Global Alpha Test Start Date

[whoopeeragon]

From the official application form.

I'm not sure what part of it you don't understand, 'cause it sounds quite clear to me. I didn't make the rules. I just point out when they're broken.

Maybe you understand already what I'm gonna write, but that line was merely for the application. It has NO HOLD whatsoever on who gets accepted save for filtering those into who can access the application.

I do agree that it may be a bug/glitch, because I have a friend who attempted to access the application on an inactive account, but he got denied. That may be it working correctly, but then you have reports from others...it's not honestly that big of a deal because the applicant had to have a shred of interest to even get through the application. SE doesn't up and choose everyone from the huge masses - they review the application and, based on the criteria they laid out for themselves (WHICH THE RULE FOR THE APPLICATION DOES NOT APPLY), they choose the person.

The application rules and process is independent from the alpha testing criteria and selection. The application merely filters through people who want to test from everyone else as well as provide their own personal information. The selection doesn't look for any other information aside from what was provided and based on that criteria, chosen. So the two processes aren't linked.

If anything, the selection of alpha testers went smoothly. It was the APPLICATION which seems to be weirded out. But as I said, it may be a bug/glitch, as it has worked for others, and not so much for some.

EDIT: Not targetting anyone in particular, but it seems as if there are huge misunderstandings about the application, selection, and the NDA. Maybe I should type up a topic related to those three instances just to clear things up.

[lolodin]

From the official application form.

- Must currently have an active FINAL FANTASY XIV account

I'm not sure what part of it you don't understand, 'cause it sounds quite clear to me. I didn't make the rules. I just point out when they're broken.

I dont think it really matters anymore whats done is done wat till the 3rd an if you dont get picked oh well no point in debating it anymore man :P

[Abriael]

Maybe you understand already what I'm gonna write, but that line was merely for the application. It has NO HOLD whatsoever on who gets accepted save for filtering those into who can access the application.

Eh not really. If you state something as an application "requirement", it's rather obvious that selection will be made between those that match those requirement, because those that don't can't even apply.

I do think it's an non intentional problem, probably caused by the partial reactivation of all the accounts for the final event (thing that was really a bad idea in its own right, mind you, as it caused many paying customers to miss the event completely due to the insanely high traffic, but they already apologized about that, and I normally accept apologies), but in that case the correct course of action is to admit the issue and make amends.

And I do think Yoshi's post at the very least tries to amend the problem, so that helps.

I dont think it really matters anymore whats done is done wat till the 3rd an if you dont get picked oh well no point in debating it anymore man :P

It doesn't matter to the past, but I sure hope that Square Enix won't do the same mistake for the future. Count it as a friendly reminder.

[SkyeWindbinder]

You're assuming that I'm angry. Finding something rather distasteful and writing about it isn't an equivalent to being angry..

Ahem... Note the post below that YOU YOURSELF wrote... (especially the bolded part)

I got ticked off because I know that a certain amount of disappointment is quite justified in this situation, given the communication blunder, and I find people so ready to jump to the throat of people that are already (rightfully) disappointed rather distasteful.

^^Post #557.

Is it? They're not called "flames" for nothing. And again, you're continuing to interpret people's motives rather arbitrarily.

Except the ones who clearly state their self-entitled reasons for whining. lol You know, the ones I was writing about in the first place?

There's no misinformation, or better, that "misinformation" was created by SE itself. They're the ones that officially stated that only people with an active account were eligible. It hasn't been invented by some other misinformative source.

I never said it was. I used that term in a sense to describe how they didn't get the info out they should have. Or rather, how they got the wrong info out, saying that only those with active accounts would be let into alpha, when that clearly isn't the case. And again, it's not the people with legit concerns over that that I was referring to. (How many times do I have to say that? lol)

Which is exactly the problem. Misinforming paying customers is a bad, bad idea. On a case by case base it's possible to get away with it, but it's always a risk not worth taking.

Indeed. But as I said before, I doubt this misinformation about this phase of alpha is really as serious as you're painting it to be.

Customers are sensitive,

I know. Dear god, do I know. lol

any kind of situations in which they're fed wrong information is a potential can of worms. It may not be a "critical blow", but a good boxer avoids all the blows he can, no matter if they're critical or not, they add up.

A good boxer also knows what kinds of hits to take seriously and what kind of boxer isn't going to hit that hard. Mike Tyson might have a lot to worry about in a match against Evander Holyfield. But I don't think he'd be all that worried about taking a couple of hits from Don Knotts. My point is, yes, misinformation can be critical. But knowing what to be super worried about and what not to be superworried about is just good judgment and perspective. And, really, I don't think this is a red-alert, world-ending critical problem. (shrug)

[Abriael]

Ahem... Note the post below that YOU YOURSELF wrote... (especially the bolded part)

"ticked off" (I just repeated your term, mind you) is quite different from "angry". I find the confrontational attitude that some have against those that are already displeased by not being selected highly distasteful and unbecoming of a community. More distasteful than the complaints.

Complaining about Complainers and all that.

Being "angry" is a whole different thing.

Except the ones who clearly state their self-entitled reasons for whining. lol You know, the ones I was writing about in the first place?

They're not "self entitled". That's a rather meaningless and derogatory catchphrase. Square Enix created that entitlement in the first place by putting the "Must currently have an active FINAL FANTASY XIV account" caveat in writing.

There's nothing "self" about that entitlement. And mind you, considering that they supported the game thus far, while people that aren't subscribed didn't, it's very, very debatable that that entitlement isn't justified to begin with.

The concept of customer loyalty is very important for a company, and loyal customers normally do have a degree of reason to expect a better treatment than casual ones. It's a simple give-and-take issue.

I never said it was. I used that term in a sense to describe how they didn't get the info out they should have. Or rather, how they got the wrong info out, saying that only those with active accounts would be let into alpha, when that clearly isn't the case. And again, it's not the people with legit concerns over that that I was referring to. (How many times do I have to say that? lol)

It wasn't really wrong info. The info is legit, as the rules were there, quite clearly stated. What's wrong is how those rules weren't applied.

Indeed. But as I said before, I doubt this misinformation about this phase of alpha is really as serious as you're painting it to be.

What you seem to have missed is that I did not make any precise statement of seriousness. Whether it's serious or not, it brings a degree of damage. And it's a degree of damage that 1: could be avoided 2: brings absolutely no advantage to balance it.

So it's a bad thing that should be avoided, regardless of how serious it is.

A good boxer also knows what kinds of hits to take seriously and what kind of boxer isn't going to hit that hard. Mike Tyson might have a lot to worry about in a match against Evander Holyfield. But I don't think he'd be all that worried about taking a couple of hits from Don Knotts. My point is, yes, misinformation can be critical. But knowing what to be super worried about and what not to be superworried about is just good judgment and perspective. And, really, I don't think this is a red-alert, world-ending critical problem. (shrug)

Damage adds up over time. He might not be worried about taking a couple of hits from Don Knotts, but he won't certanly consider them a good thing, especially if there's the possibility to receive more hits over time.

I suggest googling "strawman argument", because by continuing to describe it as something that isn't a "red alert, world ending critical problem" you're doing exactly that.

You're refuting something that no one argued. It gets tedious.

That's a really interesting phenomenon. People have expressed similar feelings / opinions with regard to my posts on other forums (different language, though). I think it's induced by well thought out, on-topic, smart posts with accurate use of grammar and an actual value compared to others.

Why, thank you

[SkyeWindbinder]

"ticked off" (I just repeated your term, mind you) is quite different from "angry". I find the confrontational attitude that some have against those that are already displeased by not being selected highly distasteful. More distasteful than the complaints. Complaining about Complainers and all that.

Being "angry" is a whole different thing.

Ticked off (definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary)

-to make angry or indignant <the cancellation really ticked me off>

But hey, let's just say you have a different definition from, well, it's official definition. In which case, I'll say it was still rather unnecessary for you to get "ticked off", since there was really no call for it.

They're not "self entitled". That's a rather meaningless and derogatory catchphrase. Square Enix created that entitlement in the first place by putting the "Must currently have an active FINAL FANTASY XIV account" in writing.

There's nothing "self" about that entitlement. And mind you, considering that they supported the game thus far, while people that aren't subscribed didn't, it's very, very debatable that that entitlement isn't justified to begin with.

Look, they are self entitled, because in no way did SE tell them that because of their status as veterans of the game they should get access into alpha. And, by the way, regardless of whether you believe they should or not because of how long they've played, that's not the way SE set it up, so that's not the way it is. Some people believe otherwise, and whine (yes, whine) about it not being so. They are self entitled. And crybabies. Truth. Deal with it.

It wasn't really wrong info. The info is legit, as the rules were there, quite clearly stated. What's wrong is how those rules weren't applied.

Come again?

What you seem to have missed is that I did not make any precise statement of seriousness. Whether it's serious or not, it brings a degree of damage. And it's a degree of damage that 1: could be avoided 2: brings absolutely no advantage to balance it.

So it's a bad thing that should be avoided, regardless of how serious it is.

And what you don't seem to get is that it's really not as serious as you are painting it to be. Making a mistake and spilling water on your carpet is not nearly as big a mistake as forgetting to wear your seat belt in the car. You are blowing it out of proportion. Some wron info was given. Or rather, the right info was not given. In either case, it's not that big a deal. It's a closed alpha session. The beta sessions are around the corner. None of the reviewing sites seem to smell any blood in the water and are going for the kill. Just NOT that big a deal, lol.

Damage adds up over time. He might not be worried about taking a couple of hits from Don Knotts, but he won't certanly consider them a good thing, especially if there's the possibility to receive more hits over time.

You're implying more damage is yet to come. But I doubt, even if Don Knotts got a couple of hits on Mike Tyson, he'd last long enough to regret it. Damage can add up over time. But seeing as how this realy wasn't even 0.01% out of 100 of damage that could occur to FFXIV, again, I doubt SE should be sweating bullets. Yes, you can ruin your carpet if a tsunami of water rushes over it. That doesn't mean if you drop a glass of water on it, you should flip out. lol

I suggest googling "strawman argument", because by continuing to describe it as something that isn't a "red alert, world ending critical problem" you're doing exactly that.

You're refuting something that no one argued.

Not really. I'm merely stating that it's hardly something SE should be super worried about. And no amount of "Damage can add up over time" or "Well, mistakes can be a critical blow" is going to change that. If you're truly worried, then I suggest you take a chill pill and relax. Because. as I said before, it's just not a big deal. It's just... not.

[SkyeWindbinder]

I dont think it really matters anymore whats done is done wat till the 3rd an if you dont get picked oh well no point in debating it anymore man :P

Well said! I couldn't have said that better myself!

[Aion]

The requirement for applying alpha is having active FF XIV account

there is some statement that some people able to apply without active FF XIV account

we ( or maybe I) need community rep to confirm or denied it.

is it that hard to understand? does my questioning unjustified? what will happen if the case is true?

[Abriael]

Ticked off (definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary)

-to make angry or indignant <the cancellation really ticked me off>

But hey, let's just say you have a different definition from, well, it's official definition. In which case, I'll say it was still rather unnecessary for you to get "ticked off", since there was really no call for it.

One definition from one dictionary is hardly an "official" definition. "ticked off", as many vernacular expressions, describes a wide range of emotions, that goes from simple annoyance to anger.

There was plenty call for me or others to find your remarks distasteful, as they are quite evidently very confrontational and insulting. No matter who they're aimed at.

Look, they are self entitled, because in no way did SE tell them that because of their status as veterans of the game they should get access into alpha. And, by the way, regardless of whether you believe they should or not because of how long they've played, that's not the way SE set it up, so that's not the way it is. Some people believe otherwise, and whine (yes, whine) about it not being so. They are self entitled. And crybabies. Truth. Deal with it.

I'm afraid something isn't "truth" just because you say it is.

Square Enix said quite clearly that those that didn't have an active account were not entitled to apply for the alpha. So the entitlement is justified because it came from an official source.

The fact that they didn't apply that rule that they set is an entirely different pair of sleeves, and it's exactly the issue.

And what you don't seem to get is that it's really not as serious as you are painting it to be. Making a mistake and spilling water on your carpet is not nearly as big a mistake as forgetting to wear your seat belt in the car. You are blowing it out of proportion. Some wron info was given. Or rather, the right info was not given. In either case, it's not that big a deal. It's a closed alpha session. The beta sessions are around the corner. None of the reviewing sites seem to smell any blood in the water and are going for the kill. Just NOT that big a deal, lol.

You continue to ignore the fact that the degree of seriousness of the issue is besides the point. When you run a business, you avoid issues when you can. There's no reason to run headlong into them.

You're implying more damage is yet to come. But I doubt, even if Don Knotts got a couple of hits on Mike Tyson, he'd last long enough to regret it. Damage can add up over time. But seeing as how this realy wasn't even 0.01% out of 100 of damage that could occur to FFXIV, again, I doubt SE should be sweating bullets.

Companies should always assume a degree of risk. So yes, they should plan taking in account that more damage is yet to come.

Yes, you can ruin your carpet if a tsunami of water rushes over it. That doesn't mean if you drop a glass of water on it, you should flip out. lol

I'm not flipping out. You're the one insulting others in this thread. Not me.

Not really. I'm merely stating that it's hardly something SE should be super worried about. And no amount of "Damage can add up over time" or "Well, mistakes can be a critical blow" is going to change that. If you're truly worried, then I suggest you take a chill pill and relax. Because. as I said before, it's just not a big deal. It's just... not.

I'm perfectly relaxed. Again, I'm not the one throwing insults at people I don't even know here, calling them "whiners" "crybabies" and other interesting epithets. SE should be worried, and *is* worried, like any company in the world, about everything that can damage its image. Feeding wrong information to customers falls entirely in that category of issues.

[SkyeWindbinder]

One definition from one dictionary is hardly an "official" definition. "ticked off", as many vernacular expressions, describes a wide range of emotions, that goes from simple annoyance to anger.

There was plenty call for me or others to find your remarks distasteful, as they are quite evidently very confrontational and insulting. No matter who they're aimed at.

lol Well, that's your opinion. Just as it's my opinion to find that you actually got angry at my statements (despite your denial), which was really unnecessary. But hey, perspectives vary from person to person.

I'm afraid something isn't "truth" just because you say it is.

But it is truth if it's factual. So, yeah. lol

Square Enix said quite clearly that those that didn't have an active account were not entitled to apply for the alpha. So the entitlement is justified because it came from an official source.

Except those who feel that they should automatically get in because of their veteran status. Which is not justified. As that is not what SE stated. Get it?

The fact that they didn't apply that rule that they set is an entirely different pair of sleeves, and it's exactly the issue.

And people having a problem with how SE handled things as far as that goes are not the people I was talking about. lol

You continue to ignore the fact that the degree of seriousness of the issue is besides the point. When you run a business, you avoid issues when you can. There's no reason to run headlong into them.

And you continue to ignore the fact that perspective and judgment is needed in these cases to determine whether a blinder is a serious, dangerous, red-alert one or one that can easily be handled without too much trouble. If a car has a flat tire, that is a problem. But you can still use the car if you change the flat. No need to declare the car unusable from that day forth, and no need to stand there grumbling about how disastrous things would be if the car had four flat tires or blew up or something.

Companies should always assume a degree of risk. So yes, they should plan taking in account that more damage is yet to come.

WHEN. IT. COMES.

They gave wrong info about how a closed alpha was to be handled. Not really as big a deal as you would like to believe it is. Not nearly. Not even slightly. lol Companies sould always assume a degree of risk, yes. Companies should also have enough perspective to know the difference between horrible, un-fixable mistake and slight, hardly worth dwelling on blunder.

I'm not flipping out. You're the one insulting others in this thread. Not me.

Not at all. I'm just calling crybabies and whiners crybabies and whiners. If they don't like it, maybe they should stop crying and whining. Blunt, rough, even unkind as it may be, truth often is that way.

I'm perfectly relaxed.

Sure you are. lol

Again, I'm not the one throwing insults at people I don't even know here, calling them "whiners" "crybabies" and other interesting epithets. SE should be worried, and *is* worried, like any company in the world, about everything that can damage its image. Feeding wrong information to customers falls entirely in that category of issues.

lol Worried, I doubt it. Simply doing his part to calm the people complaining, yes indeed. Again, a blunder about mis-info as far as a closed alpha is hardly somehting Yoshi, or anyone else in SE for hat matter, should (or is) sweating bullets over. Your assumption of otherwise is cute, at best. But a bit disproportionate in judgment, imo.