Why the needless emphasis on housing?

Could we come back to the original topic here please, which I outlined in my first post and which was replied to constructively by at least 10 more posts, providing interesting perspectives.
If there is nothing to say about that or about any serious item of discussion raised within this context, I would like to humbly request that you take it elsewhere, or start a new thread, which everyone here can do.

 

Maybe not, but They will have to make it possible for everyone to buy one in game to await the opportunity to place it if one becomes free.
That should at least stop the sale of plots in the add on shop because after release they can no longer guarantee a free Plot to place it.

 

It's comical, really. It shows how people aren't really reading what's written.

I know they won't sell more plots than the game has, in the add-on store. That would be just ridiculous, well, and sleazy. I was assured by DarkStarr that there would be ample plots available in-game, apart from what's being sold in the store.

But there are more house deeds than there are house plots (in the add-on store).

House deed = worthless digital paper unless you have a plot to place it.
House plot = limited land to place a house deed

Maybe we just have confusion and mixup with terminology. I don't need an answer to a question I never asked, though. I already had a whole other thread on that back in December. I was told it would be a risk to buy an add-on store house deed unless I also bought an add-on house plot to place it (like the more expensive plots and tier levels). Since more house plots will be available in game than in the store, one is taking a risk in getting a house plot in which to place it. Others may beat you to the plot spaces, and all could be sold out before you're able to activate a house deed.

Housing Plots/Deeds Thread

 

Ok, back to your OP.

Your wrong.

Housing only appears to be "the" primary feature at the moment because it was one of the first areas developed for alpha and it was a fairly certain way to raise additional funds.

I expect that you will find that as additional features get released such as crafting and combat, you will see more emphasis on these elements being advertised.

All you are seeing marketing to get people interested in the game and to possibly sell some houses in the store.......and you know what ..... It's working.

For those who don't think it is...... Well we know over 200 lots have been sold in the store, plus an unknown quantity of citizen+ level pledges........and if you still don't think it's working, why are people talking about it so much.

 

What we need is another Combat, Crafting, and Skills Mega Post #2!
Or a Selective Multiplayer Logic Mega Post!
Or a Questing / Adventuring Design Mega Post!
Or a Weather / Seasons / Overworld Tech Mega Post
And yes, even something about PvP which clearly nobody here talks about...like, ever.

 

So taking your stand in this moral dilemma for a second: You state it appears to be "the primary feature" and that this marketing is "working".
(Notice that I do not claim this to be my view of things, this is what I take from what you wrote)

How would you evaluate this from a moral perspective, and what do you think the effect on those feeble minded characters that can not tell what apperas to be the case from what is the case?
In case you had not noticed: This was the issue I was aiming at when writing:

"So why all the fuss about this feature?
Isn't it dangerous to advertise as a key feature, something that will never be fully available to many players?"

To discuss this the question could have just as well been:
"Isn't it dangerous to make appear as a key feature, something that will never be fully available to many players?"

 

will be fine when Alpha 2 is released.....then we can have a month of people complaining about tax free vendors, and that they are concentrating too much on crafting.

 

Yeah, but it gives the rest of us something to have heated debates about!

Shameless plug to get more votes:
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-should-be-the-next-mega-post.3986/

 

Vendors are not an issue if you can get a house you can place one.

 

Agree completely

 

@Tarsilion

Not quite sure why you are talking about morality.

Everyone does have access to housing, it's just not everyone can have it at exactly the same time. Once all plots are filled, the in-game housing market will take over with buyers and sellers.

The intention behind housing is well known and was been well published right from the start of the project. It is seen as a feature because it is so different from the standard MMOs that are on the market.....don't forget this is also a single player offline game as well where housing is available to everyone.

Explain your morality issue please.

 

And where have you been told that you can't have a vendor unless you have a house?

Please post the thread where a Dev has told you this, or even a video from a live-stream.

 

My whole first post was purely about a moral dilemma, which I explained further t least twice.
Lord British has a fancy for discussing virtues and moral dilemmas in games and I fancy the same in real life.
I guess unless you can get to that point, any further replies from me to your posts here will be pointless, so I shall refrain from replies.

I hope you have a nice evening =)

 

Feels like you are trying to manufacture a moral dilemma when there isn't one.

 

read the post "vendors are not an issue if you can get a house to place one. its a statement not a question.

 

So a Dev has stated that you can or can't ......or am I going to be reading more misinformation and speculation?

But as you seem to thrive on speculation, mine is that the vendor system will work similar to UO in the sense you will probably be able to vendors in other peoples houses (with their permission).

 

Actually, they've mentioned vendors for any player, not just home owners. They simply haven't gotten around to designing vendors yet. When they do, they'll reveal the details to us.

 

Housing was never needed to bring in funds. If anything, its turned people off.
Wasteland 2

No housing required...

Simple, solid RPG and it easily raised the funds required. What if Star Citizen only gave out hangars to those that spent $500 on ships? At least there with a $40 pledge you get a home. I think it has hurt SotA to push an aspect of content that only a limited number can afford.

 

You do not need a house to place a vendor. I believe the developers have said that vendors can be rented and placed in a public market.

 

There will be a bazaar for players to use if they do not have a vendor.

Moral dilemma: 5 tools of prosperity sold at $10 each, then when a 6th is added a bundle package was created and sold at $50, $10 cheaper than purchasing all 6 individually.

Anyone that purchased all 5 prior to the bundled package were in a position they were getting punished for supporting early.

How did they adjust the store to handle this issue? I am sure if there is a situation with housing that goes against Richard Garriott's moral code, he will fix it.