Quote Originally Posted by Yeldir View Post
But I will ask you anyway - what are you a proponent of, in terms of solving the housing problem? Purely instanced housing? That would remedy the problem, at the cost of nuking any semblance of community.

Alternatively, if you're one of those build more ward types, what would you say when those wards filled up with dead houses, too? How far do you think that could go, exactly? SE obviously wants to build more wards, but it appears they've asked themselves this same question, and decided quite understandably that the costs of paying for non-instanced housing that players are not using are unjustifiable.
I'm a proponent of SE fixing their system, whatever system they use, to make it functional. If they have to go instanced, then they have to go instanced. If they have to build more wards, then they have to build more wards. If they have to remove truly dead lots(purchased for months without a building placed or the owner is a deleted account), then they have to remove dead lots.

But there needs to be a -drastic- overhaul to their current system that they are simply not addressing. There are only enough homes for less than 2% of their subscribers, FCs excluded, and considering that it's an advertised game feature(which is hard to proclaim since the vast majority can't participate), they need to do something to fix it. Their current plan is preposterous, and even assuming there was 100% eviction, which we all know won't occur, you will still only have enough homes for less than 2% of their subscribers and you could generously claim the previous 2% had their fill at best, leaving 96% of the subscribers out.

On top of that, from the sound of it, their criteria isn't to remove houses that are truly dead, but houses that belong to inactive users, which reeks of having the ulterior motive of forcing players to renew their subscriptions more often just to keep the property they earned. That isn't even anywhere close to a fix, and while I am not against deleted users losing their homes or lots that are vacant for a period of time being retrieved, it's ludicrous to think that they should take away a home that someone earned in their game due to a period of absence. The fact that the system is so cutthroat that they would even propose the idea, and worse, many of us are already turning on each other over the idea, should be nothing more than an indicator of how little thought and development went into personal housing.

My only desire at this point is to see SE use their resources wisely to find practical solutions to earn ALL of our subscription fees. Because in free enterprise, businesses are regulated by the CONSUMERS, us, and since we are all currently the ones getting the shaft, I would like to see us stop fighting amongst ourselves and let SE know that our funding of their business comes with expectations. And among those expectations is that whatever systems they introduce for content be accessible by all users who subscribe, not just the lucky 2% who made it there first.