Potential Housing Crisis Fix (Includes ability for permanent Housing (Sm, Med, Lrg)

[s32ialx]

Hey I just wanted to bring this back up for fresh eyes....
also Why FFXIV’s Housing System Is Failing Its Players, and Why It Must Change <another important thread

[Nyastra]

Hey I just wanted to bring this back up for fresh eyes....
also Why FFXIV’s Housing System Is Failing Its Players, and Why It Must Change <another important thread

Bumping the thread doesn’t make the suggestions any fairer, and it still ignores a key reality: FFXIV housing isn’t a brand-new system like WoW’s.

WoW can design housing from scratch, rules, plots, and mechanics, without upsetting existing players. FFXIV has years of legacy systems, with established wards, player homes, FC ownership, decorations, and social/community investments. You can’t just swap it all for instanced housing and magically solve every issue.

Removing demo timers, giving everyone instanced housing, or retroactively replacing plots ignores these realities and creates new problems for current owners. Housing isn’t zero-friction, it’s inherently a balancing act between access, ownership, social visibility, and choice.

Focusing on trade-offs and practical improvements is the only way to have a productive discussion. Everything else just adds noise.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying SE shouldn’t make changes. I’m just saying crying victim about it without providing real, fair, and feasible solutions is not the most productive thing to do especially considering we have multiple housing threads all with the same individuals who refuse to see the other side.

There is no one true solution to FFXIV housing, and no matter what SE decides, some people are going to be unhappy. Maybe instead of dogpiling each other from opposite sides, we can acknowledge the system is flawed and that we don’t actually know how to fix it. None of the suggestions in the other thread are truly fair, every proposal comes with trade-offs, and pretending otherwise isn’t productive.

[s32ialx]

Bumping the thread doesn’t make the suggestions any fairer, and it still ignores a key reality: FFXIV housing isn’t a brand-new system like WoW’s.

WoW can design housing from scratch, rules, plots, and mechanics, without upsetting existing players. FFXIV has years of legacy systems, with established wards, player homes, FC ownership, decorations, and social/community investments. You can’t just swap it all for instanced housing and magically solve every issue.

Removing demo timers, giving everyone instanced housing, or retroactively replacing plots ignores these realities and creates new problems for current owners. Housing isn’t zero-friction, it’s inherently a balancing act between access, ownership, social visibility, and choice.

Focusing on trade-offs and practical improvements is the only way to have a productive discussion. Everything else just adds noise.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying SE shouldn’t make changes. I’m just saying crying victim about it without providing real, fair, and feasible solutions is not the most productive thing to do especially considering we have multiple housing threads all with the same individuals who refuse to see the other side.

There is no one true solution to FFXIV housing, and no matter what SE decides, some people are going to be unhappy. Maybe instead of dogpiling each other from opposite sides, we can acknowledge the system is flawed and that we don’t actually know how to fix it. None of the suggestions in the other thread are truly fair, every proposal comes with trade-offs, and pretending otherwise isn’t productive.

I've already provided a feasible solution, one that works within existing systems and doesn't require tearing down legacy infrastructure. Whether Square Enix chooses to invest in meaningful improvements or continues relying on "break glass in case of emergency" patches like the glamour dresser update is entirely on them.

Players aren't the ones letting the game stagnate while the cash shop expands. We're not the ones prioritizing monetization over core system fixes. If SE keeps adding more "give us money" items while housing, UI, and retention systems degrade, that's not a player failure, that's a development and funding decision.

And it's not just housing. They keep advertising to hire dungeon designers and developers, only to funnel them into producing the same mechanically shallow, corridor-style dungeons we've seen for years. Then when players inevitably criticize the "new" dungeon for being the same old recycled format, those hires quietly disappear. It's a cycle of design stagnation followed by scapegoating, not innovation.

The community has offered viable, technically sound proposals. If they're ignored, that's not because they're unrealistic, it's because SE hasn't committed to solving the underlying problems. The burden isn't on players to fix the game. It's on the studio to stop patching symptoms and start funding solutions.

[Nyastra]

I've already provided a feasible solution, one that works within existing systems and doesn't require tearing down legacy infrastructure.

The disconnect here is between “this sounds feasible to me as a player” and “this is fair, scalable, and sustainable for the game as a whole.” Those are not the same thing.

Simply asserting that a proposal is feasible doesn’t make it fair or consequence-free. Players aren’t responsible for maintaining parity between millions of users, preserving years of legacy investment, or balancing technical debt with long-term support. Square Enix is. That distinction matters.

FFXIV housing is a decade-old, persistent, social system with wards, FC ownership, RP communities, and significant player investment. Change in FFXIV creates ripple effects: perceived value differences, size parity, pricing expectations, demolition rules, and social visibility between systems.

Yes, instanced or condo-style housing could alleviate some issues. I’ve said that consistently.

Players can have 1 FC house, 1 FC Chamber, 1 Personal House, 1 Apartment. Will players be allowed 1 instanced condo? Or would they have to give up something.

In a game where fairness is constantly debated, it’s odd to suddenly argue housing should be exempt from those expectations. FFXIV is built around perceived equity and earned progression. I can’t just buy the Pteranodon mount, I have to craft for it. Even if it’s easier now, there’s still baseline effort involved. When that principle is ignored, players get upset, we’ve seen that repeatedly.

That’s the core housing issue: how do we improve access while respecting existing investment, social systems, and effort?

For example:
Add instanced housing
Extend demolition timers
Keep gil costs consistent

Is that fair? Yes and no, because it devalues location, scarcity, or long-term ownership. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. It means it has consequences.

There is no version of housing where everyone is happy. That doesn’t mean change shouldn’t happen. It means pretending there’s a zero-conflict solution isn’t productive.

I’m not white-knighting for the developers, but “here’s a problem, fix it” isn’t how live MMO development works. Declaring a proposal “feasible” doesn’t answer whether it can be implemented without disrupting progression, fairness expectations, server load, social structures, or years of player investment. That’s the part players don’t have to solve. Developers do.

Acknowledging constraints isn’t defending stagnation. It’s recognizing that housing touches gil sinks, retention, RP communities, FC structures, and long-term ownership. If a proposal can’t clearly explain who benefits, who loses, and why that trade-off is acceptable, then it isn’t a finished solution, it’s a wishlist.

Criticizing SE for slow or incremental change is fair. Claiming there’s a zero-cost, zero-conflict fix they’re simply choosing not to implement is not.

[s32ialx]

The disconnect here is between “this sounds feasible to me as a player” and “this is fair, scalable, and sustainable for the game as a whole.” Those are not the same thing.
Criticizing SE for slow or incremental change is fair. Claiming there’s a zero-cost, zero-conflict fix they’re simply choosing not to implement is not.

I appreciate the concern for fairness and legacy systems, but I think you're misframing what "feasible" means in this context. My Solution 9 proposal doesn't dismantle existing infrastructure, it adds a parallel instanced system using existing tech, avoids ward disruption, and provides permanent housing without touching legacy plots.

Fairness isn't just about preserving what exists, it's also about expanding access, preventing abuse, and improving retention. Permanent instanced housing helps players who've been locked out for years, while reducing pressure on FC plots and ward hoarding. That's a net gain in fairness.

And why wouldn't a player be eligible for permanent housing while also owning a ward plot? Permanent housing gives people the relief to take a break without keeping their sub active just to avoid losing multimillions in gil, or worse, cash shop housing items. Imagine spending $100 on Mogstation decor, taking a break due to stress forgetting that you have real money items in the house, and coming back to find it all deleted with no recovery option. Permanent housing solves that, while still letting those who care about ward aesthetics keep their front yards.

As for apartments, they could also be given the long-promised housing "TARDIS" upgrade path. Let players choose: keep the bachelor-sized unit or upgrade to something immersive. The current layouts are already immersion-breaking and frankly, they're the weakest part of the housing system.

And let's be honest: SE's development choices haven't been constraint-driven. They've hired dungeon designers only to funnel them into formulaic layouts, patched glamour systems with "break glass in case of emergency" fixes, and expanded the cash shop while core systems stagnate. The issue isn't technical debt, it's prioritization.

I've provided a feasible, scalable, and immersive solution. And yes, it's not the player's job to implement it, it's SE's job to invest in the infrastructure (The Code). The servers are already there. Wards and houses, no matter how much you argue it, are already instances.

[Nyastra]

I appreciate the concern for fairness and legacy systems, but I think you're misframing what "feasible" means in this context. My Solution 9 proposal doesn't dismantle existing infrastructure, it adds a parallel instanced system using existing tech, avoids ward disruption, and provides permanent housing without touching legacy plots.

Fairness isn't just about preserving what exists, it's also about expanding access, preventing abuse, and improving retention. Permanent instanced housing helps players who've been locked out for years, while reducing pressure on FC plots and ward hoarding. That's a net gain in fairness.

And why wouldn't a player be eligible for permanent housing while also owning a ward plot? Permanent housing gives people the relief to take a break without keeping their sub active just to avoid losing multimillions in gil, or worse, cash shop housing items. Imagine spending $100 on Mogstation decor, taking a break due to stress forgetting that you have real money items in the house, and coming back to find it all deleted with no recovery option. Permanent housing solves that, while still letting those who care about ward aesthetics keep their front yards.

I was not arguing against instanced housing. I’ve said repeatedly that instanced or condo-style housing could alleviate some issues.

My argument is this: it’s not an easy fix, and any implementation needs to consider fairness, parity, and the trade-offs involved.

If a system allows everyone to have a condo with no negative consequences (for them or for individuals in wards), then yes, perfect. But if it introduces disparities, wards losing customizability, condos being cheaper or larger, gil imbalances like condos being way too highly priced or too low, or perceived value differences, demolition timers, permanence, then it’s just replacing one unfair system with another. That’s the core issue. I'm literally not saying that we, the players, are wrong, I'm saying:

What it comes down to is designing it in a way that respects existing investment, community structures, and player expectations. Without that, the point of the solution becomes moot.

It would require massive change to housing as a whole and I don't see that happening.

[s32ialx]

If a system allows everyone to have a condo with no negative consequences (for them or for individuals in wards), then yes, perfect. But if it introduces disparities, wards losing customizability, condos being cheaper or larger, gil imbalances like condos being way too highly priced or too low, or perceived value differences, demolition timers, permanence, then it’s just replacing one unfair system with another.

Forgive my dumbass I do have a brain injury, Are you saying as long as Condos are still a gil-sink (which is what I proposed but the price is not )

As long as they remain Customizable, and as long as they are actually permanent like apartments (which are actually not permanent there are instance where you can lose it if you take an extended break tho that's more a bug than forced loss)

And as long as they don't "force a player" to surrender their plot in a ward, than it's fair.

Because that is exactly what I suggested with my post, like to a T.

[Solowing]

Forgive my dumbass I do have a brain injury, Are you saying as long as Condos are still a gil-sink (which is what I proposed but the price is not )

As long as they remain Customizable, and as long as they are actually permanent like apartments (which are actually not permanent there are instance where you can lose it if you take an extended break tho that's more a bug than forced loss)

And as long as they don't "force a player" to surrender their plot in a ward, than it's fair.

Because that is exactly what I suggested with my post, like to a T.

Alright , for an example of fairness in this sense. If we're going to have instanced housing in conjunction with ward housing , then instance housing is also going to have to have the 45 day demo timer. For parity.

Unless the ward system is going to be retired. And the demolition timer permanently disabled.

But those who may want to ward house wontt going to be able to get one in the name of fairness because the demo timer has to be turned off. And afding new wards is perpetuating the exclusivity because only a limited amount will be available compared to the demand.

But the idea is , if you're going to give everybody the housing system , they have to be held to the same rule set , you cannot have separate rules for the exact same system.

Either they both have the demolition timer or neither do. And those who don't want the demolition timer aren't going to be happy. And if you get rid of the timer , then you have to disable it across all the wards and retire the system as well. Shutting out those want to partake in ward system but didnt get one before the system was retired. They arnt going to be happy. But id be fine since my plots are enshrined and can no longer be demod. It only punishes those who didnt "in b4 the lock"

Which is with the other poster meant by no matter what the solution. Someone not going to be happy. Either instanced housing has to be a compromise or share parity to ward plots. Its not possible to do both.

reposting from the other thread

[Nyastra]

Forgive my dumbass I do have a brain injury, Are you saying as long as Condos are still a gil-sink (which is what I proposed but the price is not )

As long as they remain Customizable, and as long as they are actually permanent like apartments (which are actually not permanent there are instance where you can lose it if you take an extended break tho that's more a bug than forced loss)

And as long as they don't "force a player" to surrender their plot in a ward, than it's fair.

Because that is exactly what I suggested with my post, like to a T.

I think we’re misunderstanding each other.

I am not arguing against instanced or condo housing. I agree it could help.

I am also not saying your proposal is automatically unfair.

What I am saying is this:
even if condos are permanent, customizable, a gil sink, and optional, that doesn’t automatically guarantee fairness. It still depends on how they compare to ward housing in practice — cost, size, value, restrictions, and long-term impact.

My point isn’t “this won’t work.”
My point is “this isn’t trivial, and the details matter.”

If SE can add these condos in a way that gives everyone access without creating new imbalances or devaluing existing housing, then great. I just don’t think that outcome should be assumed without considering the trade-offs.

That’s it.

[Nyastra]

Alright , for an example of fairness in this sense. If we're going to have instanced housing in conjunction with ward housing , then instance housing is also going to have to have the 45 day demo timer. For parity.

Unless the ward system is going to be retired. And the demolition timer permanently disabled.

But those who may want to ward house wontt going to be able to get one in the name of fairness because the demo timer has to be turned off. And afding new wards is perpetuating the exclusivity because only a limited amount will be available compared to the demand.

But the idea is , if you're going to give everybody the housing system , they have to be held to the same rule set , you cannot have separate rules for the exact same system.

Either they both have the demolition timer or neither do. And those who don't want the demolition timer aren't going to be happy. And if you get rid of the timer , then you have to disable it across all the wards and retire the system as well. Shutting out those want to partake in ward system but didnt get one before the system was retired. They arnt going to be happy. But id be fine since my plots are enshrined and can no longer be demod. It only punishes those who didnt "in b4 the lock"

Which is with the other poster meant by no matter what the solution. Someone not going to be happy. Either instanced housing has to be a compromise or share parity to ward plots. Its not possible to do both.

reposting from the other thread

I feel the more it's said, the less people understand what's being said.

If condos are permanent & wards aren't, a lot of people are going to be unhappy and the other way around. If condos are not permanent then again back to square 1 of the problem. So what do we do? Make everything permanent and then have people who cry they can't get something they want? Make everything on timers and get people that cry about losing things? It's impossible and that's the tradeoff SE has to consider.