NecroPed

Lol it is a waste if it ever gets replaced with a prime because it is an objectively worse downgrade that has no purpose over the upgrade. How is it not a waste to keep an inventory slot dedicated to something thats being replaced by an objectively better upgrade? I do not understand the logic there, at all. Nah sorry its completely different. Forma is a paid item, one that is expected to be bought regularly to support the game. While resources are not expected to be bought, they are almost always expected to be earnt. Now if I want my support foe the game to not be wasted because I cannot tell the future, for example formaing the zylok before the prime was announced and never even using it fully formad or even fully leveling it from the last forma before it was announced. Wasting my investment because an objectively better upgrade replaces it. If i continued to forma it so that the forma I already put into it wasn't being furhter wated by not utilizing the weapon then I'd be wasting even more on something I wouldn't even be using. I find your perspective genuinely ridiculous to compare something thats at the core of their monetization to something thats at the core of what they want you to earn. Let alone the added layers of not knowing you've wasted it until they release something that wasted your investment. I honestly think your perspective is actually ridiculous. I think that dagath example is stupid. If I put an umbra forma into dagath it would 100% bbe wasted even id I play the frame a little now. Just because there is a cost does not mean that the waste is automatically justifiable. That is genuinely ridiculous. Not everyone will get the same time and entertainment out of it, and so for a lot of people that would be a wasted investment. So what happens if they want to use dagath with the umbra but do not want to waste it in that regard? The frame sits in their inventory for 3-4 years. Some people don't play often enough to get all the umbra forma so they do need to be selective about it. And before that prime comes out how many other primes will come out that I would not be wasting that forma in because it is not being replaced by a direct upgrade? I honestly think its stupid to invest so much into something thats going to be actively replaced. If that means I ignore most things until primes then thats just what DE have caused with their system. And I wholeheartedly believe it is not healthy the way it is now because many people are actively avoiding warframes and weapons to avoid this loss of investment. I would consume magnitudes more forma if I knew they weren't being 100% wasted. I'd even be content with a resource cost and only partial forma gain because I do understand that entertainment is still value, but it is not enough to justify throwing everything away regardless and I truly believe people need to work on that perspective more if they don't agree. It took days for me to waste all my investment into the zylok because I juat didn't know the prime was coming No, it IS an investment. Its an investment of time, effort and often money too and I think it is stupid to justify throwing that all away just because you MIGHT have got some use out of something before its being replaced by a direct upgrade. I got nothing out of formaing the zylok except deleting platinum from my account, I barely even used it while formaing it before the prime was announced. I have completely wasted my time, effort and money I puy into that weapon all because I could not predict the future. All I got out of it was an increased cost to get the same or more out of the objectively better upgrade. It is literally an investment though, in several ways. I have already come to the conclusion that I need to accept my choice and that is why I actively avoid formaing things without special variants. I am already managing this problem as best as I can, but I wholeheartedly think this system is not healthy the way it is. And honestly I think that last part is absurd. Just because you can justify the cost of something doesn't mean you should justify throwing that cost away, thats genuinely absurd. Yes theres a limited time to get value out of it before its replaced so if I literally do not know when it is coming because I cannot predict the future then the smarter thing to do is to avoid anything I don't know is coming with a replacement to avoid wasting it when I am surprised with a variant. If I can actively choose one pathway that doesn't waste any of my investment at all over a pathway that wastes 100% of my investment why would I choose that? Both pathways provide the same thing, weapons and frames to use, but one deletes what I invest and the other keeps what I invest. Would you be okay buying a new car a week after spending the same or more amount of time effort and money into making your old car work worse than the new upgrade will, knowing that the day the upgrade comes the old car is completely redundant? If you could reasonably predict the future and see that an upgrade is coming in this scenario, would you not rather avoid wasting that investment on your old car when you could wait a week for the upgrade or catch the bus until you can get the upgrade so you don't waste your investment? Just because theres value to be had does not mean investment is not being wasted.

If I don't even finish formaing it then no, not really. And that enjoyment doesn't always justify throwing away forma when I can put it into something that I'm not deleting. It's wasteful. Games ARE an investment. Full stop. They're an investment of time AND money. They may not necessarily be an investment with a monetary return, but that's not what I am talking about. I'm talking about investment with this definition (And in this case add in money with no monetary return): an act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result. How absurd, seriously what kind of logic is that? Lets just walk away from a game I paid for founders packs in, and have regularly spent money in over the years since, with thousands of hours gametime, my own massive dojo I've spent many hours building, lets just throw it all away because I don't like throwing away a far smaller investment in that game when I can put that same investment into something that I'm not going to delete. How genuinely ridiculous. Yes, servers will shut down, but that's not my choice. Putting forma into a weapon is my choice, and it's one that's either going to be potentially wasted at some point, or never wasted. Honestly what a ridiculous sentiment. Why buy or play any games with online then because the servers will just right down right? Servers one day shutting down shouldn't be used as justification for health of the game now, that's absurd. And at that point they are still going to be faced with criticism over their decisions. Look at blizzards management of Overwatch 2, it's pissed off so many players they don't want to even think of the game anymore, and honestly creating a sequel to Warframe is something that also potentially falls in line with the issue I have, wasted investment. If they do a Warframe 2 and it essentially has everything from warframe 1 in it and could have just been an update to warframe, but I don't get to keep my account and have to start again while shutting down warframe 1 I would be pretty disappointed, no matter how much time has passed. And I can guarantee you there would be backlash over such a thing. Then why respond to me if you're not going to read comments in the discussion you're trying to take part in.

I feel like it's helped a seemingly unrelated problem, having people constantly paired with people on the opposite end of the gear spectrum, steel path helps direct those with stronger gear to those missions, which helps leave enemies for lower geared people to kill etc. in normal missions. I've seen a lot less people complaining about things like missions essentially being played by 1 person in the squad because they kill everything since steel path came out. I guess it kinda sucks that the idea of it just being a hardmode with no extra rewards is no longer there but I think there are ways to handle that while keeping SP as it is because I honestly love SP as it is now (Before it came out I would have likely stood by it being a no extra reward mode though), it's a looter shooter and people will almost always want something out of their gameplay, and this got me thinking about what if you could unlock modifiers for a customized Sanctuary Onslaught-type mission by playing SP, so you can customize your SO to your liking, without having to change SP, while also giving people that hard mode content without a real incentive to go out of your way to do it other than you like doing it. Like maybe if every node on the SP star chart unlocked a different modifier you can pick from, unlock level increases as you progress, different tilesets, faction choices etc.

This is a game, not life, which I actively put money into for forma, and regularly, why would I want to throw that away? Especially when I can actively prioritize the upgraded variants. Let alone the fact that we don't actually know which weapons will even get special variants for the most part (Yes signature weapons tend to be primed but that's about all we can reliably guess) so, as far as I'm concerned it is smarter to invest in something that I absolutely 100% know is not going to leave my inventory, like an upgraded weapon variant. And we do not tend to know when special variants come later either (other than signature primes and warframes), all it takes is not knowing something is coming and you've wasted your investment, potentially even in the weeks before it's being replaced. I started investing in the zylok because it got the incarnon adapter, and before I'd even got through half the forma for it, they announced the zylok prime. So my entire investment was wasted, all because I put forma into something that I thought wasn't going to be replaced, at least not for a long time, I have got no value whatsoever out of owning that weapon with the forma put into it, I didn't even finish levelling it after the last forma, simply because of obtaining the prime which is objectively better, which I had no idea was coming, meaning I basically just deleted platinum from my account for no reason. And sure, it's not much, but how many times does it have to happen before it stacks up to a big amount? There are hundreds of weapons in this game and I would rather be keeping my investments, especially when I'm spending real $ on it. I wholeheartedly think to say that wanting to keep your investments in a game is something to work on is genuinely absurd. Do you not want to keep your investments? I find your comment honestly ridiculous. I personally think that if you don't see an issue here and don't think a wasted investment is a bad thing then you're the one who really needs to work on themselves. It's not choice paralysis, it's not wanting to waste investment. There is a massive difference there. It's not an inability for me to choose what I want to put it into(I even occasionally break my no forma rule and invest in a non variant, but I don't like doing it and the more I do it, the less it happens in the future), it's me knowing that the system does not provide a healthy enough environment for me to constantly justify investing into something that's going to be replaced, especially when I have a long list of special variants that I could be investing in and keeping permanently instead, while I have very little information on when and if a weapon is going to be replaced, so can't reliably account for it. I have a long list of weapons I want to put forma into but refuse to because there's no fair system to ensure that I'm not going to waste my investment. And since there's such a long list of special variants already, I would rather forma 10 weapons I care little for that have a special variant, than 1 normal weapon that I like without a special variant. I'd rather get every element of every nemesis weapon at max bonus or even forma an extra incarnon to keep two set to different builds, than forma a small handful of non-variants.

I wish you could just choose which liches/sisters to put into your spawning pool. I have a lot that I like, and some I don't like. I'm not fond of permanently removing it from my account though because I like the collection, but I understand the frustration and while would be fine if that was the only way to handle them, I think it would be better if every nemesis you capture just has a toggle for being added to the spawning pool. Some get toxic because their gameplay is directly impacted by others. You cannot do your lich while another is there, it's not just about faster, but losing control and having to just wait until someone else decides you're able to have a chance at your goal that you came in wanting to do. The biggest problem there in my opinion is that your ability to play the game and achieve your goal is directly dictated by whoever's lich is already there, and if they're not actually helping to achieve the goal, whether it be by stabbing their lich or farming murmurs or whatever, they are potentially an active detriment to others and I honestly think frustration at that point is entirely justified. (Though I wont justify being toxic to people because of it, I just wholeheartedly think there is a big flaw there that does warrant frustration. One side says it's toxic to be angry, but the other side might think it's toxic to be restricting their gameplay) But this isn't about farming them is it, it's about removing already farmed liches, right? Because you have literally no choice over whether it spawns or not. And, if it's only for converted liches, there's no faster, because there's no gone at all. But a converted lich isn't going to provide another reward, you're already able to get another lich, you've already finished your last one, you just don't want it anymore. You don't gain anything, at all, by deleting a converted lich.

I wish they even let us extract normal forma too, I hate wasting forma on something that's being replaced by a direct upgrade that also requires forma. Even if it only gave back half the regular forma and cost resources to do I'd be happy. But it feels even more necessary with umbra forma. I have zero umbra forma, several frames I want to put them into and some that I could do with taking out because of new mods, but if there's no way to remove it, I'm hesitant to use it until I absolutely know it's not coming off or I end up with a lot of regret, which reinforces the hesitancy. Being hesitant to use any weapon or warframe that doesn't have a special variant because of wasting the forma I'd put into it is bad enough, umbra just makes the problem even worse for me because it has to go into a prime frame or it's wasted and even harder to get another. I have almost no interest in investing in anything new already unless it's unique because of these systems and I really don't think that's a good mentality to reinforce, not wanting to invest in primes on top of that doesn't feel healthy.

I have literally said this is something that I am in support of and do not think it is a breach, but go on, be a $&*^ because you didn't read everything I've posted. I am not talking about the fact that they can't bring another pack right now, I am talking about the fact that they cannot return.

The EULA also explicitly states "except as otherwise prohibited by law" just before it says that. I'm well aware of them saying this but that does not mean they can do anything they want with no consequence. And I'm not talking about fraud. That's different. What matters here is that its an explicit statement about how they are choosing to handle it in the future, explicitly stating that it is never returning. This statement is only true as long as they commit to it, otherwise it was misleading people into thinking it wasn't returning, which can absolutely be argued as misleading. And no agreeing to the contract does not override the law, even if the EULA didn't already say "except when prohibited by law". I've already explained how the addition of plat is not the same as making a change to an explicit statement about the future so that it no longer needs to be committed to. Ad far as I can tell, adding plat is not in any way a breach because it does not need to be advertised, they do not have to advertise a bonus. Its a completely different thing when they advertise that it explicitly wont be returning.

As far as I know, no, I don't believe DE have stated they wont go on sale, so it is entirely possible that they will, it's not a call I can make. Though given the current situation I think it's possible it will upset players unless more problems are addressed first. While I can't say for certain, and proving such a thing would be hard, I am confident that in this hypothetical it would be a breach if they had advertised that they had no plans to discount it, but secretly did plan to, in order to try and mislead people into purchasing without waiting for a sale thinking that it wasn't coming or at least in the foreseeable future (the closer to release the worse it could be too, putting it on sale 2 days after the release could be a stronger case than in the final week, since it's not consistent with how sales are generally managed, and has more reason to being put on sale towards the end) when they could have waited for a sale had they known or weren't mislead into believing it wouldn't be happening. Referencing claims about the future, predictions and silence in regards to false and misleading advertisement (copied some bits from ACCC and similar websites into the spoiler below), in this hypothetical it suggests to me that it would be a breach in that regard, due to keeping silent about planning a discount while suggesting that there isn't one coming, knowing it was an untrue statement at the time, did not care whether it was true or not and had no reasonable grounds to make the claim, and while I think that the statement about the future adequately addresses the range of uncertainty it would need to be something they didn't have planned at the time of that advertisement. So as long as they are adequately addressing variables and not making explicit statements about it not ever being discounted then it's fine as far as I can tell. The only times that I'm aware of/think off the top of my head that they have used this kind of "never" language is in regards to founders packs (I can't remember specific language and can't be bothered looking for it right now) and the heirlooms in regards to never returning, or unique paid items never being available in-game. Though I think this example of "never being discounted" is good in that it highlights the same reasoning behind the potential breach, and is a lot more straightforward and can be directly applied to things that aren't games, while translating quite well. I am in a similar boat to you in regards to who's decision it was, I'm more inclined to believe that they are secondary in regards to that, not that they necessarily have no role in it at all, but also aren't the only people responsible and possibly even not the originator of the idea. But, until and if they're able to make the distinction then I think generalizing them to DE as a group is fine, though being specific towards particular people with no proof of who was involved is definitely a bit silly. Yes, and when that is an explicit statement about the future that is entirely their choice, they need to commit to it for it to have been true at the time, an explicit statement about the future cannot even be proven true at the time, it can only be proven not to have been true at the time it becomes false, in the future. One of the reasons why laws like this exist is to stop companies from being able to say whatever they want and then change it later without consequence. I honestly think the extent you're arguing this is ridiculous. Yes, they have reasonable grounds to say it, as long as they commit to it. If they were to change it and not commit to it then no they didn't have reasonable grounds to say it and the statement was not true because it was entirely their choice at the time, if they do not need to commit to it never returning they never needed to make the statement so it is misleading. And even if you can argue that they had reasonable grounds to make the claim at the time (which I would argue is only if they commit to the statement), this does not exempt it from everything else, it is simply a requirement. Yes and the terms they specified are that it's never returning. Yes, and the ACCC also knows that these are not necessarily explicit necessary criteria that exempts cases and are mostly just examples or criteria that they must follow, it does not mean that it automatically becomes exempt. The ACCC also knows that change does not mean an advertisement never happened. Things change, yes, that's why they have statements about predictions and the future, but these statements do not detail any inherent defence because of detailing changes, the ACCC also states that businesses shouldn't make promises they can't keep, like you know... promising that they're not returning. Notice how it says "for example" as well, these are examples, not explicit necessary criteria. From the consumer affairs website: Note: The case studies used on this page are examples only; outcomes may differ in individual cases. Past ads do not necessarily need to account for the future, but an EXPLICIT STATEMENT ABOUT THE FUTURE is not exempt from laws just because it's changed afterwards. Businesses do not 'only need to ensure that their current advertisements accurately reflect the current product at the time.', that is just simply not true. They simply MIGHT be exempt under certain cases. In this case DE have EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED THE VARIABLES AND UNCERTAINTY with an EXPLICIT CHOICE NOT TO HAVE THE ITEMS RETURN, going against this and releasing them again afterwards means they will be going against the original advertisement. Saying it is never returning and then returning it is explicit information that conveys a false impression, and just like a lot of these things they are examples and aren't explicit criteria The error in this case would be purchasing something when you wouldn't have because you felt the need to buy it before it went away forever, just to find out you did not need to buy it then because it did come back. The information that conveys a false impression [if they don't commit to it] is the explicit statement that says it's never returning. Changing the statement does not mean the statement was not made at the time, it's actually what can prove that it conveyed a false impression. Yeah they need to provide current, correct and accurate information without misleading people (and that doesn't necessarily make it completely exempt if they do). Like you know... Telling people something wont return and not just changing their mind and returning it because then that information was in fact misleading people into thinking it was never returning... It wasn't accurate information if they bring it back after they explicitly say it's never returning. When that advertisement is an EXPLICIT STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH IT IN THE FUTURE then yes, going back on that advertisement absolutely can be false advertisement. Businesses don't necessarily need to hold themselves to original advertisements and they can go against original advertisements, but if their advertisement EXPLICITLY DETAILS THAT IT WONT RETURN then they do need to hold themselves to that original advertisement for it to be considered true. The item returning is what makes the statement false. Changing it after making the statement does not matter. Changing the advertisement is just one part of rectifying false advertisement. The courts could see this as enough rectification depending on the case for all I know, but changing the advertisement does not mean you didn't originally falsely advertise it. Them knowing if they were planning to change it or not is simply just one example where it could be proven to be false advertising. It is not explicit necessary criteria. To say it is only false advertisement under those conditions is not true, the courts decide on a case by case basis and these are examples, not explicit necessary criteria. Just because a business SHOULD detail changes, does not mean that it is inherent defence against them if they do, I honestly find the idea absolutely ridiculous. Yes, they SHOULD keep customers updated, but nowhere does it explicitly say that "informing customers of a change always makes it exempt". And the exemptions for predictions and opinions are generally for things outside their control, not something that is entirely their decision. Yes, no one can see in the future, that's why they SHOULDN'T MAKE EXPLICIT STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FUTURE THAT THEY CANNOT COMMIT TO BECAUSE IT WOULD THEN BE MISLEADING. Businesses need to ensure they're not MISLEADING CONSUMERS, both intentionally and not, it is not explicitly about "only needing to ensure that their current advertisements accurately reflect the current product at the time.". There is nothing on these pages that explicitly exempts cases just because of detailing the change, simply that detailing changes is recommended and that not doing so can be a breach/doing so isn't necessarily a breach, but it does not mean it is inherently the case. As well as some explicit requirements, which don't necessarily exempt the case. Okay, maybe the samsung situation wasn't a great example in that regard. But, I honestly think you're seriously stretching really far with your arguments and I'm looking for anything I can to show how vague and broad these laws are and why, while you are far too definitive and in my opinion seriously wrong about a lot of stuff. They ARE a lie if they ever return because whether or not the statement is true or not relies entirely on whether they choose to commit to that statement or not. If they choose not to commit to that statement, they did not need to make that statement and it was in fact false. Changing their statement doesn't mean the original statement never happened.

Yes I am aware that they have put things on sale before, and generally speaking sales are fine and items don't need to be announced as "saleable" to be put on sale, but had they released an item with a statement like "This item will never be put on discounted sale" I believe there would be issues if they were to sale such items. Though, wording is important and the more vague they are the more options they tend to have. A statement like "We have no current plans to release this item on discounted sale" is clear on the fact that there is no plans, but it is not an inherent ruling, so in this example I would say putting such items on sale would not be a breach, unless it's proven that they did actually have plans to do it at the time. And it's not that I don't think DE would do any sales, just that the only real statement we have on their reasoning so far is that they want to be fair to the players who already bought the heirloom packs, and with all the controversy I feel like putting it on sale goes against that and starts up another controversy I would assume they'd rather avoid. I don't think a sale is inherently bad, but it's definitely not a solution to all the problems people have with these packs, and doesn't fall in line with the only real statement we have on the matter so in this particular situation I don't personally expect it to happen, though if it does I don't think it would be a breach. If your hypothetical were to happen I would concede from trying to push my perspective and would take a more questioned approach in order to increase my understanding and ensure that things are being thought of for the discussion that they may not think of but have the understanding to confirm and elaborate (Like asking whether gambling laws are more appropriate than general consumer laws in specific situations due to the presence of loot box-like systems). I would take a back seat approach while trying to increase understanding, so it might not put it to an immediate halt, but it would surely be working it's way there. That made sense, I've just woken up from very little sleep so I might have missed some things I intended to comment on and may come back to this, but I generally agree with your sentiment. I can't remember exactly what happened and couldn't find a post about it, but yes this would potentially be false advertisement, though the consequences can depend on their rectification. This can be rectified by providing both the kitgun and rifle riven to those who purchased it before the change, so that the original advertisement is still being respected. This one only really becomes bad if they didn't provide the advertised riven to those who purchased it at the time.

Yes they need to be accurate at the time and if the advertisement says that it cannot return and then they release it again, the advertisement at the time was in fact not accurate and was falsely advertised at the time. There is a difference between a sale and explicitly stating an item is never returning and going back on that advertisement. I don't know why I even have to explain this. The problem is that they've advertised it as never returning and not sold individually. It would be comparable to them releasing an item advertised as explicitly never going to be on sale and then putting it on sale, that would be false advertisement too. There is a distinct difference to putting something on sale without ever mentioning whether or not it would be on sale. It is not explicitly about change it is about the explicit advertisement, I'm not saying change isn't allowed, the change is what's important because the advertisement essentially says that it cannot change in that regard. The advertisement explicitly states that it will not change in particular ways because it is advertised as such (cannot return, cannot be sold individually, introducing these changes is what makes the advertisement false), changing it is falsely advertising it because it was advertised as never returning etc.. It doesn't mean change can't happen at all, it just means that they need to respect their original advertisement in that its not returning and not sold individually. Returning these items means they were advertising it falsely and they still can suffer consequences after that advertisement no longer exists, Samsung was fined 14 million for a case that started against them 1 year after the advertisements had been taken out of circulation. The damage is considered already done and changing the advertisement at that point doesn't really matter other than being one part of rectifying it (alongside fair refunds, compensation, fines etc.). To say "the only problem is if the change in circumstance means that information already provided to the consumer is no longer correct and a business fails to disclose those facts." is actually wrong. For starters, this is an EXAMPLE, it says "CAN", not "Only if" and that's not explicit criteria for false advertisement, that's simply in regards to the silence being misleading, it does not mean that it requires silence to be misleading. The ACCC also states that "Any statement that creates a false impression about goods and services can be breaking the law." The only real proof you need is that they advertised it as never returning, which has already been established, they don't even need to have been intentionally misleading. Releasing them again is all the proof that you'd need to say they broke that explicit advertisement. The proof that they know they're not supposed to be returning is in the explicit statements saying they wont return. If they do return that proves that it was false and misleading. Those statements are currently true AND detail the fact that they wont be returning, that explicit statement is ABOUT the future. Those statements can only be currently true and accurate if they're committed to. Explicitly stating something is never returning is not a prediction or opinion, it's an explicit statement. It also says "not necessarily" not "not ever". But, in saying it's never returning and going back on that then I would argue that they in fact did not care whether it was true or not had no reasonable grounds for making it If it is to return just because we want it, then they had no reasonable grounds for making the claim that it is never returning, and did not care whether the statement about whether it was returning or not was true when they made that statement. And while it might be hard to argue whether they knew it was true at the time (Like if they simply changed their mind and did believe it would never return vs intentionally planning to return it while saying it's not returning), it's not necessary criteria. And like I said I cant argue that and don't think it actually applies, but it is an intentionally vague law to be open to basically whatever people consider unfair and harsh, it doesn't really matter what it's already in regards to. It all just depends on what people generally consider fair and harsh, exploiting people with a false sense of fear of missing out for profit could potentially count. But again, I don't actually think this applies, simply mentioned it because I don't know and can't argue it since I'm not a lawyer. Yes and thats fine. But it doesn't solve most of the problems at hand. Legally speaking there is a difference. A change is changing what is already being provided. The plat is a bonus/compensation, so actually would count as rectification. Change in this regard would be if they took the regal aya out and replaced it with platinum. Adding to the amount of plat is not a change of the advertisement in this regard. To compare adding plat to the bundle to changing the pack so it no longer fits the terms it was advertised with is honestly ridiculous.

The FAQ holds weight because its how it's advertised and promoted. And the EULA states that "except when prohibited by law". I believe it also states that things like FAQs can override the parts of the EULA/be in addition that don't account for those things. They can't both advertise that it can change and isn't changing at the same time (by advertising that it's not returning and not sold individually this basically says that this change wont happen). That would be misleading. The EULA doesn't override the law just because it was agreed to. Not really. Seeing as how they've already said they want to be fair to those who already purchased it that doesn't sound like something they'd do. And that doesn't solve most of the problems that are left either. That's not exactly a change, thats an addition. There is a difference there. Just because they were able to add plat to the pack doesn't mean they can necessarily go back on it never returning or being sold individually. (This should still mean they can add another pack now as long as its still bundled and ends at the same time)

Did you read the part of the EULA where it says that its exempt when the law says otherwise? Do you understand that even if they put something in the EULA it doesn't mean it is above the law? You know this part that you cut out just before what you pasted... "Except as otherwise prohibited by applicable law, " And no not necessarily. Companies can be fined millions of dollars for false advertisement breaches.

I was sure you were the one who brought up that previously changed pack, it definitely wasn't me at least. I don't think I am confusing you with anyone here. It can be false advertisement, false advertisement is not explicitly defined by being current advertisement, at least in Australia. In Australia it is considered unlawful when "making false or misleading representations about products and services when supplying, offering to supply or promoting the products or services" this only means that the misleading statement has to be made when supplying, offering or promoting it but doesn't mean there is no breach if it happened in a previous time and the terms have changed. There is an obligation to provide the product as it matches the description advertised, so in providing a product thats described as never returning and not sold individually they have to provide it as such, and in changing that afterwards so that they return and are sold individually they are no longer providing it as described to those who already purchased it because it was described as never returning and not sold individually. Since I'm not a lawyer I can't argue this one but another law that can come into play is in regards to "unconscionable conduct", which has no precise legal definition and is handled on a case by case basis, but essentially equates to "unfair and harsh conduct that goes against good conscience". While I personally don't think this necessarily applies here, it could in the sense of baiting people into buying something using fear of it not returning when it could in fact be returning. I really do not believe that is true. If they sell something under the condition that its never returning but then it returns they falsely advertised it as never returning and it essentially means people were potentially baited into a purchase because they thought it was never returning.

While it is possible that there is more they can do but are choosing not to, it still doesn't necessarily mean they can do everything people are asking for. There are potential legal issues here, and I too would like transparency, but if we keep asking them to do things that they can't or shouldn't do for legal reasons then we're not exactly helping to get a good resolution. I'm not saying they can't make any changes, just that people should understand that not everything we want can necessarily be done.

Yes and thats why thats not misleading, and they can't just change that if it's a breech in a law. That's my point. There are changes that we want that they could make but not for everything and I think people need to realize that. This isn't about fraud, it's about false or misleading advertisement, I only brought up fraud previously for a separated example. If they make changes that are not consistent with the original advertisements then it could be in breech of false advertisement laws. And they explicitly advertised them as never returning and not sold individually. So they can only really release a new bundle, and during the current bundles period, but this still doesn't address every concern here so I think people need to be realistic. I keep arguing this notion because the law is above their terms of service, plain and simple. If we keep trying to argue that something should change a particular way but it does turn out that its illegal and they can't do it, we've wasted our time and efforts arguing for something that couldn't even happen so it's not even going to be useful suggestions for DE to implement the right change. People should understand that not everything can be done simply just because someone wants it and there are layers to why something may or may not be possible or plausible. The more realistic we are in our suggestions the more likely they can do something about it. And part of that is understanding the legal side of things so we're not all just suggesting what basically equates to being impossible. I can understand not liking the pricing and tiers, and adding plat only addressed one of the smallest issues in a very limited way, but it doesn't necessarily mean they can do whatever they want, this was easy because they could just add to the pack without any actual change, so as far as I know it is not really possible for it to be a breach to add plat (unless they didn't provide it to people who already purchased it then that could be another issue). They still have to abide by laws, and because law can be pretty vague and isn't always absolute it's generally smarter to assume the possibility of it being in breach than to disregard it completely, it is a good idea for them to take the time to consider what they do before doing any actual changes, unfortunately they might not be able to legally do everything people want to happen without consequences they would rather avoid though.

I'm not saying they can't change anything that we want. Just that they can't necessarily always do it JUST because we or they want it. No they can't, they have to abide by laws. They can do what they want within the law and their set terms and we have to deal with it yes, but they can't do everything just because we or they want it. No, in Australia at least, false and misleading advertisement doesn't even have to be intentional. Adding a bonus afterwards is not misleading as it was simply never accounted for in the original pack. The problem here is that they've explicitly advertised it as never returning and not being available individually, which can be false advertisement if they change it now, considering people have already bought it under that advertisement. Though there is still more they could possibly do without a breech, like a cheaper bundle that contains the skins now, but this needs to happen before the current bundles end and they can't be available individually so not everyones problems can be resolved here. Their terms literally state that its exempt when there is a law saying otherwise. Just because they have it set in their terms doesn't mean those terms are above the law.

And I'm only commenting on that because you brought it up as an issue, which is actually a pretty different situation, but like I said I do not know the legality of that situation, which is part of the point I'm making, from a point of ignorance we should not treat it like they can just do whatever we want just because we want it. Its not exactly the same thing here and these cases can take time too, so just because they haven't faced consequences yet doesn't mean they still wont, and if nothing was broken then it doesn't necessarily mean nothing was broken now if they do things differently, which they have (and under certain circumstances it could still come under false advertisement if something changes, because it wasn't necessarily advertised as what it was changed into, that's why explicit statements like that they're never returning or are never being sold individually are important. Changes themselves aren't the inherent problem here, the way the product is advertised is). And I wasn't saying that specific example was necessarily against the law, you're the one who brought it up, I was simply trying to expand on what you were saying under the assumption that you thought it was against the law. Sure, US citizens waive their right to a class action suit with LIMITED EXCEPTION. Though I don't know the exceptions here, this still doesn't mean what they're doing can't be wrong, against the law or that they shouldn't do it just because one country can't collectively do anything about it. That just reinforces what I said in that they shouldn't keep doing something just because they get away with it, does it not? If there is an entire region that basically can't fight against it, we should probably have more people speaking up about it so they don't get away with things that they shouldn't, right? (Arbitrations against companies are only successful for like 1.5% of the non-companies just to reinforce the idea that relying on an arbitration clause is generally bad for anyone but the company) And in Australia it's not actually limited to being "intentionally misleading", false advertisement is also for unintentionally misleading or false advertisements too, the company does not need to be doing it intentionally or even with malicious intent. Which leads me to another point, in that they have to account for so many different countries, it is better to assume the possibility of a breech than to disregard it as a possibility. It gets a lot more complicated the more countries involved, which is one of the reasons companies might be (And should be) hesitant to jump into changes that people are suggesting. No, they cannot just do what they want. This is one of the points I'm trying to get across, because to put it as simple as possible, no, they cannot just do whatever they want, or whatever we want. There are laws and regulations to be followed. Their ToS even states that changes are possible "Except as otherwise prohibited by applicable law", so their ToS literally reinforces what I'm saying in that they can't just do whatever they or we want just because we or they want it and that they do in fact need to follow laws which is where this current entire discussion stems from. It could be false advertisement if they re-released these packs after saying they were never returning. It could be false advertisement to release these items individually. These are things I can plainly see because of how it's advertised, and for all I know, as someone who isn't a lawyer, there could be much more that I'm not even aware of, so I'm not in any way going to just treat this like they can do whatever we or they want just because we or they want it, because it is simply not the case. To say such a thing is honestly absurd, seriously. I've already tried to explain to you that there is a difference between EXPLICITLY SAYING IT IS NEVER RETURNING and saying that it is currently only available in a particular pack. They don't necessarily have to account for future unreleased packs when stating what packs items are currently in, but IF THEY EXPLICITLY STATE THAT THEY'RE NEVER RETURNING THAT IS DIFFERENT. You're right, it's not necessarily false advertisement to say that it's only available in prime access. It would however be false advertisement to release the heirloom skins individually, or to release them again after these bundles end because they are explicitly advertised in this way. How is it different? Because they are EXPLICITLY ADVERTISING IT AS NEVER RETURNING and NOT SOLD INDIVIDUALLY, I don't know how many times I have to say this. This isnt about whats in the packs its about how they advertised them. And that's different because it was done to stop something genuinely offensive from being in their work not just to give players what they want. There can literally be caveats to laws that account for that kind of thing. There are caveats for laws that literally account for racism and offensive content in a similar regard but don't account for every little positive thing 'for the sake of others' just because it's something they want. SO no, just because they're able to make changes for one thing doesn't necessarily mean they can for another, and it doesn't necessarily mean that a change isn't a breech of advertisement laws either. There is a big difference to just giving us what we want just because we want it and changing something so it is no longer offensive that doesn't necessarily go against its original explicit advertisement. Why I even have to explain this is honestly beyond me. Making changes because something is offensive is completely different to literally just giving players what they want just because they're asking for it. Lawsuits probably would happen more if companies didn't think through what they're doing and actually treat the situation carefully. Let alone the fact that companies not only need to be called out for it and investigated by another party, companies DO get consequences from these kinds of things. Samsung just last year paid 14 million in fines for breaching false advertisement laws because of a misleading advertisement from 6 years beforehand, it happens and it takes time to address. It would be genuinely stupid for a company to blindly listen to players to just give us what we want without thinking this stuff through. And like I've said, saying "only available in prime access" can simply mean that it is CURRENTLY only available in prime access, with the ability to rotate within the program (Which could technically include both prime vault and resurgence because they're in extension to prime access and essentially different parts of the same program and prime access doesn't explicitly state the items are never returning), EXPLICITLY STATING that it is NEVER RETURNING and then going back on that is different. Yeah and they probably did that change to prevent it from being seen as misleading, which is something that could have even potentially been argued there even though I think they're fairly safe in that regard. No, it does actually reference the cosmetics specifically. It could be false advertisement if they released them individually, or released them again after the current time period, since they explicitly advertised it as such. Like i said if they can do it legally then they should, I'm just not going to throw the idea out that they can just do whatever the #*!% we want just because we want it like so many people are treating it. It is simply not the case and as a company they do need to take these kind of things into consideration. Q: How long are these Heirloom Collections available? A: This set of Heirloom Collections will be available until December 31, 2023 at 11:59 p.m. ET. Q: Will these Heirloom Collections return after 2023? A: The Mag and Frost Heirloom Collections are only available now until December 31, 2023, at 11:59 p.m ET. This is your only chance to get these exclusive new Customizations! - Explicitly stating these current packs are only available now and this is your only chance to get these exclusive cosmetics, so they are explicitly stating that these cosmetics are never returning. (And yes this is different to saying "Last chance to get") If your only chance to get these exclusive cosmetics is these limited time bundles that are explicitly stated to never return, then they are explicitly stating these exclusive cosmetics are never returning. And this is different to the prime access example because that part of the faq is in regards to whether it's going to be available in game, not whether it's going to ever return. Q: Can I buy the items separately? A: No, the items contained in Heirloom Collections can only be purchased as a bundle and will not be available individually. - Explicitly stating that the items contained within the collections can only be purchased as a bundle and will not be available individually. So looking at this, from a point of ignorance, to avoid any changes from being a breech of false advertisement, then it at least cannot return after these packs end, so that's 1 problem they possibly can't address at all, and it at least has to be bundled and they cannot be available individually, so that's 1 problem, that if possible to address, still has to be bundled and doesn't fully address the issues. I would like to say that I think they can introduce another bundled pack right now, but as I am from a point of ignorance I am not going to assume that they can do it regardless just because we want it, because this stuff isn't that simple. I would guess at best they could bundle both the skins together right now, which would be better than nothing but doesn't address everything, let alone how everyone wants it to be addressed, which is my main point here. We can't just simply get what we want just because we want it. I'm not necessarily saying that they are even necessarily breeching laws here, or that they can't do anything more, just that it absolutely needs to be taken into consideration, ESPECIALLY since most of us are from a point of ignorance and do not know enough to definitively say whether or not they can actually do what we're asking. And I want to be clear, I am not trying to justify them doing nothing here, I am simply trying to reinforce the idea that they cannot just do what we want just BECAUSE we want it. IF there are laws being broken they aren't exempt from that, it is stupid for a company not to take these kind of things into consideration, and it is completely understandable for a company to be hesitant to make change because of this kind of stuff because it is NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST GIVING US WHAT WE WANT BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR IT.

That's the kind of stuff I hate doing. I genuinely hate restarting a mission just to make something spawn, I would rather extend my play time by finishing the mission. But, if I'm not getting something out of that mission I already want then it just feels like a waste of time and effort. I use earth for that but I still think it's way too time consuming for what you get out of it. It's not that I have a problem with looking for caches, it's that I pretty much always end up spending several times more time on that compared to anything with the same amount of required mission completions. Missing 1 at the start of a map means going back through the entire map and looking again. I'd rather just extract, keep the 1 or 2 that I found as progress, and restart but since it needs all 3 if I miss it I'm either wasting the mission or extending my playtime drastically by running around looking again. If it's not towards the end of nightwave I'm just more than likely going to completely ignore this mission because it doesn't feel worth it for how long it can take compared to other missions. This mission just frustrates me more than anything.

I hate these two for this reason. Just finding hall of ascension can take a bit of time, let alone completing 4 of them. Finding the caches is a pain too, I usually only do that one when I have another clear sabotage mission to kill 2 birds with 1 stone or if I'm behind and need to rely on recovered missions to reach rank 30. I think 2 hall of ascension would be fine for a 7k reward, and the sabotage caches should be 7k if it's 3 missions, 1 mission for 4.5k, or simply make it 9 total caches and not needing to get all 3 in a single mission.

I usually only get a few likes here and there averaging out to about 1:1 posts:likes and I still even get this, I think it's partly because of how I type too though. And I think you do that better than I do and more consistently, with the effort one would normally expect from a company (sometimes even more effort one might expect), so that might have something to do with it too.

I agree, I think the forma system could be much healthier and could promote more weapon usage and experimentation, resulting in a more engaging system and potentially more forma being used, I know I would use a hell of a lot more forma if I felt the forma system was actually fair and healthy. Especially with duviri promoting investment in everything, it just feels so wasteful, it pisses me off and pushes me away from duviri because I keep getting weapons I don't have (and have to use crappy default builds in SP) because I've replaced them with dual variants or used them in crafting for other weapons etc. and wont make another copy of them just to forma and potentially replace it again, or I get weapons I haven't invested in because I'm worried about wasting my investment since they don't yet have special variants (i just started investing in zylok for example because it has incarnon, and I haven't even finished formaing it by the time they announced the prime so I've literally just wasted my investment and its really put me off putting a single forma into a non special variant ever again). Every forma I use to make up for the system being crap it pushes me away from wanting to interact with the system. It doesn't make me use more forma in the long run, it actually makes me more selective about my forma usage, so I actually end up using less.

Thanks for that, just for some notes on this (Again I'm not a lawyer though so this is my speculation based on a point of ignorance and I am not trying to be absolute) Rotating within the program and being exclusive to prime access can arguably apply to both vault and resurgence because they can be seen as in extension to prime access/part of the same program. It could also be argued that they don't need to state any future systems that might have those items as long as they don't explicitly say that it never will return as long as it's accounting for all current methods of obtainment. Stating that they're only in prime access can essentially mean that currently they're only in prime access but don't necessarily need to be. Prime unvault was just temporarily returning prime access after all. Prime Resurgence is basically just renamed unvaulting. The regal aya gets a bit iffy, but I think since you are purchasing a currency that can be used for that purpose it's possibly different. The existence of what you're buying is in the resurgence, not the regal aya. So the method of obtaining regal aya shouldn't matter as long as prime resurgence itself is already justified. "In-game" can be pretty vague too, but this tends to be meant in the sense that you purchase it with in game resources or obtain it as a reward, not literally just opening the game and purchasing it, you can technically even buy prime access from in game this way but it is still not necessarily considered an in-game purchase. As I'm not a lawyer though, I wont definitively speak to the legality of this.

As far as I can tell right now they did not necessarily explicitly state this in the same way and that's my point. If you can find a faq from the original prime access that states this I will rescind my words, but I cannot find it and it's too far back for me to possibly remember so I can only use what's currently stated and what's in the original announcements, neither of which explicitly state this, so is not the same as how they're explicitly stating that the heirloom skins aren't ever returning or available individually. There is a difference to just currently stating that they're only available in a particular pack without reference to future unreleased and unthought-of packs and explicitly stating they're never returning. And because they got away with something that maybe shouldn't have happened they should just keep ignoring laws? And even then, I'm not sure on the explicit legality of that specifically, it sure isn't the first time I've seen it happen, but it did happen for the sake of other people so there could even be some loophole there in that the change is considered fair for that reason and so is exempt from the consideration that it's bad or illegal, there can be caveats to laws like that, for an unrelated example: Discrimination laws can be exempt when explicitly only hiring minorities for the sake of increasing diversity, or hiring only female workers for a female restroom position, when the base laws language would generally say that both are illegal by definition of discrimination. Though I'm more willing to bet that it's because it could have resulted in the game being banned in China given controversy around the unforeseen details they were trying to avoid with that skin change. Maybe that one is covered in the ToS, but if it is in breech of an actual law the ToS still wouldn't necessarily override that. Did they explicitly state they're never returning/aren't available individually? Or did they just say they're only in prime access? Because the second isn't necessarily a lie if something comes afterward (let alone the fact that prime vault can potentially be considered an extension of prime access too), because it's not explicit, it can still mean just right now. And while you can argue that this is misleading, there is still the potential for this to not be considered misleading advertisement as far as the law is concerned. My point is that there is more to it than us just wanting change and it being possible and plausible. Just because there wasn't anything done in the past doesn't mean there wont or can't be now. A lot of companies keep getting away with illegal things until they're caught out, that doesn't mean we should let them keep doing it let alone push them towards doing so. My point is that they can change the ToS all they want but it doesn't override any actual breech in laws. I'm not a lawyer or an expert on law, but I know at the very least that a ToS does not override laws. And there's also the fact that these types of cases can take years to take effect on a company, for example it was only last year that Samsung was charged $14mil by the Australian Federal Court for misleading advertisement in regards to phones released as far back as 2016. That's 6 whole years for the consequences to happen. Using that as a basis, [while I'm doubtful] there still could be something being done about these things and we just don't know it yet, and just because they haven't suffered consequences yet doesn't necessarily mean they still wont. If they can legally introduce an extra pack without concern, I would 100% support them doing so and even personally recommend them doing so. But, I cannot throw away the idea that there are problems that can come from not handling this as a business is expected to.

Yes, I know it didn't originally exist, but it still doesn't explicitly say it's never returning, not available individually etc. while the heirloom page explicitly states this. "Last chance" is also vague and can mean "last chance before it returns", they even use the same phrase when vaulting a warframe "last chance for ___ prime", without explicitly saying that it's not returning it is not actually the same. And while I would argue this could be seen as misleading, at least in the general sense, I'm personally not sure it would be considered false advertisement legally speaking, or at least in the same regard to explicitly stating it's never returning etc.. The big difference here is that the heirloom packs EXPLICITLY state that they're never returning, not available individually etc. Sure, maybe nothing would happen here too, but it would be pretty stupid for DE not to take that into consideration if it's legally enforceable.