Where does the mentioned feedback actually come from?

[Sjol]

They are going to take your feedback and then compare it to metrics and then decide from there. They aren't just going to listen to the feedback without doing any critical analysis.

Let's take Valence here for example. Valence posts nonstop about how homogenization is killing the game and everything is simpler and dumbed down and this is bad for REASONS. Some moderator or some other team member reads this feedback and the 100 other people on this forum who incessantly bring this up in every topic regardless of relevance and hands it off to yoshi p. Yoshi P reads the feedback and then goes hmm, maybe Valence is correct, I should check the numbers. So then Yoshi P would then go and check any number of metrics to see if this feedback is corroborated. Things such as:

1. Subscription count.
2. Players who cite homogenization and dumbing down in their cancellation survey.
3. Per Capita savage clears in each expansion.
4. Per Capita failed instances.
5. In the case of specific job changes like summoner, shifts in the number of players who main that job after major changes.
6. Average player damage floors across expansions. I.e. if a hw mch only approached 40% of the theoretical best dps while an EW mch might be at 50% (or potentially the inverse but let's be real here) then that would be a point of consideration.

And any number of other metrics that they could think of. Forum posters could post 10,000 anti-homogenization posts a day but if the sub numbers aren't dropping catastrophically with people pointing this out as the reason why they are leaving, or content clear rates are noticeably higher now than they were prior to all this homogenization and dumbing down, then they aren't going to de-homogenize things if those are the metrics they primarily care about.

I literally have a friend to mains SMN because, "it's braindead and lets me focus on the boss instead". And no, he doesn't ever visit the forums.

[Equitable_Remedy]

I literally have a friend to mains SMN because, "it's braindead and lets me focus on the boss instead". And no, he doesn't ever visit the forums.

If your friend wants a job that allows him to focus on the boss, then the existence of a job that allows him to focus on the boss is good, actually. If your friend has 18 other choices (plus the option to not play the game at all), and chooses SMN, it's sounds like the SMN rework worked out well for your friend.

[Rekh]

They are going to take your feedback and then compare it to metrics and then decide from there. They aren't just going to listen to the feedback without doing any critical analysis.

Let's take Valence here for example. Valence posts nonstop about how homogenization is killing the game and everything is simpler and dumbed down and this is bad for REASONS. Some moderator or some other team member reads this feedback and the 100 other people on this forum who incessantly bring this up in every topic regardless of relevance and hands it off to yoshi p. Yoshi P reads the feedback and then goes hmm, maybe Valence is correct, I should check the numbers. So then Yoshi P would then go and check any number of metrics to see if this feedback is corroborated. Things such as:

1. Subscription count.
2. Players who cite homogenization and dumbing down in their cancellation survey.
3. Per Capita savage clears in each expansion.
4. Per Capita failed instances.
5. In the case of specific job changes like summoner, shifts in the number of players who main that job after major changes.
6. Average player damage floors across expansions. I.e. if the average hw mch only approached 40% of the theoretical best dps while the average EW mch might be at 50% (or potentially the inverse but let's be real here) then that would be a point of consideration.

And any number of other metrics that they could think of. Forum posters could post 10,000 anti-homogenization posts a day but if the sub numbers aren't dropping catastrophically with people pointing this out as the reason why they are leaving, or content clear rates are noticeably higher now than they were prior to all this homogenization and dumbing down, then they aren't going to de-homogenize things if those are the metrics they primarily care about.

The classic "the data tell us" out of touch businessman fallacy. Just like the data told them attracting teenagers with FFXIII, XV, and and now XVI would make them a healthy profit? We know the opposite is true. Sure, those 3 games "sold a lot," but "a lot" is relative to the cost of production as well as value depreciation of your product.

This kind of "let's filter FFXIV 1.0 complaints through businessman filter" is exactly how FFXIV 1.0 ended up being the product it ended up being.

[Arkdra]

The classic "the data tell us" out of touch businessman fallacy. Just like the data told them attracting teenagers with FFXIII, XV, and and now XVI would make them a healthy profit? We know the opposite is true. Sure, those 3 games "sold a lot," but "a lot" is relative to the cost of production as well as value depreciation of your product.

This kind of "let's filter FFXIV 1.0 complaints through businessman filter" is exactly how FFXIV 1.0 ended up being the product it ended up being.

Capitalism rules everything around us. If they had data indicating that people thought this was a real problem and it was costing them significant subs, they would do something about it. And maybe it is! Maybe it wasn't a problem of relevance early in EW but it has grown to be one now but it's too late in dev to do anything about it for DT. Maybe they actually will do something about it in 8.0. It is a mystery, I don't have any hard data, all I got is cynicism for businesses.

Also 13 and 15 were profitable and 16's problems stem from the small install base of PS5 so your examples aren't great.

[Rekh]

Capitalism rules everything around us. If they had data indicating that people thought this was a real problem and it was costing them significant subs, they would do something about it. And maybe it is! Maybe it wasn't a problem of relevance early in EW but it has grown to be one now but it's too late in dev to do anything about it for DT. Maybe they actually will do something about it in 8.0. It is a mystery, I don't have any hard data, all I got is cynicism for businesses.

Also 13 and 15 were profitable and 16's problems stem from the small install base of PS5 so your examples aren't great.

"Final Fantasy XIII cost millions to make, but it sold over 6.5 million copies, which is around $350 million. If the average price per game is around $54, then Final Fantasy XIII may have earned around $350 million. Some copies sold for $70–80, while others were sold at a cheaper price."-Google AI search

"In its first week of sales, Final Fantasy XIII-2 sold only 1/3 as well as its predecessor."

"Most game developers would jump on top of their servers and dance for joy if their game sold 500,000 copies within its first week. Square Enix is not one of those developers. Final Fantasy XIII-2, the follow-up to 2010’s often-maligned Final Fantasy XIII, cleared the half-million sales mark in only four days. While these sales figures are not bad on their own, it’s a decline of roughly 66% from Final Fantasy XIII‘s 1.5 million units sold within the same time frame." https://www.escapistmagazine.com/fin...kluster-sales/

"While the critics may have liked it, and Square may have fudged the initial sales figures, this game did terrible as far as consumers are concerned. It is one of the few games in Japan to drop from its near 7000 yen price tag to under 500 yen within only 5 or 6 months. Most games, especially Final Fantasy ones, never drop in price to under 980 yen even years after release (and it'll take a couple of years to get to 980 yen). But with FF13, stores couldn't even give copies away." https://steamcommunity.com/app/29212...1/?l=brazilian

I can get more if you'd like. Moreover, I don't know why you even bring up ffxvi? If a data-driven stock exchange company like square enix has to blame the ps5 for not meeting their production costs then what does that tell us about data-driven decisions?

[Catwho]

The SE investors have been told for years that stuff like 7 Remake should "print money" and that the Final Fantasy brand should shit gold bricks.

But their decision to not release on PC is really starting to hurt them, same as what is about to hit EA Sports because they're not releasing the new NCAA game on PC. Those of us who already have a PS5 or Xbox One are like "cool' but someone who spent $3000 on a gaming system in the last year is justifiably upset that game companies are deliberately ignoring them as a primary market.

[Valence]

They are going to take your feedback and then compare it to metrics and then decide from there. They aren't just going to listen to the feedback without doing any critical analysis.

Let's take Valence here for example. Valence posts nonstop about how homogenization is killing the game and everything is simpler and dumbed down and this is bad for REASONS. Some moderator or some other team member reads this feedback and the 100 other people on this forum who incessantly bring this up in every topic regardless of relevance and hands it off to yoshi p. Yoshi P reads the feedback and then goes hmm, maybe Valence is correct, I should check the numbers. So then Yoshi P would then go and check any number of metrics to see if this feedback is corroborated. Things such as:

1. Subscription count.
2. Players who cite homogenization and dumbing down in their cancellation survey.
3. Per Capita savage clears in each expansion.
4. Per Capita failed instances.
5. In the case of specific job changes like summoner, shifts in the number of players who main that job after major changes.
6. Average player damage floors across expansions. I.e. if the average hw mch only approached 40% of the theoretical best dps while the average EW mch might be at 50% (or potentially the inverse but let's be real here) then that would be a point of consideration.

And any number of other metrics that they could think of. Forum posters could post 10,000 anti-homogenization posts a day but if the sub numbers aren't dropping catastrophically with people pointing this out as the reason why they are leaving, or content clear rates are noticeably higher now than they were prior to all this homogenization and dumbing down, then they aren't going to de-homogenize things if those are the metrics they primarily care about.

Way to completely miss the point.

1) I'm asking where is the feedback they mention and where does it come from, because unless i'm living in a parallel dimension, it doesn't come from those forums where they tell us to give our feedback. So it has to come from somewhere else, or perhaps the JP forums idk. I don't read japanese. I'm sure the feedback they keep mentioning comes from somewhere, but it doesnt come from there.

2) I'm asking for them to address extremely widely accepted core issues that I listed in the OP. It's not just Valence's issues. You'll find them everywhere on the internet, ingame, reddit, streamers, everywhere. Don't tell me the 2min meta is something I invented. Don't tell me healer problems is something I made up. Don't tell me you haven't seen any of those mentioned before.

3) I'm sure they have their reasons, I want to hear their side of the story, especially regarding those points they keep dodging and not addressing at all.

The point of this post was never to whine about how the devs don't listen to muh feedback.

[Arkdra]

Way to completely miss the point.

1) I'm asking where is the feedback they mention and where does it come from, because unless i'm living in a parallel dimension, it doesn't come from those forums where they tell us to give our feedback. So it has to come from somewhere else, or perhaps the JP forums idk. I don't read japanese. I'm sure the feedback they keep mentioning comes from somewhere, but it doesnt come from there.

2) I'm asking for them to address extremely widely accepted core issues that I listed in the OP. It's not just Valence's issues. You'll find them everywhere on the internet, ingame, reddit, streamers, everywhere. Don't tell me the 2min meta is something I invented. Don't tell me healer problems is something I made up. Don't tell me you haven't seen any of those mentioned before.

3) I'm sure they have their reasons, I want to hear their side of the story, especially regarding those points they keep dodging and not addressing at all.

The point of this post was never to whine about how the devs don't listen to muh feedback.

1. These forums is the only answer they will ever give. Even if they are getting it elsewhere, to let that knowledge out would contaminate that as a source and then just open that place up to criticism from whoever disagrees with it and that's just a nightmare for everyone involved. Like if he came out and said that he has Aimi collate information from r/ff14discussion then that place would immediately get slammed by people looking to get his ear and whatever value it had is lost. Now it's just ff14 forums 2: with an even worse format.

2 and 3. They've talked about this stuff before already (well, 2 minute meta and healer changes specifically) but honestly, I don't disagree . It would have been good to address it again and I do generally enjoy hearing their view on things even when I disagree. If we're lucky, someone on the media tour will pick his brain about it.

[Kaurhz]

You can have the best battle and job designers on the planet but it won't matter nor amount to much if it is not wholly their decision to make.

That being said, I think a lot of it is just selective feedback being relayed.

[Lyth]

...

Feedback tends to define a design problem rather than a design solution. I think as players we tend to focus on the solutions that the community requests, while in a lot of cases they're looking at our collective reactions to changes.

Consider this. Many melee players have specifically weighed in this expansion as wanting to see more challenging job designs. Yet there are a number of non-melee players, including yourself, who have recently cited positionals as being a barrier to entry. I know that they tried to upsell VPR as being fast paced and challenging, but they did that for RPR as well. What's to say that designing a new job with simpler gameplay, fewer buttons, few/no positionals, and part time physical-ranged gameplay isn't the direct impact of trying to cater to people who don't play/aren't currently interested in the role? (I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if that's how it turns out.) It's not necessarily that they're ignoring melee players input, it's just that they're trying to cater to too many people at once. And then when said job eventually gets indirectly nerfed (i.e. everyone else gets buffed) on the basis of 'lower difficulty', then both groups pull back and you end up catering to an audience that never actually existed in the first place.

It's hard to tell what the specific intention of some changes are without additional detail. For example, why do you think the 30% mitigation tools were selected to be upgraded? I don't think it's because tanks need more mitigation. Currently, they're all identical except for Vengeance, which has an additional thorns effect. This game balances nearly exclusively through upward balance. So you 'upgrade' all of them, add in job-specific additional effects, and then remove the thorns effect on the pre-upgraded Vengeance when nobody is looking. This may seem like an unnecessary amount of legerdemain for something that could have been openly adjusted years ago, but that's how they roll.

Naturally, in some cases, changes aren't made on the basis of direct feedback but rather in response to performance gaps within a job or role. The most common reason for this is if there is a less intuitive way to optimize. The obvious discussion point here is BLM/non-standard, but I strongly suspect that the new additions to RPR were deliberately introduced to interfere with the setup for Double/Triple Enshroud. These things do erode job complexity and leave players frustrated, but also make the optimization strategy more transparent and move the focus to performance/execution over rotation design. I don't agree with it but I'm also not surprised by it.

It's a combination of factors most likely, but the biggest ones are trying to cater to too many people at once and being reluctant to openly (and quickly) roll out changes that people may get upset over.