We need to talk about the PC Gamer article

[DPZ2]

I prefer to ask players to go play the game they want to incorporate into this one, rather than turn this one into something "more like ...".

[Nebelheim]

I agree as someone who played since arr released that the formula is pretty stale/copy paste at this point but what's with the ops daily doom posting and daily "this game is dead and I hate this game and the community" how many of these threads are we going to get from op. Broaden your horizons and play other games and see what game fits you or take a break from ff14 and come back in dawntrail to see if the game changes enough to warrant coming back.

[Jeeqbit]

I thought the contents of the article was reasonable and even acknowledges the truth, that the "formula" won't change much.

The title of the article is what I disagree with. It won't be their last chance to adjust their formula. It may be defining in the sense that we haven't had a fresh arc up until now, but any other expansion after that could be "defining" as well.

[WetShoelace]

I prefer to ask players to go play the game they want to incorporate into this one, rather than turn this one into something "more like ...".

Perhaps the better idea would be to make a good game regardless of what it will or won't look like. But I feel Final Fantasy XIV doesn't really have a direction or anything it wants to be at the moment, and this big direction problem is hurting the players more than anything.

[raelgun]

I prefer to ask players to go play the game they want to incorporate into this one, rather than turn this one into something "more like ...".

This game went through changes to get to this point?

What you post tells me, you are happy with what the changes led to this point and don't want to shifted away from this, the point it is at now is bad.

One of the strengths FF14 had was developer communication, its now one of the worst at this in the genre, it really feels like the devs don't care.

[DPZ2]

This game went through changes to get to this point?

Yes, and I've seen each and every one of them since ARR was released. And read enough history to recognize that I would have tried out 1.0 and put it away again.

What you post tells me, you are happy with what the changes led to this point and don't want to shifted away from this, the point it is at now is bad.

For the amount of money I spend on the game, and the fact that it doesn't take up the majority of my free time - Yes, I'm relatively happy. The game is still based on the same principles as when I started it, back when ARR was the only thing. If I want something different, I go play that game. I'm a firm believer that the myth that there has to be One True Game is a lie.

[raelgun]

Yes, and I've seen each and every one of them since ARR was released. And read enough history to recognize that I would have tried out 1.0 and put it away again.



For the amount of money I spend on the game, and the fact that it doesn't take up the majority of my free time - Yes, I'm relatively happy. The game is still based on the same principles as when I started it, back when ARR was the only thing. If I want something different, I go play that game. I'm a firm believer that the myth that there has to be One True Game is a lie.

So you should just admit you have bias and favour the current design and direction as the game has changed to this point, and guess where some of those change came from, critiques and feedback, guess what people are doing here, guess what you are doing here.

Principle on paper but still a lot of changes happened, patch Candence keeps getting longer with less and less things to do that really don't even last the expansion they are in.

What you want is to misdirect and deflect the OP and some of the article points, if feedback to counter this continues gets implemented then its likely not in your favour anymore then, guess you will provide feedback then.

[Turtledeluxe]

And I am pointing out that such a sentiment goes both ways. Yet whenever a thread that would run counter to this one is up, something more on the positive side. This mentality is never practiced by the critics. But then those critics turn around, in a thread like this one and say "Hey, stay in your lane. If you don't like this thread, don't read it." which to me is again, both hilarious and infuriating.

Personally, I think everyone should maybe grow up a bit and learn to have an actual civil discussion rather then suggest echo chambers. But I have a better chance of winning the lottery then that happening. Either way, no real skin off my back.

Can you please explain how it goes both ways? How is me asking you to take some accountability and not engage with ideas on the forum you don't like equivalent to or worse than you telling someone to unsub, which disengages them from the entire game and forum? The Discussion forum is not an echo chamber. You actively seek out content you don't like and cause problems, now you are upset someone is pointing out the flaw of your "unsub" logic and the redundancy of pointing out sales. What you're doing is being selective and then blaming other people for it. Just don't engage. I don't want to talk about RDM rotations today, guess where I am not going? Threads about RDM. It's quite simple.

Let's be extremely generous. Why isn't it enough to say the discussions have been had already or the author is wrong? You exceed the space you have to interact with the idea and jump to erasing it altogether. It isn't "I disagree" it's "I don't even want to read this or hear this". That's what block is for. Its not anyone's responsibility to ubsub.

And I don't need to read posts about unsubbing again. People are unsubbing and it's an ongoing process. Your magic scenario where 1 million players simultaneously log off in protest of the game is never going happen. What happens is a couple of years of losing players, losing engagement, and losing money. Thr natural bounce of 7.0 will bandaid the problem, but as the article astutely points out the content needs to actually hit or people will just be over the game once MSQ is done exactly as with 6.0.

[Ath192]

I thought the contents of the article was reasonable and even acknowledges the truth, that the "formula" won't change much.

The title of the article is what I disagree with. It won't be their last chance to adjust their formula. It may be defining in the sense that we haven't had a fresh arc up until now, but any other expansion after that could be "defining" as well.

I only sort of agree with it not being their last chance but the truth is that just like XI once the diehard playerbase starts to leave because they've lost hope they would be extremely hesitant to recommit to something like this again. There will always be a subgroup like in XI to keep the game alive but it won't yield enough profits to keep up big development and it will go into maint. mode.

[Deceptus]

There will always be a subgroup like in XI to keep the game alive but it won't yield enough profits to keep up big development and it will go into maint. mode.

If the post 6.0 patches have shown us anything: We're already there.