Reclamation of Inactive Housing announced

[Mulch]

So you have to always be subscribed or else your 50 million gil investment that took you months of work goes up in smoke? Should they also implement a 45 day timer where your gil starts vanishing from your inventory because other players might need it? And should they also take away your retainer's levels and gear as well? What about your character name after 45 days? How about they also make your gear go down ilevel by 50 for every 45 days you are offline?

It seems like a really cheap shot to keep people subscribed, it isn't a solution to fix the housing availability problem. Fixing the housing availability problem could be done in a ton of ways, none of which involve forcing players to login within an arbitary time frame that just so happens to guarantee you have to stay subscribed at all times or else.

Yup this guy <3 he gets it Kamikrazy you can't argue with the White Knights though lol

[SinisterJointss]

Yup this guy <3 he gets it Kamikrazy you can't argue with the White Knights though lol

Get's what? What is there to get? Oh... nothing

So you have to always be subscribed or else your 50 million gil investment that took you months of work goes up in smoke? Should they also implement a 45 day timer where your gil starts vanishing from your inventory because other players might need it? And should they also take away your retainer's levels and gear as well? What about your character name after 45 days? How about they also make your gear go down ilevel by 50 for every 45 days you are offline?

It seems like a really cheap shot to keep people subscribed, it isn't a solution to fix the housing availability problem. Fixing the housing availability problem could be done in a ton of ways, none of which involve forcing players to login within an arbitary time frame that just so happens to guarantee you have to stay subscribed at all times or else.

It's not a cheap shot to keep people subscribed. Its to free up plots from all these house owners who have vanished from the face of eorzea. If you cant be bothered to log in once in 45 days then you dont need a house. If you are actively subbed AND PLAYING and cant be bothered to go to your house in 45 days then... you dont need a house.

[Mulch]

It's not too much to ask for you to log in once per month and visit your house if you wanna keep it.
At least now other people who are playing have a real shot at owning land currently not being used

Or they could just add more housing wards.... maybe even content...... Oh wait forgot #ServerStrain

[ElHeggunte]

Or they could just add more housing wards.... maybe even content...... Oh wait forgot #ServerStrain

We're getting more wards. We're getting more content. Regardless of whatever else happens with housing from this point forward, we desperately need a way to free up abandoned plots from delinquent homeowners. The only legitimate argument against this change is the personal house timer being a little on the short side (60 days would have been better) and may potentially screw over people who are forced from the game against their will.

Of course this isn't going to "fix" the issue of there not being enough homes to go around, but it's not supposed to. It's just one initial step in a larger plan to attempt to fix the issue of there not being enough homes (or whatever the hell it is SE is trying to do). Suggesting that they shouldn't bother with the change at all just because it won't immediately fix the overarching issue with housing is silly.

[SuperZay]

If you're no longer actively playing, much less continuing your subscription for any period of time, then you are the one being selfish for wanting to keep your claws onto a plot of land

Good for you, you don't feel attachment to things that you spent time and money on. Want a medal?

[Xerius]

It's not too much to ask for you to log in once per month and visit your house if you wanna keep it.
At least now other people who are playing have a real shot at owning land currently not being used

You say this now. Wait until you purchase a private estate and furnish it and then realize there's rarely ever a reason to enter your house once the novelty wears off.

[Blood-Aki]

The bolded text highlights the point I'm trying to make.

Nailen's argument was "You signed a TOS saying they're allowed to do this, so you shouldn't complain." My argument is that if you're going to make that argument, you have to apply it unilaterally, you can't just pick and choose.

This is where common business sense comes in, This scenerio is never going to happen, sure they can just "delete everything because you agreed to it" but that's never going to happen, freeing up highly in demand plot because people don't log on is a far more reasonable scenario.

Fine, since you can't get over the specifics of the example to focus on the actual point:

If you tried to log on tomorrow and SE had deleted all your glamour items/companions/mounts/titles/achievements, would your reaction be "Well, I agreed to the TOS that said they could, so that's fine"?

Read above, this is something that is extreamly unlikly to never will happen. You're just trying to hard. Deleting all that is actually unreasonable and no call for it, freeing up plots that aren't being used. is actually fair.

You say this now. Wait until you purchase a private estate and furnish it and then realize there's rarely ever a reason to enter your house once the novelty wears off.

Then why did you buy it to begin with? Thinking ahead goes a long way. IF you didn't think it would be worth the invesment, should have never bought it, It is a good idea to think hard about spending large amounts of gill on content that you know you will never get that money back for.

[Xerius]

Then why did you buy it to begin with? Thinking ahead goes a long way. IF you didn't think it would be worth the invesment, should have never bought it, It is a good idea to think hard about spending large amounts of gill on content that you know you will never get that money back for.

Why? What else is there to do with Gil?

I bought an estate for the same reason as everyone else, because I wanted an estate. I didn't plan on getting a return on my investment. It's a luxury item in its entirety.

[Ibi]

This is where common business sense comes in, This scenerio is never going to happen, sure they can just "delete everything because you agreed to it" but that's never going to happen

When the lead developer of the game specifically states "we're not going to have a system like this", most reasonable people would probably say that's a scenario that's never going to happen also.

I'd say it's bad business sense to delete any part of a players efforts in a game, rather than finding an alternative solution.

Read above, this is something that is extreamly unlikly to never will happen. You're just trying to hard. Deleting all that is actually unreasonable and no call for it, freeing up plots that aren't being used. is actually fair.

Your comment that "that is actually unreasonable", implies that you would agree that SE acting within the terms of the TOS can be unreasonable. You're just drawing a different (equally arbitrary) line.

As indicated above, it's my opinion that removing any part of a player's efforts in game is equally unreasonable. I think discriminating is ridiculous. Companions, mounts, etc. obviously all also take memory. If memory is the limitation (and that's what SE tell us) then this decision shows that anything that relies on that is, theoretically, up for restriction at some point down the line.

If they didn't have the necessary capacity to implement the system in such a way as to conform to the expectations that they themselves established, they shouldn't have implemented it as they did.

Then why did you buy it to begin with? Thinking ahead goes a long way. IF you didn't think it would be worth the invesment, should have never bought it, It is a good idea to think hard about spending large amounts of gill on content that you know you will never get that money back for.

I know this wasn't in response to me, but since I'm in a similar situation...

Not spending time in your house after some time has passed doesn't mean it wasn't worth the investment. I long since recouped the gil I spent on my house via the garden (and could make a significant profit if I decided to sell the plot), but to this day it has almost no furniture placed and I don't remember the last time I actually went inside of it. I do use it as a teleport location on a daily basis, but that's about the extent of it.

And before you accuse my other arguments of being self-serving, my sub's been active since the start of 2.0, I have no intention of cancelling any time soon, and even if I did I wouldn't be that bothered by the loss of the house (in fact, the 80% refund is an excellent addition for players who no longer want their house but don't want to feel forced to have to try to sell the plot to another player to recoup their investment).

One of the more productive steps SE could take would be implementing some encouragement/motivation for players like me, who find the house convenient but don't really care that much about it (or who enjoyed the house initially, but are no longer as interested as they originally were), to relinquish their plots.

[YuiKitahara]

This doesn't fix the problem, this just needlessly punishes the players who got houses

This isn't going to work when every estate is owned by someone who doesn't leave it be for 45 days, in a year or so everyone will once again not be able to buy houses, and all this will do is annoy people and feel like a cheap gimmick to force you to keep playing the game every month even if you want to take a break from it

Terrible choice, I'm very dissapointed in this awful design decision

I have the same feeling. now I can't even take a break in peace....