So 1.0 owners have to start paying the monthly fee immediately?

[Anumariku]

*Snip*

Yeah I planned on editing it after Abriael had the chance to look at it, thanks for the lookout though

And Abriael, its as if you scanned right over my post and ignored it just to continue to argue; I thought higher of you

[Fatestorm]

Timings have changed all over the place, with multiple delays, so they're completely irrelevant.

What is definitely relevant is that they promised a second free trial period. And all their communication clearly defines a free trial period as the free period after the release of the game.

in no instance of communication from Square Enix it defines a beta.

There is a very simple explanation for this timeline. I'm not sure if this is correct, mind you, but it's a simple explanation that I offer. We all know that this was an early timeline posted, which has changed many times, as Abriael notes. Note that one of the 'endpoint' goals near the Free Trial on that chart is "the merging of version 2.0 and current client software"--that phrase right there is enough to tell you this was a very early timeline. This timeline suggests that originally, the plan was to launch the PC version of ARR BEFORE the PS3 version of ARR. It's that simple. Now, the timeline has changed, and they are planning on a simultaneous release.

The fact that the timeline of PC and PS3 released changed does NOT mean that the originally announced *second*, *reinstated* free trial for PC [read: all current FFXIV players] 'magically disappears' all by itself. Square-Enix, for a reason yet unknown, has decided not to offer what it originally said it would.

Can SE do this? Absolutely. Is all this subject to change? Absolutely. But financial/subscription matters are something of a different cup of tea than "they said we'd get Baby Garuda minion and they took it out, plz add it back plz" or something. If SE were today to announce that Legacy members would not get the previously announced discount on their subscription fees, it would be a big deal. The fact that they advertised a reinstated 30 day free trial, and now *seem* to have taken it away with no explanation, is a similar sort of thing. Not a gamebreaker for most of us fans, but still very disappointing.

[ArkhamNative]

Gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that:

　• October to November 2012
　　– Reinstate limited free trial period for PC version
　　– Commence PlayStation®3 system closed beta test

happens before:

　• Post-January 2013
　　– Version 2.0 client (PC and PlayStation®3 system) goes on sale
　　– Free trial period ends

Therefore:

Any "free trial" that starts months before launch and ends on or even a day after launch satisfies any implied or actual promise made by this document.

[Duuude007]

Ugh, I've just been posting here while I played candy crush saga and uploading a video to youtube, all the while waiting for someone to give some definitive answers. All I got back was a bunch of speculation and half-baked theories, it seems. The only thing that has been said about PC users of the game and a free trial is that we're not getting one. And people have gone to lengths to try to convince me that one or more of the beta versions for the PC are to be considered the free trial stage for the PC, yet there's clearly no evidence of that either.

This has gotten boring now. Tell you what, I'm going to ask Hvinire or another of the reps. They can surely give a clear answer instead of just theories pulled out of a chocobo's rear end. Whether we get one or not, it really doesn't matter to me in the long run. I've already saved up cash for paying subscription fees for this game. I'm going to play, free trial or no. I just want some clarification, and that's not going to happen from anyone except someone working at SE. (yawn) Well, goodnight everyone. I have to get up early in the morn, and if I stay here I'm gonna wind up making hitting the cold air outside my bed sheet all the more unbearable. L8r!

1. The old timeline the OP references has "supposed" evidence of SE backing out of a promise.
2. The 2.0 overview released at the same time shows that the free trial occurs at the same time as PS3 beta, AND that the trial period begins before launch day.
3. The most reliable source cited thus far in this topic affirms that the terms "trial","open beta", and "demonstration" have very similar meanings, and can therefore be interchangeable depending on the entity using the terms.

That's what we have. Unless Abriael concedes that the old timeline has changed all over the place and therefore completely irrelevant, which would make this thread completely irrelevant.

Timings have changed all over the place, so they're pretty irrelevant.

Timings have changed all over the place, with multiple delays, so they're completely irrelevant.

Oh, wait. He did.

[Abriael]

There is a very simple explanation for this timeline. I'm not sure if this is correct, mind you, but it's a simple explanation that I offer. We all know that this was an early timeline posted, which has changed many times, as Abriael notes. Note that one of the 'endpoint' goals near the Free Trial on that chart is "the merging of version 2.0 and current client software"--that phrase right there is enough to tell you this was a very early timeline. This timeline suggests that originally, the plan was to launch the PC version of ARR BEFORE the PS3 version of ARR. It's that simple. Now, the timeline has changed, and they are planning on a simultaneous release.

The fact that the timeline of PC and PS3 released changed does NOT mean that the originally announced *second*, *reinstated* free trial for PC [read: all current FFXIV players] 'magically disappears' all by itself. Square-Enix, for a reason yet unknown, has decided not to offer what it originally said it would.

Can SE do this? Absolutely. Is all this subject to change? Absolutely. But financial/subscription matters are something of a different cup of tea than "they said we'd get Baby Garuda minion and they took it out, plz add it back plz" or something. If SE were today to announce that Legacy members would not get the previously announced discount on their subscription fees, it would be a big deal. The fact that they advertised a reinstated 30 day free trial, and now *seem* to have taken it away with no explanation, is a similar sort of thing. Not a gamebreaker for most of us fans, but still very disappointing.

That's a very good explanation, and pretty much exactly how I feel about it.

Can they do it? Sure. There's no law that states they can't take back their announcements.

Is it disappointing? I'm quite sure for many it will be.

Is it a good idea? Nope.

Will I ragequit? Nope.

Does that mean it's a good idea? Nope.

[Aldora]

Nope, one because the timeline changed all over the place, so the particular timings are irrelevant, two because when Square Enix referred to "Free trial" in official communication, they always indicated a period of free gameplay after the launch of the full game.

Thirdly, if the PS3 is in beta, and the PC is in beta, it doesn't make the slightest sense to define one a "beta" and the other a "free trial".

If the PC version was a beta, why not call it beta? and if it was a free trial, why not call the PS3 beta a free trial as well? It simply doesn't add up at all.

If both versions are betas, why didn't they call both the same thing?

Wouldn't it be rather odd (when looking at the original Comprehensive Roadmap of the 2.0 Outline document) that the PC version of 2.0 would go "live" for existing players without having go through a proper Beta Test while the PS3 version would enter a closed Beta test for a period of 1 to 2 months? Since the 2.0 client would officially go on sale at January 2013, it would mean that the players using the PC version would be able to play the game for a period of 3 to 4 months for free.

To me that time period sounds like a Beta test period. If not, who was going to Beta test 2.0? SE themselves? That would be asking for a 1.0 launch all over again. The original schedule didn't make much sense to me.

But, don't get me wrong, the reason behind your original post was that people who purchased the game would get a 30-day "Free trail" period while existing players would not. At least, that is what you can interpret from Hvinire's post you've quoted.

However, i don't think you should use the original Comprehensive Roadmap of the 2.0 Outline document as a point of reference for the current schedule since it has been changed drasticly.

Side note: I just noticed that you've edited your post the when i clicked the quote button.

You are right, if both versions would be considered a beta, then they should have been described as such. Although, it doesn't really explain the "Free trail" period for a game which is scheduled to be released 3 to 4 months after distributing the digital copy to existing players without having it go through a proper Beta, don't you think?

[Abriael]

That's what we have. Unless Abriael concedes that the old timeline has changed all over the place and therefore completely irrelevant, which would make this thread completely irrelevant.

The timings have changed and terefore are irrelevant. That doesn't make the whole content of the timeline irrelevant, especially since the free trial isn't mentioned just in the timeline, but it's mentioned in many instances.

Timings =/= timeline. You seem to be very eager to misrepresent what people say in order to prove a false point.

And of course, as predicted, you ignored my main point, that you cannot disprove, allow me to quote myself.

I don't have just my individual opinion. I have Square Enix's own definition of "free trial", taken from their prior official communication and linked for your perusal. Here's two instances of many, again:

http://lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com...41f0d8c4e88994
http://lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com...574cb9c3991c9f

In all the official communication from Square Enix "free trial" always indicates the period of free gameplay after the launch of the game. In no instance it indicates betas or early access periods. Feel free to check. The lodestone is all yours.

Of course you'll very conveniently ignore the point as you did until now.

[Abriael]

snippete

Never said that there aren't oddities, but there are several possible explanations for that.

What there's no explanation for would be calling the beta of one version a beta, and the beta of the other version a "second free trial", especially considering that in all previous communication the first "free trial" is a free gameplay period of the full game, not a beta.

What is very evident is that basically everyone that took Square Enix communication at face value interpreted that "free trial" as Square Enix always intended it, which is a free period of gameplay of the full game.

It's in almost every article about 2.0. Whenever you see people talking about it in the comments of blogs and websites you see people spreading the "good news" that everyone that had 1.0 will get at least one free month.

When they'll notice that this isn't the case, many won't be happy.

[Duuude007]

The timings have changed and terefore are irrelevant. That doesn't make the whole content of the timeline irrelevant, especially since the free trial isn't mentioned just in the timeline, but it's mentioned in many instances.

Timings =/= timeline. You seem to be very eager to misrepresent what people say in order to prove a false point.

And of course, as predicted, you ignored my main point, that you cannot disprove, allow me to quote myself.

So you are quoting yourself quoting the devs, good for you.

The devs put free trial before launch in the timeline. Before. Launch.

The 1 month free subscription is unrelated, and occurs after launch.

[Abriael]

So you are quoting yourself quoting the devs, good for you.

The devs put free trial before launch in the timeline. Before. Launch.

The 1 month free subscription is unrelated, and occurs after launch.

You continue to ignore the fact that Square Enix always intended "free trial" as a free period of gameplay of the full game. Not a beta.

They called "free trial" the first month after the launch of 1.0. They called it "Free trial" when they extended it the first two times. They called it "free trial" when they extended it further for almost a year. They called it "free trial" when they closed it.

They never called a beta "free trial" (as a matter of fact, I've never seen any developer/publisher since the times of Ultima Online's beta call a beta "free trial", not even once, developers know better than doing that, as a "free trial" is a perk that goes exclusively at the advantage of the player, a beta is give and take). How do you explain it? Did they suddenly change their dictionary?