from logging into game for a month to justify something a bit longer than 45 days.

It's not a question of how many you can think of. I can think of plenty myself.

It's a question of how often do those things actually happen for those who have chosen to play the game and buy a house.

When a real life crisis happens, the game and what's in it becomes irrelevant. You're taking care of real life first. A house in a game isn't even worth thinking about. So what if you end up losing it? You can always get another when you come back and are able to devote more of your time to the game again.

I've already had that happen to me once. After returning, I had to wait 6 months before I was able to get a house again. It looks like it might happen to me again soon. If I have to be gone longer than 45 days, then I lose the house. It's nothing compared to dealing with what's going on in my life. I can always get another once I am able to return to the game, even if it means waiting another 6 months to a year for one to become available.

People need to get some perspective instead of thinking that losing a house in a video game is some major tragedy that will devastate their lives. That's an entitled, spoiled brat point of view that shouldn't be encouraged.

[Jojoya]

And if the purchase was made prior to those restrictions being implemented what then?

Anyway 45 days is not enough. The game and the developers need to be consistent and on the same page.

So what this means is when the development team repeatedly say it's a acceptable to unsubscribe and take breaks between patches. The game systems need to reflect and allow that.

Any demo timers then should be at least a full patch cycle.so if patch 5.2 lands and someone smashes it all within a week if he then chooses to unsubscribe until patch 5.3 or 5.4 if you only count main patches and not catch up patches. his house should be safe when he comes back.

As I've said before I'm not opposed to them reclaiming unused houses from long standing inactive players. But there needs to be consistency between what the devs say and what the game policies say.

Right now the game policies and the devs contradict each other. That's the problem.

In order to be consistent the either the devs should turn around say nope sorry no breaks allowed... or the demo timers should be extended to cover a patch cycle that will then support the devs instead of contradict them

Then you decide if it's content you want to continue to participate in once the rules change. Not entering your house once every 45 days means you've decided to stop participating. It's no different from any other part of the game that changes each expansion (or even each patch sometimes). You make the decision if the content is still right for you after the changes are implemented.

There is no inconsistency or contradiction going on when it comes to the dev team and game policies. Housing is minor side content intended to give players who are playing throughout the patch cycle some addition content to fill their time. If you're only coming back to play through new content when it's released then quitting again for another 4-5 months, it's clearly not content you're using to fill your additional game time.

You are clearly opposed to reclaiming houses from players who are inactive. Someone who only shows up to play for 2 weeks every 4-5 months is inactive 90% of the year. They should not receive preferential treatment over a player who is active 90% of the year.

Keep in mind you're still not locked completely out of housing if you like to take those long breaks. Get an apartment. It doesn't have a demo timer. It will never be taken from you unless you voluntarily relinquish it.

But you shouldn't get to keep a limited resource you are not using when it could be in the hands of someone who would be using it.

[Kytrin]

People need to get some perspective instead of thinking that losing a house in a video game is some major tragedy that will devastate their lives. That's an entitled, spoiled brat point of view that shouldn't be encouraged.

Well excuse me for attempting to see both sides of an issue, and empathizing with people who have put as much into their house as I have mine. Or for trying to propose that 60 or 90 days isn't really much more unreasonable than 45.

[Dzian]

Someone who only shows up to play for 2 weeks every 4-5 months is inactive 90% of the year. They should not receive preferential treatment over a player who is active 90% of the year.

So your saying if you play 90% of the year you deserve preferential treatment over someone who doesn't. Or that playing more somehow makes you more entitled to a house than someone who plays less... that's ridiculous.

By that logic only those who still live at home with mom and dad and dont have a job or real life should qualify for a house because only they can put those hours in..

While I said it should be possible to take breaks between patches occasionally I did not mean every patch all of the time. That would be an extreme case.

But then if you play 90% of the year then you play 21hours and 36 minutes a day.. maybe fatigue is setting in. See I can be extreme too..

So once again I'm not opposed to reclaiming long standing inactive houses. But players should be allowed to take breaks occasionally..

Even a 90 day demo timer would be better that would pretty much cover a patch. 5.2 to 5.3 for example..

It's obvious the existing timer is too short because all you really need to do is look at how much of the last 3-4 years the entire thing has been suspended. Theres been times in heavensward and storm blood where I've dropped my sub for 4-5 months and not lost my house because the timer has been suspended. Which again brings about a lack of consistency.

It spends more time under suspension than it does running.. (well not quite but it isn't far off when it's often suspended for months at a time) if the timer was more reasonable then it simply wouldn't need to be suspended all the time.

[Jojoya]

So your saying if you play 90% of the year you deserve preferential treatment over someone who doesn't. Or that playing more somehow makes you more entitled to a house than someone who plays less... that's ridiculous.

When SE has no guarantee you will be returning after you stop playing?

No, it's not ridiculous.

By that logic only those who still live at home with mom and dad and dont have a job or real life should qualify for a house because only they can put those hours in..

Now that is something ridiculous to say.

While I said it should be possible to take breaks between patches occasionally I did not mean every patch all of the time. That would be an extreme case.

It is possible to take breaks between patches - for up to 45 days without losing a house.

But then if you play 90% of the year then you play 21hours and 36 minutes a day.. maybe fatigue is setting in. See I can be extreme too.

I wasn't being extreme, no matter how you try to twist it. Try coming up with a rational rebuttal.

So once again I'm not opposed to reclaiming long standing inactive houses. But players should be allowed to take breaks occasionally..

No one is being prevented from taking a break. It's their choice to value ownership of a virtual house in a game over other things.

Even a 90 day demo timer would be better that would pretty much cover a patch. 5.2 to 5.3 for example..

You're contradicting what you said above. So which do you mean?

It's obvious the existing timer is too short because all you really need to do is look at how much of the last 3-4 years the entire thing has been suspended. Theres been times in heavensward and storm blood where I've dropped my sub for 4-5 months and not lost my house because the timer has been suspended. Which again brings about a lack of consistency.

How long SE suspends the demo timer following a natural disaster has nothing to do with whether the timer is too short. Someone unable to play because of a disaster is not the same as someone deciding they don't want to play.

Nice to see you brag about how you were using someone else's misfortune to benefit yourself without regard for how your actions were affecting others.