This is just appalling

[HPDelron]

Thing is the portion of their player base they're aliening is probably pretty small.

Lots of folks don't care about cosmetics or emotes.
Lots of folks who do care don't even follow the cash shop.
Lots of folks who do care are perfectly willing to play.
Lots of folks who care about emotes, follow the cash shop and aren't willing to pay don't care enough for it to be anything but a minor annoyance.

Really they're only throwing out the slice of the pie that:
Follows the cash shop
AND
Cares about cosmetics
AND
Doesn't want to pay
AND
Puts enough importance for it to be a deal breaker.

What portion of the playerbase is that? 1-in-1000? I wouldn't wager it's huge...

[Kaurie]

Reminds me of my cousins. They constantly got on my case for my occasional splurges on video game stuff yet saw nothing wrong spending hundreds of dollars drinking. Both are optional things we do for fun. Money is relative and subjective. What one thinks is silly and overpriced, another won't care and is simply happy to have it.

Conversely, there are plenty of people who find small purchases to be no big deal, but then when it's all added up, the totals are astronomical. There are plenty of stories of people who paid for cheap in-app purchases on mobile apps, but ended up spending thousands of dollars in the year. More often than not, you won't notice this until it's too late.

Thing is the portion of their player base they're aliening is probably pretty small.

Lots of folks don't care about cosmetics or emotes.
Lots of folks who do care don't even follow the cash shop.
Lots of folks who do care are perfectly willing to play.
Lots of folks who care about emotes, follow the cash shop and aren't willing to pay don't care enough for it to be anything but a minor annoyance.

Really they're only throwing out the slice of the pie that:
Follows the cash shop
AND
Cares about cosmetics
AND
Doesn't want to pay
AND
Puts enough importance for it to be a deal breaker.

What portion of the playerbase is that? 1-in-1000? I wouldn't wager it's huge...

This seems like its based off a lot of data that we don't have. I am not sure how many players are being alienated or frustrated by the cash shop, but I know that these players exist. Square can do what they want, but the answer to why Square should stop is the risk of losing loyal subscribers.

As for your points, I disagree that you need to hit all of them. I don't care about most of the cosmetics or items in the cash shop. I don't follow the monthly updates to the cash shop (or however frequent it is?) I am simply frustrated that they have them in the first place. I am sure that I am in a minority, but again, I do exist.

While I completely understand this. It won't change their mind until they see that they are losing money. Telling them that you are leaving/quitting, moving on to another game won't change the current situation. As long as there are more people buying and joining the game. It won't matter to them if few people quit (This is sad but it is how business work). As long as there is gain, it won't matter.

I am not saying people will threaten to quit over it. I am saying that they are frustrated with the development team. That frustration makes it easier for them to pick up bags and leave to a competitor, as soon as an attractive competitor arises. Square won't see the loss of money until it's too late. The answer to why they shouldn't do this was predictive business practices, not adaptive business practices.

[Greedalox]

Conversely, there are plenty of people who find small purchases to be no big deal, but then when it's all added up, the totals are astronomical. There are plenty of stories of people who paid for cheap in-app purchases on mobile apps, but ended up spending thousands of dollars in the year. More often than not, you won't notice this until it's too late.

SE isn't liable for poor spending habits. If you play within your means, spend what you set aside for you to spend- there's no reason to make this a notch against cash shop purchases. Everyone should know where they stand financially, and if you only just realized you spent thousands of dollars on a game unknowningly, you need to check your statements more.

[Kaurie]

SE isn't liable for poor spending habits. If you play within your means, spend what you set aside for you to spend- there's no reason to make this a notch against cash shop purchases. Everyone should know where they stand financially, and if you only just realized you spent thousands of dollars on a game unknowningly, you need to check your statements more.

I never suggested they were. The part you quoted wasn't really an argument against the cash shop, but was simply furthering the discussion on how people view money. The person I quoted was talking about the equivalence of spending money on alcohol, and added that money is relative.

Square can lose "Loyal" customers for doing literally anything. Someone might quite because they dislike the design of dungeons, or the commitment to the tomestone gearing system.

They might quit because they dislike the story, or they revamped their favorite class.

If the only moves they should make are ones that alienate no-one, that's an impossible task because anything they could do (including doing nothing) might piss somebody off.

There's plenty of evidence from other games that cash shops like this are innocuous. WoW didn't see a massive drop off in subs because of the Rainbow Unicorn, it happened because they released an expansion with no good content.

Unless we're about to see a massive break with industry trend, no amount of fancy dresses or dances being sold at high prices will put a meaningful dent in the game's playerbase.

It takes a lapse in core content to scare off players, and the stuff in the cash shop just isn't core content. It's fluff.

This reply shows a severe misunderstanding of my argument. One is a discussion of the product and the other is a discussion of the business.

As for the comparison to WoW, their cash shop is not nearly as harmless. I've seen very very few items added to it since Legion started, and in the same time, countless things have been added to FFXIV. Items purchased on the WoW cash shop are account wide, vs character wide. Further, you can actually purchase WoW cash shop items with WoW tokens (in-game gold).

No one cares about what they put into the cash shop until they add something that person cares about. For some people, glamour is everything. These people have been complaining about Mogstation items since they were added. Square just happens to be adding more items people want, so now they are getting pissed too.

I was stating that I don't care about the glamours to show that you do not need to care about the products available in the cash shop to be annoyed with the cash shop. It's not a pre-requisite.

[Greedalox]

The part you quoted wasn't really an argument against the cash shop, but was simply furthering the discussion on how people view money.

My mistake! I thought you were insinuating it was on SE if players spent thousands of dollars on cash shop items by mistake.

[HPDelron]

This reply shows a severe misunderstanding of my argument. One is a discussion of the product and the other is a discussion of the business.

Your argument fundamentally seems to be that square is at some risk of a meaningful loss of players because of their cash shop items. If that isn't your argument why should square - or anyone care? It's a non-issue if that's the case. It only matters if it will have a meaningful negative impact on the playerbase.

If that is your argument my point stands: Cash shops items are fluff. They are dresses and dances and nothing that matters. Core content is what drives the game and sub numbers. If I'm wrong I guess we'll see the game dry up as folks see everyone in their fc chats go "I'm sorry guys, I had fun with you all but I'm quitting the game because square is charging too much for emotes in the cash shop. Best of luck. I'll be trying {INSERT_MMO_HERE} ping me on discord if you wanna meet up with me there".

We are in the land of speculation obviously. We'd need a crystal ball to know for sure. However I wouldn't be going out of my way to wager that scenario will come to pass.

[Kaurie]

We are in the land of speculation obviously. We'd need a crystal ball to know for sure. However I wouldn't be going out of my way to wager that scenario will come to pass.

indeed, I am by no means saying that what I said will happen, but I am saying it could happen. It's the answer to the question of "what reason does Square have to not do this". Different companies weigh it differently.

For example, look at EA, you have BF1 and Titanfall 2. BF1 opted for the DLC approach and TF2 opted for the free DLC approach. Despite TF2 receiving praise for this stance, it seems pretty clear that BF1 has been more successful. In this example, your stance is absolutely the one that came to pass.

I would like to see more companies rewarded with loyalty for treating their consumers well, but perhaps it's just a pipe dream.

[HPDelron]

I would like to see more companies rewarded with loyalty for treating their consumers well, but perhaps it's just a pipe dream.

Putting aside the fluff thing for a moment:

They're offering people goods those people want at price they're willing to pay. It's not mistreating customers to simply give them a chance to buy things.

Everyone who paid $25.00 for an outfit or whatever wanted that outfit more than they wanted $25.00. There's nothing shady or dishonest going on. They're arguably better off for having had the opportunity to trade in their cash for something they wanted than they would have been otherwise.

I paid square $200+ dollars for the collectors edition of Stormblood because I wanted the goofy swag that comes in the box. It is expensive goofy swag but that hardly means I've been mistreated. I get my goofy swag. SE gets my money. Me & SE both get what we wanted and neither of us did it at gunpoint.

At the end of the day I'm better off for getting the opportunity to spend my money on things I want, than I would be not getting that opportunity.

Am I as well off as I would be in some hypothetical universe where they sold me the goofy swag for $80.00 instead? No. However that hardly makes me some kind of victim here.

[Lycieus]

I was stating that I don't care about the glamours to show that you do not need to care about the products available in the cash shop to be annoyed with the cash shop. It's not a pre-requisite.

It's not necessarily a pre-requisite. I have always been vocal about my opposition to the cash shop and my position has been consistent. I don't care what's in it, I'm opposed to them diverting resources into content that only people willing to pay them extra cash get when it should be given to everyone since everyone financed the creation of that content in the first place.

That being said, for the most part, if people don't want a particular item they add to the cash shop, they don't care about this. This is just my experience from talking to people about this issue on this forum.

[HPDelron]

Square can lose "Loyal" customers for doing literally anything. Someone might quit because they dislike the design of dungeons, or the commitment to the tomestone gearing system. They might quit because they dislike the story, or they revamped their favorite class.

If the only moves they should make are ones that alienate no-one, that's an impossible task because anything they could do (including doing nothing) might piss somebody off.

There's plenty of evidence from other games that cash shops like this are innocuous. WoW didn't see a massive drop off in subs because of the $25 mounts, it happened because they released an expansion with no good content.

Unless we're about to see a massive break with industry trend, no amount of fancy dresses or dances being sold at high prices will put a meaningful dent in the game's playerbase.

It takes a lapse in core content to scare off players, and the stuff in the cash shop just isn't core content. It's fluff.