It's time (Option to Hide other players Glamour)

[Stepjam]

Of course it'll just mean nearly everyone you see is running around in non-matching frankenarmors

[Zabuza]

Most of the rest of the people on both sides of the argument have at least made an effort at some point to explain and add good reasoning their stance before it devolved into the same back and fro.

It'd actually be interesting to see how many times you've played the 'I can't imagine blah blah..' routine in this thread. I can think of two today alone.

And honestly, I haven't got any more value to add to my views on this that I haven't already stated a couple of times so meh. I'm not going to sit here on repeat for the rest of it. It's a pretty dumb topic and in honesty, even if I was in favour of it, I still wouldn't expect SE to actually implement it. People getting hooked on the glamour game is a not so insignificant revenue source after all.

Sorry that you don't appreciate my replies. Between playing the patch, working, and reaching burnout on this thread, my care factor for the thread diminishes. Why should I go into painstaking detail to explain what I, or someone else, has already explained? Yes, some of my replies are ripostes to people who are lashing out at the pro-choice group. I could write a thesis on this and it still wouldn't budge anyone from the other side. Just as well, sometimes it is best to explain things simply. It really comes down in the end to people who seek attention vs those that want a choice in how to personalize their experience and immerse themselves. There may be outliers in the thread, but generally this has been the trend. Also, I have noticed you have twice now tried to misrepresent me. You again failed to leave out the context in that I was replying to someone else's 'I can't imagine' one of those times.

[Mousezilla]

[Sairys]

I'd wager the venn diagram for "glamour purchaser" and "wouldn't use 'hide glamours' " overlaps pretty heavily. There would be loss of course, but as I said, the possibility for further expansion would increase. Truly it would take actually implementing both the option AND further glam options to prove either way but I don't see this customization option to be even a nail in the glam sales coffin. Theres still the emails, launcher adverts, and word of mouth on message boards.

Misleading here.

The possibility for further expansions already exists, there's still more character outfits from the other games they could bring in, that's before you get into things like variants of those outfits, new creations, the olympics are coming up in Tokyo in a few months which could result in some glamours, etc.

People are going to complain no matter what and some nebulous claim about them suddenly being free really doesn't pan out, those arguing for the "principle of the matter" for example can easily apply those arguments to defending their right to not be "forced" to use the option because of a new line of man dresses coming out.

But like, also looking at the venn diagram argument. The people who will buy glamours already aren't the only people that the game would want to be advertising them to, it's more profitable to make sure to advertise to those who haven't invested in glamours.
Without the block, greater potential exists that they might see someone wandering around in a glamour that causes someone to go "ooh, take my money I want to wear that"

[Krotoan]

Misleading here.

The possibility for further expansions already exists, there's still more character outfits from the other games they could bring in, that's before you get into things like variants of those outfits, new creations, the olympics are coming up in Tokyo in a few months which could result in some glamours, etc.

People are going to complain no matter what and some nebulous claim about them suddenly being free really doesn't pan out, those arguing for the "principle of the matter" for example can easily apply those arguments to defending their right to not be "forced" to use the option because of a new line of man dresses coming out.

If someone has a choice that lets them not experience a glamour or problem that's one more person who isn't going to rally against something being implemented just because they don't wanna see it. You will always get people who are against something for whatever reason they come up with but this does remove another excuse that the dev team might have for not implementing more out of theme or what have you glamours.

But like, also looking at the venn diagram argument. The people who will buy glamours already aren't the only people that the game would want to be advertising them to, it's more profitable to make sure to advertise to those who haven't invested in glamours.
Without the block, greater potential exists that they might see someone wandering around in a glamour that causes someone to go "ooh, take my money I want to wear that"

It's all conjecture, without hard data it's hard to say where the pools lie but there still will be thousands out there who haven't bought glamours AND might if the right one came along AND aren't using the option. It's hardly uncommon knowledge that the cash shop exists and is updated regularly. From an advertising point of view sure you want to reach as many people as possible, but it'd hardly be a cash shop killer.

[Sairys]

If someone has a choice that lets them not experience a glamour or problem that's one more person who isn't going to rally against something being implemented just because they don't wanna see it. You will always get people who are against something for whatever reason they come up with but this does remove another excuse that the dev team might have for not implementing more out of theme or what have you glamours.

I mean, this is basically the refutation to your own argument. It's irrelevant because people will always come up with more reasons to complain about glams, so why bother trying to snip one specific one when those complaints will just become like... "why are the devs wasting their time making more swimsuits?!"

It's all conjecture, without hard data it's hard to say where the pools lie but there still will be thousands out there who haven't bought glamours AND might if the right one came along AND aren't using the option. It's hardly uncommon knowledge that the cash shop exists and is updated regularly. From an advertising point of view sure you want to reach as many people as possible, but it'd hardly be a cash shop killer.

For a more direct example, I'm not really a fan of the Snow attire set as it's presented, just not inspired to pay to dress up like him. But I'm still tempted to buy it because I've seen how players have creatively used that to make some neat GUN/MCH/WHM styled glamours. If someone's a fan of DMC there's ways to work it into a Dante cosplay. A block works against that free marketing, really SE would want to be showing examples of why you should buy and use glams to as many people as possible, really the impact here is how negative it could be.

[Krotoan]

I mean, this is basically the refutation to your own argument. It's irrelevant because people will always come up with more reasons to complain about glams, so why bother trying to snip one specific one when those complaints will just become like... "why are the devs wasting their time making more swimsuits?!"

People will always have reasons to not like something, but right now a common and actual reason backed pair of excuses for more varied and gender unlocked glamours are "role recognition" and "theme/feel/immersion" , both of which are absolutely eliminated by this option (in certain implementations). Always having someone complain is not a reason to not do something, you pick the things that are going to have the least or most inconsequential complaints.

For a more direct example, I'm not really a fan of the Snow attire set as it's presented, just not inspired to pay to dress up like him. But I'm still tempted to buy it because I've seen how players have creatively used that to make some neat GUN/MCH/WHM styled glamours. If someone's a fan of DMC there's ways to work it into a Dante cosplay. A block works against that free marketing, really SE would want to be showing examples of why you should buy and use glams to as many people as possible, really the impact here is how negative it could be.

Which is exactly what I said, for all we know the impact could be extremely minor. I'm of the mind it wouldn't be particularly devastating to the market. Would having more available counteract the reduction in market awareness?

[dustdjinn]

someone is triggered.

[Sairys]

People will always have reasons to not like something, but right now a common and actual reason backed pair of excuses for more varied and gender unlocked glamours are "role recognition" and "theme/feel/immersion" , both of which are absolutely eliminated by this option (in certain implementations). Always having someone complain is not a reason to not do something, you pick the things that are going to have the least or most inconsequential complaints.

The "theme/feel/immersion" arguments are actually eliminated by the current state of the game, the arguments have boiled down from claiming they're about being final fantasy wide, to just ffxiv, to not including special events, to only accepting what is seen as part of the MSQ. Once you've cut out so much the claim is still tenuous given Ryne's and the Exarchs outfits as part of Trusts, even "silly" is debatable given Thornmarch is part of the MSQ. The argument also requires ignoring levelling gear you get from dungeons that you have to go into as part of the MSQ lol.

The role recognition arguments are similarly tenuous, we're a game where basically nearly class has an iconic weapon and stance which makes everyone really identifiable, this is different from the issue GW2 had in pvp where, for example, seven of their nine classes can use a staff. There is the overlap in SCH/SMN and less with BLM/WHM, but the use case for it is PvP really and arguably you could just apply the PotD code and make everyone wield padjali weapons if it's an issue there.

Which is exactly what I said, for all we know the impact could be extremely minor. I'm of the mind it wouldn't be particularly devastating to the market. Would having more available counteract the reduction in market awareness?

The devs are creating the sort of glamour options we have already without a block. They have already created dresses for men, swimsuits, the "emperors new x" options, animal mascot style outfits. There's pieces that are mechanically armour that are just swimsuits plus some extra fabric.
So it's really "what more could they add?" and if there is stuff they could add because people can block it then... people are going to block it? which reduces how many people they're reaching through just what people see in game not just for the reason for the blocking but for all glamours the blocker might see and be tempted by.

[Krotoan]

The "theme/feel/immersion" arguments are actually eliminated by the current state of the game, the arguments have boiled down from claiming they're about being final fantasy wide, to just ffxiv, to not including special events, to only accepting what is seen as part of the MSQ. Once you've cut out so much the claim is still tenuous given Ryne's and the Exarchs outfits as part of Trusts, even "silly" is debatable given Thornmarch is part of the MSQ. The argument also requires ignoring levelling gear you get from dungeons that you have to go into as part of the MSQ lol.

The role recognition arguments are similarly tenuous, we're a game where basically nearly class has an iconic weapon and stance which makes everyone really identifiable, this is different from the issue GW2 had in pvp where, for example, seven of their nine classes can use a staff. There is the overlap in SCH/SMN and less with BLM/WHM, but the use case for it is PvP really and arguably you could just apply the PotD code and make everyone wield padjali weapons if it's an issue there.

Theme/feel/immersion still applies to personal story and outright ridiculous glamours. While thematically it may be available in universe lots of "exceptions" are on main characters of their respective importance in the story. Like the main character in an anime they get a pass because they're supposed to be exceptional. The player character is essentially a godlike hero, how they dress is entirely mutable because of that. All the 2ndary (and everyone is 2ndary in everyone elses story) characters need to at least somewhat follow physical rules. I'm not sure why thornmarch is a particular excuse for silly. Moogles are cute for sure but dangerous enough given weapons and/or being a summoned eikon. Just because something exists in-universe does not excuse it being either widely propagated or used in an incongruous situation.

Role recognition I thought was more about cloth for squishies and armor for tankies. While we already are at a point where you can wear in-story available gear that blurs the heck out of this rule, the devs continue to cite role recognition as a reason for no cross-role glamming. This may not be the actual reason they don't do it, but it would completely remove that layer of excuse.

The devs are creating the sort of glamour options we have already without a block. They have already created dresses for men, swimsuits, the "emperors new x" options, animal mascot style outfits. There's pieces that are mechanically armour that are just swimsuits plus some extra fabric.
So it's really "what more could they add?" and if there is stuff they could add because people can block it then... people are going to block it? which reduces how many people they're reaching through just what people see in game not just for the reason for the blocking but for all glamours the blocker might see and be tempted by.

Right now there is largish pushback, on the forums anyway, whenever something non-traditional or incongruous is presented. Removing that pushback or attitude with an option of "well you don't have to see it if you don't want to" quells those arguments pretty quickly. And without that looming slog of damage control after any "weird" offering or worrying about offending more conservative markets, they MIGHT (again conjecture) feel more free in their offerings. I agree it DOES affect how many people they would reach but that doesn't particularly invalidate the idea that a wider offering wouldn't pull in more than the potential "ooh shiny" of random viewing by someone who's likely to block glamours. Again this particular reason is completely un-provable either way unless implemented to observe the change, especially since I have no actual insight into what really affects their decisions.