CBU3 has abandoned us

[Zanarkand-Ronso]

Player A who started in 2013-2014 disagrees with the housing system being so restrictive and limited, should they have unsubscribed back then and stopped playing all together ? What would that have done now 10 years later ? The problem is still there.

We will never know...because we never committed to it as a collective.
We need MORE people doing it and not just a handful of people on the forums, we need more people posibly "voting with their wallets" and possibly leaving, because of housing.

Also there are people like myself who dont care about housing / have given up on housing. So, we dont really contribute to this issue and don't help or harm it.

[UkcsAlias]

We need MORE people doing it and not just a handful of people on the forums, we need more people posibly "voting with their wallets" and possibly leaving, because of housing.

Never gonna happen, and devs know it. Thats why EA still exists. And to some degree even activision exists.

People wont leave for the 20% they dislike if the 80% is still fun for them. And the 5% that leaves might cost less than actualy fixing the things the 5% wanted (as those changes can get others to leave). It costs a lot to invest in good changes, and in many cases you wont be sure if it gives back the investment. The main reason is that other games are often not giving a better experience, some things might be better, but usualy at a cost of other things. For example wow has an absolutely horrible community, yet a better raiding experience for hardcore players. There is no point for them to teach the community to be better (they just implement a very harsh and poor automated report system so nobody even wants to discuss anything anymore, causing players to become eager to leave upon the first sign of potential failure), as activision only cares about the hardcore players as thats a steady income that is far less likely to be lost as long as they cater to them.

It needs a diffirent dev to make a competing game. And even here, we can see failures being very common (overwatch was supposed to be the tf2 killer, yet in 10y tf2 barely lost any players. every lost player just found a replacement). Many RTS games try to become the new cnc/red alert. And none have succeeded, Back4blood tried to be the new l4d and l4d2 still has more players than b4b. Players dont like change so the original games are generaly stable at surviving. Player counts drop very slowly

[Carin-Eri]

Never gonna happen, and devs know it. Thats why EA still exists. And to some degree even activision exists.

People wont leave for the 20% they dislike if the 80% is still fun for them. And the 5% that leaves might cost less than actualy fixing the things the 5% wanted (as those changes can get others to leave). It costs a lot to invest in good changes, and in many cases you wont be sure if it gives back the investment. The main reason is that other games are often not giving a better experience, some things might be better, but usualy at a cost of other things. For example wow has an absolutely horrible community, yet a better raiding experience for hardcore players. There is no point for them to teach the community to be better (they just implement a very harsh and poor automated report system so nobody even wants to discuss anything anymore, causing players to become eager to leave upon the first sign of potential failure), as activision only cares about the hardcore players as thats a steady income that is far less likely to be lost as long as they cater to them.

It needs a diffirent dev to make a competing game. And even here, we can see failures being very common (overwatch was supposed to be the tf2 killer, yet in 10y tf2 barely lost any players. every lost player just found a replacement). Many RTS games try to become the new cnc/red alert. And none have succeeded, Back4blood tried to be the new l4d and l4d2 still has more players than b4b. Players dont like change so the original games are generaly stable at surviving. Player counts drop very slowly

Its also why gamble/loot boxes still exist.

If you look at threads/comments made in forums/social media for pretty much any game committed to the lootbox business model you'll find countless posts bemoaning how sleazy/predatory/downright awful the boxes that the game in question uses. I don't have any figures and will admit that I don't know for certain.... but I've never read anything, anywhere, about any MMO abandoning the lootbox model due to poor sales.

I have an unfortunate habit of ranting about a game I used to play, which I stopped playing for various reasons - one of those reasons being their gamblebox obsessed business model. As I said, I stopped playing it - as did quite a few of my friends (it was one of these friends, who left before I did, who recommended FFXIV to me). In fact I daresay that said game's increasing commitment to lootboxes probably pushed a fair number of players away - players who, by their absence, not only voted with their wallets but with their time too. However, do you think this changed anything? Did the Devs of said game look at this supposed drop in spending and player numbers and reevaluate the game's business model?
Of course not (and no-one thought it would, to be fair) - they introduced a 'promo box', which essentially does the same thing as a lootbox in a very slightly different way, meaning that that game basically now has two forms of gamblebox.