The price of Heirloom skins is incredibly disappointing.

[Ersedu]

32 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

DE regularly changes content after it has been sold

Except founders Items they remain exclusive and unobtainable and since Heirloom was marketed the same as Founders packs 

once and never again will likely be treated same as founders items 

[Agall]

36 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Then like I said they should abandon the Heirloom name. There's a reason DE won't do any more exclusive weapons and frames like Excal Prime. Maybe that was for a reason?

Regarding trust and promises, I'd much rather DE go back on a bad promise than stick with it out of stubbornness. I'd like to trust that DE will do right by their community, like they did with Prime Resurgence:

That is what I want to trust in. Trust that they won't make things right isn't the kind of trust I'd like to have.

As someone who bought the top Heirloom pack when it came out, getting an additional 'free' 2600 platinum was pretty nice.

 

Yeah, imagine if DE added the Gotva Prime to the Heirloom pack as an exclusive reward. Not the greatest, but it would have all of the OCD completionists who already whine about the founder pack items explode.

At least Skana Prime is practically useless due to Incarnon evo balancing and Lato Prime doesn't seem like anything special compared to the Vandal variant for Incarnon. Spending +$50 for just the Skana Prime (and some platinum) wasn't worth it to me let alone another +$150 above that for the Lato Prime. At least Excalibur Prime is just as good if not better (because of bugs) than Umbra. If they actually solved the sentience bug, then Prime would be objectively worse.

[Ersedu]

17 minutes ago, Agall said:

DE added the Gotva Prime

 

 

It will probably return in some form eventually it was a twitch drop

 

Anyway tannukai armor looks great on mag heirloom skin so if anyone has those two good combo

Edited January 3 by Ersedu

[Agall]

33 minutes ago, Ersedu said:

 

It will probably return in some form eventually it was a twitch drop

 

Anyway tannukai armor looks great on mag heirloom skin so if anyone has those two good combo

It was already added to Baro one week?

It was merely a suggestion of something DE could've done but didn't, they instead gave it to everyone for free with a follow up from Baro. I wouldn't doubt if Gotva Prime started off as an Heirloom pack exclusive and got removed after some internal discussion. The timing of its release would make more sense for it to be the case than it starting out as a random, "Here's a free Prime variant of a weapon that doesn't exist with an interesting mechanic".

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

23 minutes ago, Ersedu said:

Not a lawyer I just know some things from the internet. but yeah like the founders pack it can’t be brought back due to the transactional agreement and the fact it was sold as one time never coming back. it’s the same reason they have refused to bring founders pack items back for years 

Heirloom is essentially able to be treated as founders pack 2 . everything in it is gone forever 

it even said in the faq page it’s never coming back which kind of legally seals it in Canadian law under the misrepresentation law for example http://www.ontario.ca/page/your-rights-under-consumer-protection-act .The FTC also has its version https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/advertising-marketing-internet-rules-road

 

Sure, but everyone knows some things from the Internet, but you are doing this thing a lot of people often do (myself included here and there), and its not a bad thing, to be clear, but you aren't really explaining, you are more reiterating. See, from my understanding and what I have heard, the reason the Founders pack hasn't been brought back, isn't for legal reasons. Thats just one of the common reasons or parroted ideas that players bring up, or assume, or think. Like I brought up, there are differences between legal bindings and self imposed bindings or choices/decisions. They can also intermingle potentially as well. Like I said, to my understanding, such things can be more complicated than what the average person may think as far as binary, yes or no answers. 

Now, I want to acknowledge, I have heard a lot of opinions and different viewpoints about why the Founders items haven't been brought back, but nothing I would consider definitive or conclusive. As far as from players side. I am also not that personally interested or invested in finding out either. I think there are plenty of non legal reasons as to why they wouldn't want to or shouldn't. Then like I said, I am not personally knowledgable enough nor do I have the legal expertise to say one way or another. I am aware of Rebeccas short interview on the topic, from a few years back, when she had a different position at DE. To my best understanding, she doesn't have a background in law, (I might be wrong), but she did seem particular in her wording. In that she clarified, to her understanding, it would never return. Which makes sense. She might not have the authority or legal understanding to say something more explicit. She is just giving a sincere response which in all practicality, is accurate and will probably remain accurate. She never said for example "legally we can't" which doesn't mean thats the reason... It could be, and similarly maybe she didn't feel qualified to phrase it in that way either. 

I may not be a lawyer, but I am a lot more knowledgable on consumer rights ideas and practices in various countries. To my best understanding, nothing in the links you gave me, (FTC one is down at the moment, but I am semi familiar with similar), endorses the statements you have made. At most, it just opens up a discussion about the potential legal miniature that would be involved as far as interpreting certain relevant terms involved, like the nature of misleading, discretion involved with pre-established agreements, consent, and even whether thats adequate or legally accountable (certain businesses can ask for us to agree to something in advance, but that doesn't always mean, that if something goes wrong, its absolutely binding either, depending on what it is, see examples of legal situations where fine print was deemed unenforceable, or beyond reason, or obscured beyond reason etc). Which is why earlier, I shorted handed a lot of this to just being "complicated". 

If you could, could you take some of the text within the links you provided, and actually give a clear explanation, using references to specify where and how DE would be liable to ramifications, and accounting for how they couldn't or can't be covered by other legal means either? Also, to point out the obvious, i know its not your job to convince me, nor am I trying to convince you of anything. Like i said, I am just incredibly skeptical of random anonymous people online essentially using a just "trust me bro argument" because thats their uninformed interpretation. When I have a certain interpretation of something, I can usually go into great explanation with references, sources, and the ability to give it context, because I also know its not enough to just have an interpretation. I have to be able to adequately explain stuff a little bit. 

That make sense? 

2 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

... means doing the same things as with the Volt and Mesa Sentient skins: a temporary cash-only Supporter-style bundle with the skins and some small things like glyphs alongside plat market bundles and a la carte options that never go away.

 

Was it a temporarily cash only supporter bundle? You are on PC right? Do you think their could be some inconsistency? I ask because I could buy the Mesa skin with Plat the day of? Granted a few hours after the update, so maybe it wasn't available right away. Anyway, I would like that too, I just don't think its realistically going to happen. Do you think Excalibur Prime coming back is realistic? I would like it, but I don't think it will hence. 

 

2 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

... then I'm not sure we share the same idea of what an improved Heirloom offering would look like. Heirlooms being cash-only is one of the major criticisms of the packs. All plat comes from a money purchase somewhere down the line, so why is the $90 I spent a month before Heirlooms were announced not good enough to buy the contents of the $90 pack? Why are F2P players excluded from participating in these "celebratory" skins even though they work hard for their plat and play an important role in the ingame economy? Etc.

So my overall point is that if DE doesn't address all of the criticisms, then making more Heirlooms is just going to remain a negative affair. If they do address all of the criticisms, but still aren't going to bring back the Mag and Frost Heirloom skins, then they'll just be reopening old wounds and creating more negativity. So if DE truly intends to address the criticisms for future packs, with less bundling, less FOMO elements, cheaper, etc. like you describe, then that's the same as making a Deluxe skin pack like Volt and Mesa's and they should just do that instead. It'd be the same thing but with no baggage.

 

Sure maybe, because I am not necessarily trying to reach an absolute consensus with you over every single detail of what is wrong with the Heirloom packs. we are just two individuals, and even if we could potentially agree on some overlapping issues, its highly unlikely we could agree completely on every nuance or detail. Likewise, everyone else who was/is critical as well. If I could highlight what I generally agree a large portion of peoples criticisms and complaints were... (and in no particular order), It would be, the bundling options. Some people do not care for Regal Aya and Platinum and the implications it carries (increased price/bloated pricing to justify the price), some the bundling, in the sense, they may only want one skin, either for Frost, or Mag, and not both, s they would rather have options around that. Then for some, it was the price. Way too high. Then for some, it was the price, only being real life currency and not one of Warframes premium currencies. Then for some, it was the FOMO aspects, specifically never returning as opposed to say being on rotation. Then for many, it was the Supporter Accolade and its implications... Then for many, it was the combination of some of those factors. Plus a few more, that arguably weren't as often vocalised. Like I know some were bothered it ruined Tennocon etc

Also, for clarity, there is a difference to me, between improving on Heirlooms as an abstract generalisation, and what my personal, subjective idea for what the ideal improved Heirloom situation should look like. A lot of my references to improved are more for the context on the other points made, as in what would soften the blow for many. I'll mention some aspects like the FOMO aspect, but just to give an example. Don't necessarily disagree with other issues either, in theory or practice, but also consider some more likely than others. 

I don't disagree with your overall point, I would just emphasis what a person says for themselves, and applies and projects on to others can be very different things. Are you conscious and self aware of that? Remember there was a communication error last year about a weekend resource booster. DE advertised it in a news update, then a few hours later changed it, caused some minor arguments here and at Reddit, DE eventually just went ahead with a Resource Booster weekend. Oh and for a more recent example, the Nightwave miscommunication about "extra" or "replacement" acts. For some players, such incidents are the end of DE, and sure some might be exaggerating out of frustration, but a lot of players like to draw lines in the sand, not just for themselves... but for others. Like I also said, for some, the Regal Aya situation was the last straw. We remained though, so was it that we didn't have the same courage or convictions as those players? Or were the changes they made sufficient, or was the situation not as dire as to where we felt quitting permanently was appropriate? 

If I could make a more simplified concise version of my point, it would be, do you think its possible, you could be overestimating how negative other people will be if they continued with the Heirloom branding, and is it possible that if they made enough changes, even if they aren't the exact same changes you personally would want, you could also see less negativity from others? Personally, the way time works, its my general view, that unless DE does exactly the same thing over again, peoples attitudes will be a lot more softer, depending on what changes they make (and we already know that they do want to make changes), and personally? I would hold judgement until I saw what changes they are. When people are upset, and annoyed at changes, often they are emotionally motivated, which is important for those of us, whose objections may be more ideological or grounded in something more, to take note of, because it also means over longer stretches of time, people can become more apathetic. 

To put it another way, if future Heirlooms removed FOMO aspects (well some), made them 50% cheaper. Removed Regal Aya from the equation (and the pricing aspect), you don't think you will see a lot more positive sentiment from people? Popular Youtubers/Twitch CC's talking about how DE listened and fixed the situation? 

Again though, I wouldn't personally say no, if they did as you suggest and just made all new Heirlooms Deluxe skins with as cheap pricing aka Mesa and Volt situation, and all that that entails. If they did, I'd remember this conversation and fist pump the air and be glad I was wrong. Those skins are sick, if I could get them and others for Plat... but... I don't think there will be the same levels of negativity and animosity that some project, unless the changes they plan on making don't actually make changes to one or some of the points I addressed earlier. Ideally and realistically... hopefully multiple of the issues I pointed out, ideally, ideally? All of them, but eh, I also can't see that realistically happening either (but again, would be more than happy to be wrong). 

[Ersedu]

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

If you could, could you take some of the text within the links you provided

Ok to put the laws of both links simply it’s the law to not falsely advertise what is being sold 

 

the heirloom pack was marketed as a limited one time ever pack with contents that would never return 

so if they go back on it that would be false marketing 

the FTC says sellers must tell the truth and not mislead consumers 

 

and claims must be substantiated as in the limited time never coming back part 

As that’s part of the anti deceptive marketing law 

 

also disclaimers are required if any are applicable 

So it kind of speaks for itself really 

 

the pack was sold as it’s this 4 months then none of it is ever coming back 

so that’s what people bought it under the impression of 

 

Edited January 3 by Ersedu

[TARINunit9]

10 minutes ago, Ersedu said:

the heirloom pack was marketed as a limited one time ever pack with contents that would never return 

so if they go back on it that would be false marketing 

the FTC says sellers must tell the truth and not mislead consumers 

That's almost certainly a gross oversimplification. There have been many products once advertised as "never to be seen again" only to later get reprinted. This is because of a legal term called "mens rea" 

To my knowledge, Founders Packs (Excalibur Prime) were sealed under contract law, which is enforced very differently. (If they are not under contract law, feel free to correct me)

[Ersedu]

13 minutes ago, TARINunit9 said:

is because of a legal term called "mens rea" 

 

What does mental state have to do with reprinting ?

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

4 minutes ago, Ersedu said:

Ok to put the laws of both links simply it’s the law to not falsely advertise what is being sold the heirloom pack was marketed as a limited one time ever pack with contents that would never return so if they go back on it that would be false marketing the FTC says sellers must tell the truth and not mislead consumers and claims must be substantiated as in the limited time never coming back part 

As that’s part of the anti deceptive marketing law also disclaimers are required if any are applicable So it kind of speaks for itself really the pack was sold as it’s this 4 months then none of it is ever coming back so that’s what people bought it under the impression of 

 

My apologies, let me rephrase. Can you give explanative context to your claims, with examples and citations, specifically. Like, pretend you are an actual layer, and explain why and how DE would be guilty of false advertising, and dispel how interpretations may not interfere and so on. Since, once again, you are just doing what I mentioned earlier, and just reemphasising your interpretation. I don't need you to rephrase your interpretation with more additional points (though thanks regardless), but ideally I would like you to demonstrate more credibility and knowledge by explaining the nuance and specific issues that are (or would be) relevant here, in a way a random anonymous person may not be able to. 

For example, are you familiar with Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants? Its a pretty famous lawsuit, and was often cited or believed by many as a frivolous litigation. I am not a lawyer, but I know a lot about the context of this case. On an online forum, you could have two different groups arguing the merits of the case. With this example, I could go into a lot more of the nuance and answer various questions about the details and specifics, and since I am not a lawyer give very specific citations and references if need be. Not just vague generalisations based on open interpretation. I can do that there, because I am much more knowledgable on that case, than the relevant issues that would be involved with DE and such products and bindings. That being said, my knowledge in the other case, gives me reference to know what a good explanation is, versus someone just having an opinion without much else to back it up. For example, "McDonalds was right", because "hot coffee hot", well... and then I would actually explain why that isn't necessarily accurate and what specific points were leaned on, argued and how it was all framed, including the aftermath and attempts to discredit the case after, and many of the public myths/misunderstandings that occurred. 

Not coming back isn't the same as legally bound to never coming back. See Founders pack reference and counter points. Again, i am not that invested in it, but you might be. To your knowledge, has any DE representative, Steve, Scott, Rebecca, James etc have any of them ever said that legally they can not sell Founders? That they are legally bound, etc? Since I imagine that could be a more convenient way, if such a quote exists from them (as opposed to the leg work required to frame complicated legal issues to explain a point). I highly doubt the Founders pack is ever being rereleased, but thats quite a different claim from it being a legally binding issue. Which is another thing from claiming it is, versus just sincerely not knowing one way or another. 

For example, DE has marketed limited time items that have returned. Also, isn't it only false marketing if there was/is reasonable intent to deceive, as opposed to a legitimate shift in belief/marketing, which can be as easily swayed by several sources (including shifting to better match consumers). For example, in the Liebeck v. McDonalds, I mentioned earlier, a notable highlight of the case, was McDonalds had been deceptive over reasons given for the temperature of their coffees, which they were caught up over. As far as I am generally aware and to the best of my knowledge, many businesses are allowed to be a bit flexible when it comes to changing sales techniques/tactics, and as long as they are not intentionally being misleading or deceptive, they can go back on certain claims, if for legitimate reasons. Like catering to consumer demands, if the industry changes in some way, in which case they have external reasons to readjust. There are lots of reasons to prompt changes in direction, without being deliberately deceptive or misleading (in intent). Which of course is different from being mislead (as far as consumer perception). 

[Ersedu]

19 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

My apologies, let me rephrase. Can you give explanative context to your claims, with examples and citations,

No I can not

I merely have explained things as I understand them to be

 

i am not a lawyer 

 

I was just saying what the FTC says and along with the description of the pack and the faq page saying it would never come back 

I therefore believed it would be covered by those ftc rules 

is it legally binding i have no idea 

but I suppose time will tell what DE does it’s after all their decision 

so apologies if I stated anything wrong I was merely giving my understanding of the matter 

besides the part in the faq page on the website it says items are never coming back 

which would lead anyone to believe they aren’t 

 

along with the pack description saying they would not return as well it was said in many sources they were limited time and never returning 

 

so my understanding is going back on that would count as false marketing would it not ? 
 

as people were led to believe they were not returning and bought them under that belief 

as that is what the marketing told them 

Edited January 3 by Ersedu

[TARINunit9]

24 minutes ago, Ersedu said:

What does mental state have to do with reprinting ?

Not just with reprinting, but also with calling them "limited" in the first place

If the company truly believes because of circumstances (perhaps due to market conditions, perhaps due to their obligations) that a product will be limited, only for those conditions to change later down the line, then they can claim their mens rea wasn't deceptive and thus they aren't on the hook for false advertising. Conversely, if they KNOW they can print the product as much as they want and they KNOW the limited label is misleading but profitable, their mens rea absolutely puts them on the hook for false advertising 

[Ersedu]

3 minutes ago, TARINunit9 said:

KNOW they can print the product as much as they want

I mean it’s digital goods so it’s not like there’s a limit besides how many sell 

[PublikDomain]

2 hours ago, Ersedu said:

Except founders Items they remain exclusive and unobtainable and since Heirloom was marketed the same as Founders packs 

once and never again will likely be treated same as founders items 

I didn't mention Founders? What I was referring to were the exclusive cosmetics in early Prime Access, like Frost Prime and Ember Prime, which were marketed as being exclusive to Prime Access. It was your only chance to get them. And then DE brought them back anyways with Prime Unvaultings. They were exclusive, for cash, and went away, with no indication that they'd ever return with the usual marketing copy saying how it was your last chance to get them. And then they came back. Once and never again didn't matter before, did it?

1 hour ago, Agall said:

As someone who bought the top Heirloom pack when it came out, getting an additional 'free' 2600 platinum was pretty nice.

And for everyone being told "you can't get these skins because you were poor/weren't here at the right time", it's pretty not nice.

50 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Was it a temporarily cash only supporter bundle? You are on PC right? Do you think their could be some inconsistency? I ask because I could buy the Mesa skin with Plat the day of? Granted a few hours after the update, so maybe it wasn't available right away. Anyway, I would like that too, I just don't think its realistically going to happen. Do you think Excalibur Prime coming back is realistic? I would like it, but I don't think it will hence. 

Yes, a temporary cash-only supporter bundle.

https://www.warframe.com/news/the-new-war-supporter-packs

It came with the skins, color palette, sigils, glyphs, etc. as well as the usual discounted plat. It's basically the same as the temporary cash-only Heirloom bundle. The inconsistency? You could also buy the skins together or separately on the market using plat - and you still can. There was no manufactured exclusivity, no FOMO, no bundling pains. It was really well received.

So is it realistic to expect that this will be how DE does Heirlooms in the future? Well, why wouldn't it be? They've sold skins like this before and it addresses all of the criticisms while still letting DE sell their $90 packs. They could sell Heirlooms as a higher tier of Deluxes and it'd be fine. People who don't want Regal Aya don't have to buy any. People that already bought plat don't have to buy more. People that missed the cash offer can still buy it later. People that just want one or two items can buy them a la carte. There's not really a point in doing that, though, if the name itself is just going to dredge up negative PR every time they make more. And yes, I do think that DE releasing more Heirlooms is just going to make more negativity. The overall sentiment in this thread and the other 100+ page one, as well as DE's own statements on Devstreams about the skins and how they were (poorly) received, should be evidence enough.

Regarding Excal Prime, the only reason the community puts up with gameplay items being locked behind decade-old FOMO is the mythos DE has constructed around Founders "saving the company" and whatever. Will Excal Prime come back? No. He should, but DE doesn't want to and the community gives them a pass. But Heirlooms have none of that mythos. They're just glorified Deluxe skins with some manufactured exclusivity. If I'm expected to care that poor little DE might have to issue refunds to a handful of narcissists who want something exclusive to hold over others heads, well... I don't.

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

To put it another way, if future Heirlooms removed FOMO aspects (well some), made them 50% cheaper. Removed Regal Aya from the equation (and the pricing aspect), you don't think you will see a lot more positive sentiment from people? Popular Youtubers/Twitch CC's talking about how DE listened and fixed the situation? 

You would see that, yes of course. Some people would be happier with that outcome. Improvements are good even if they don't help everyone. I'm a big proponent of "better is still better". But it wouldn't address all of the major criticisms and would only open up the can of worms again. And if they don't need to open that can, why would they? There's no reason to continue to use the Heirloom name when it's already steeped in negativity. They can make literally the same thing and just sell it as a Deluxe instead.

[TARINunit9]

1 minute ago, Ersedu said:

I mean it’s digital goods so it’s not like there’s a limit besides how many sell 

Indeed, that specifically would take a lot of weaseling. It makes me wonder what the difference is between the Excalibur Prime Founder's Packs, and the Prime Access packs sold later. Wonder why one can't be reprinted while the others got reprinted several times

[Ersedu]

In any case I’m just going to take the let’s wait and see what happens stance and see my way out 

I have said what I had to say 

 

and at the end of the day I don’t care if heirlooms come back or not if they do cool if they don’t that’s cool too 

 

I’m good either way but hopefully DE doesn’t do something like this again because it’s extremely confusing how they left the is it ever coming back up in the air 

 

so I’ll wait and see what DE decides to do and if they decide to address the is heirlooms coming back or not question especially the current one 

 

so I’m not going to say anything further because I don’t want to misinform anyone I was merely giving my understanding of the situation which is probably completely wrong anyway 

 

and I’ll just wait for a official statement by DE on the matter if they decide to make one 

 

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

1 hour ago, Ersedu said:

No I can not, I merely have explained things as I understand them to be i am not a lawyer, I was just saying what the FTC says and along with the description of the pack and the faq page saying it would never come back  I therefore believed it would be covered by those ftc rules is it legally binding i have no idea , but I suppose time will tell what DE does it’s after all their decision, so apologies if I stated anything wrong I was merely giving my understanding of the matter, besides the part in the faq page on the website it says items are never coming back, which would lead anyone to believe they aren’t 

along with the pack description saying they would not return as well it was said in many sources they were limited time and never returning, so my understanding is going back on that would count as false marketing would it not ? as people were led to believe they were not returning and bought them under that belief 

as that is what the marketing told them 

 

All good. What you are doing is very normal, fair and valid, and in no way am I trying to undermine or invalidate that. Like i mentioned in the beginning, I am not a lawyer either, and I am happy to be educated by anyone that has more knowledge and understanding and expertise in this matter. That also being said, I do know a fair amount about certain overlapping issues, as I am big on consumer rights. 

On some of these matters, I find it... A lot of people have strong opinions, but only have their personal interpretation and a basic understanding of the legal aspects involved. Which if its honest, its honest. These are forums with topics to be discussed, its natural. I for example, am clueless when it comes to a lot of behind the scenes video game mechanics, even though I enjoy the finished product. That being said I also think a lot of people overlook the sincerity and simplicity of not knowing something. Like sometimes, thats the most honest answer. I know just enough about certain legal topics, to know its way more complicated and nuanced than what I used to think it was, and potentially a lot of other people think as well. 

No apologies needed, you answers and responses were sincere. I just likely suspect we have different ideas around burden of proof/evidence. Like if someone asked me if DE is legally bound in such situations, I could write a small essay on why they could be, and why they might not be, depending on certain factors, but I would probably start and end my mini essay with "I don't know for certain". Since I think thats ultimately the most important and most honest bit. Since when i personally make assertive and affirmative claims about stuff, I like to give that weight. I also do know, DE often avoids stating whether something is legally binding or not, because sometimes that level of ambiguity suits them. If players think they are legally bound in some situations, thats actually pretty convenient for them. Then they have also changed things around a lot despite what they have said... often when it seems convenient in other ways. They modify packs all the time, because and this is something they know very well, as per the No Clip documentary, player goodwill is extremely valuable. You can get more money from players with a long term relationship than a short term. 

Side note. I used to work in graphic design, there can be hilarious and funny legal situations around various issues that overlap, especially as far as misleading marketing, deception, false advertising etc, in ways that I think many businesses have gotten away with, and some haven't, various countries inconsistencies with each others, how sometimes law has to play catch up in many cases with new technology. Even if you just Google fast food outlets and burger sizes, you will get a ton of results, different results, from different incidents etc Its kind of an interesting and funny rabbit hole to fall down. You get to ask all sorts of interesting questions too, like having a job, where you want to try make something seem appealing, but what are the limits to that? Since a lot of people know, many adverts of food, look way better than actual foods. Anyway this last paragraph is a bit of a tangent, but I wanted to say i enjoyed our conversation.

Cheers and good day to you. 

 

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Yes, a temporary cash-only supporter bundle.

https://www.warframe.com/news/the-new-war-supporter-packs

It came with the skins, color palette, sigils, glyphs, etc. as well as the usual discounted plat. It's basically the same as the temporary cash-only Heirloom bundle. The inconsistency? You could also buy the skins together or separately on the market using plat - and you still can. There was no manufactured exclusivity, no FOMO, no bundling pains. It was really well received.

So is it realistic to expect that this will be how DE does Heirlooms in the future? Well, why wouldn't it be? They've sold skins like this before and it addresses all of the criticisms while still letting DE sell their $90 packs. They could sell Heirlooms as a higher tier of Deluxes and it'd be fine. People who don't want Regal Aya don't have to buy any. People that already bought plat don't have to buy more. People that missed the cash offer can still buy it later. People that just want one or two items can buy them a la carte. There's not really a point in doing that, though, if the name itself is just going to dredge up negative PR every time they make more. And yes, I do think that DE releasing more Heirlooms is just going to make more negativity. The overall sentiment in this thread and the other 100+ page one, as well as DE's own statements on Devstreams about the skins and how they were (poorly) received, should be evidence enough.

Regarding Excal Prime, the only reason the community puts up with gameplay items being locked behind decade-old FOMO is the mythos DE has constructed around Founders "saving the company" and whatever. Will Excal Prime come back? No. He should, but DE doesn't want to and the community gives them a pass. But Heirlooms have none of that mythos. They're just glorified Deluxe skins with some manufactured exclusivity. If I'm expected to care that poor little DE might have to issue refunds to a handful of narcissists who want something exclusive to hold over others heads, well... I don't.

 

I am familiar with the bundle, what I mean though, is the bit about the Mesa, Volt skins being exclusive to that. Forgive me, if its already pointed out on the page, but is there any indication on there that references that? The closest I could see, is that there is a line that certain items with the asterisk will exclusive to the pack. Neither of which were Mesa or Volt skins. Actually scratch all that, I think this is a misunderstanding. I double checked our earlier conversation and misunderstood what you were saying. My apologies. 

You would like them to follow suit by allowing Mag and Frost Heirloom to be similar to Mesa and Volts skins. Whilst the bundle itself was temporary and exclusive, segments of it were and are available for Plat thereafter. Like I said or implied, I would very much like that yeah. That would be really nice. Am skeptical of that playing out that way though. 

As far as "why wouldn't it be" (realistic), thats one way to frame it sure. Do it you think will definitely happen though? In that sense of realistically going to happen. Then maybe not definitely, but realistically? As in a literal yes or no question? Should, could and would carry different meanings. Could they? Yes (at least I think they can), should they? Arguably, I would say yes too, will they? I don't know, we might eventually find out. Again, I don't think they will, but happy to be wrong. I assume even if you think they will, you won't start making promises to random people online that they are going to. Thats what I mean by realistic. 

My other question about negativity was different though. It was sincere, and didn't lead itself to its own conclusion. For example, I definitely think if DE pisses off more people, then more people will be pissed off. To put it another way, its really easy to make empty vague generalisations when talking about data that can't be known or verified. Like there is more goodwill know towards Warframe, than ever before, one could say. Then someone could ask, well by what metrics. Then someone could say... well, the goodwill of the people. The people out there seem to have it. Same is true with claims of negativity. Like obviously, if DE offers Heirlooms without changing much, that will bring more negativity, but thats an easy conclusion to make. Whats trickier is if they make changes that actually appease some people. 

The overall sentiment in this thread is meaningless, if 60% of it are the same people, a small minority of them, are actually less individuals on alts, and a massive majority (hypothetically) brought and were content with the Heirloom bundles. Also to be super clear, I made up those numbers and percentages, because I don't know, and I don't imagine many people outside DE are in position to know. Its not good evidence in any other neutral context. Nor that it should be dismissed either, but I already also personally explained that earlier as well. 

Regarding Excalibur. I don't disagree, but I think its more accurate to say thats one reason. A lot of people are also just apathetic, and don't really care one way or another, some aren't, and have that weird (well I find it weird) satisfaction of owning something that others can't, which overlaps with what you are saying a little. 

 

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

You would see that, yes of course. Some people would be happier with that outcome. Improvements are good even if they don't help everyone. I'm a big proponent of "better is still better". But it wouldn't address all of the major criticisms and would only open up the can of worms again. And if they don't need to open that can, why would they? There's no reason to continue to use the Heirloom name when it's already steeped in negativity. They can make literally the same thing and just sell it as a Deluxe instead.

 

I agree with the first bit, less so on the latter. To put it another way, if some mid year Dev Stream is Rebecca opening by talking about Heirlooms, and reemphasising they could have been better executed, and that they have changes set for the next Heirlooms they are planning... are you going to quit Warframe then and there? Or are you going to listen apprehensively... and if you listen to the changes, and think they are some decent changes, overall, compared to the originals... and not worth quitting the game over, and not as negative as the originals, then... what? At that point, isn't it just it is what it is? 

Personally I think Prime Accessories is silly amounts of money and bad value. In the context that its about the same amount of money as just buying a brand new game instead. Except in context, well, eh, thats a FTP model for you as well. Its kind of established itself as being what it is. I don't see it changing any time soon. For some, its as much of a support DE purchase than them expecting to necessarily value hose items at that value exactly without any additional context. 

So in a similar way, to me, Heirlooms are clearly meant to be more than Deluxe skins. Even if I agreed with your perspective (which I kind of do generally), to me, it would be a bit like asking Prime Armour Sets to be priced at what other normal Armour Sets are priced at. Which like... nice in theory, but chance of happening?

[PublikDomain]

5 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

I double checked our earlier conversation and misunderstood what you were saying. My apologies. 

np!

5 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

As far as "why wouldn't it be" (realistic), thats one way to frame it sure. Do it you think will definitely happen though? In that sense of realistically going to happen. Then maybe not definitely, but realistically? As in a literal yes or no question? Should, could and would carry different meanings. Could they? Yes (at least I think they can), should they? Arguably, I would say yes too, will they? I don't know, we might eventually find out. Again, I don't think they will, but happy to be wrong. I assume even if you think they will, you won't start making promises to random people online that they are going to. Thats what I mean by realistic. 

🤔 I'm certainly not making any promises about what they're going to do, I can only say what I think they should do. I think they should do it that way because it broadly addresses most or all of the criticisms, and I think that it's realistic that they might do it that way given that they've already done something similar before. If DE is truly interested in improving Heirlooms in the future, and really do intend to follow the lessons they've supposedly learned here, then the model they've already successfully tested is the best and most realistic way to go.

5 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

My other question about negativity was different though. It was sincere, and didn't lead itself to its own conclusion. For example, I definitely think if DE pisses off more people, then more people will be pissed off. To put it another way, its really easy to make empty vague generalisations when talking about data that can't be known or verified. Like there is more goodwill know towards Warframe, than ever before, one could say. Then someone could ask, well by what metrics. Then someone could say... well, the goodwill of the people. The people out there seem to have it. Same is true with claims of negativity. Like obviously, if DE offers Heirlooms without changing much, that will bring more negativity, but thats an easy conclusion to make. Whats trickier is if they make changes that actually appease some people. 

The overall sentiment in this thread is meaningless, if 60% of it are the same people, a small minority of them, are actually less individuals on alts, and a massive majority (hypothetically) brought and were content with the Heirloom bundles. Also to be super clear, I made up those numbers and percentages, because I don't know, and I don't imagine many people outside DE are in position to know. Its not good evidence in any other neutral context. Nor that it should be dismissed either, but I already also personally explained that earlier as well. 

DE themselves, though, have said that the reception was not good. You can ignore the broad player sentiment in the main megathreads and just focus on DE's own words. I'm paraphrasing, but Rebecca herself has said that TennoCon would have been perfect if it weren't for the Heirloom packs. She even apologized for how they were released. Would she say that if the reception were wonderful and glowing?

Quote

Speaking from the heart, we wish we handled the situation better - we missed the mark. However, if we continue with the Heirloom feedback next year, we’ll make radical changes based on Community feedback and reflect on the situation as a whole for future iterations!

https://www.warframe.com/news/devstream-173-overview

They have readily admitted that the reception has not been good.

5 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Regarding Excalibur. I don't disagree, but I think its more accurate to say thats one reason. A lot of people are also just apathetic, and don't really care one way or another, some aren't, and have that weird (well I find it weird) satisfaction of owning something that others can't, which overlaps with what you are saying a little. 

Apathy, sure. That tracks with some of the things you've talked about and I agree. It's hard to stay mad for a long time.

5 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

I agree with the first bit, less so on the latter. To put it another way, if some mid year Dev Stream is Rebecca opening by talking about Heirlooms, and reemphasising they could have been better executed, and that they have changes set for the next Heirlooms they are planning... are you going to quit Warframe then and there? Or are you going to listen apprehensively... and if you listen to the changes, and think they are some decent changes, overall, compared to the originals... and not worth quitting the game over, and not as negative as the originals, then... what? At that point, isn't it just it is what it is? 

No, I doubt I'll quit, but I have closed my wallet to DE and it will remain closed for the foreseeable future. To that end I had an artbook order, placed the minute it was announced at TennoCon, which I cancelled in protest of the Heirloom skins. "Vote with your wallet", as they say. It is what it is, and what it is sucks. But it also doesn't have to stay that way.

5 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

So in a similar way, to me, Heirlooms are clearly meant to be more than Deluxe skins. Even if I agreed with your perspective (which I kind of do generally), to me, it would be a bit like asking Prime Armour Sets to be priced at what other normal Armour Sets are priced at. Which like... nice in theory, but chance of happening?

I mean... 3 RA is $19.99 and comes with 200p. $19.99 will alternatively get you 370p alone. So we could say that 3 RA is roughly equivalent to 170p. 2 RA is then about 113p. A regular armor set is usually 100p. So, the chance of that happening? Seems to me like it's already happened :) This was a direct result of players protesting the removal of plat from Prime Resurgence and making DE put their pricing back to where it was with the Prime Vault. Anything's possible if you don't roll over and act like nothing will change!

Edit: And compared to Deluxe skins? Maybe Heirlooms are extra special, so they're double the price of a regular Deluxe. Well a regular Deluxe is usually around 165p for the skin alone. Double that is 330p. That's about $18 in plat. For two skins, that's about $33-36 in plat depending on how you want to split it. That tracks quite similarly to some of the typical suggestions people had for additional separate skins-only cash bundles without the plat and Regal Aya. For example, from the OP of this thread:

On 2023-08-26 at 11:15 AM, Kymaeraa said:

I'll be happy if they just let us buy the skins+signas for 10-15 bucks per warframe.

Many people are more than willing to pay more than a Deluxe or TennoGen for these skins. If DE wants Heirlooms to be special Deluxes, then that's probably fine. There's certainly room for this in the game's monetization for something like that. It ain't like people are demanding them for free.

Edited January 4 by PublikDomain

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

50 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

🤔 I'm certainly not making any promises about what they're going to do, I can only say what I think they should do. I think they should do it that way because it broadly addresses most or all of the criticisms, and I think that it's realistic that they might do it that way given that they've already done something similar before. If DE is truly interested in improving Heirlooms in the future, and really do intend to follow the lessons they've supposedly learned here, then the model they've already successfully tested is the best and most realistic way to go.

 

I get what you are saying (I think), so I won't press this point too much, but you can do more than just say what you think they should do. Or at the very least, understand and acknowledge that other people often frame the future, or various consequences that can happen, not just in what they think should happen, but what can happen regardless, and how that can be different from what they would like to happen. Yes? 

I mean, sure, if you want to frame something as they might do it... so its realistic possibility, and leveraging word meanings against each other? Again sure. It just seems like an odd way to either avoid saying that you don't think they will do something, but maintaining that its possible, in a everything can be possible in the right situation. To me, its almost telling when what can be a simple yes or no answer to something, ends up as more than that. Which again, nothing wrong with that either, especially with wanting to give more context. Like if someone asked me if I think Citrine is getting a Prime this year. I do know that in the past, newer Warframes have skipped the line, its just relatively rare. I also do not know this for absolute certain, but based on precedence, release dates, and Warframe gender considerations, this year? As far as Primes, probably Gauss, Protea, Xaku and Lavos. Possibly Yareli, depending on how they want to go with patterns and Xaku. Either way, I can also, if need be, just say no, I do not think she is. Even if I would like that to happen. 

Likewise, whilst I don't necessarily outright disagree, don't necessarily think a claim of "DE should do this if they are truely invested and intend to follow the lesson they have supposedly learned from" holds that much weight. This is just a way that people add qualifiers to give weight, or urgency or gravity to claims. If you were really sincere and good faith, you would agree with me on this, right? See I just used the same sort of rhetoric, but you might not agree with me, because who am I, to make such a claim about your sincerity and what you should do? 

 

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

DE themselves, though, have said that the reception was not good. You can ignore the broad player sentiment in the main megathreads and just focus on DE's own words. I'm paraphrasing, but Rebecca herself has said that TennoCon would have been perfect if it weren't for the Heirloom packs. She even apologized for how they were released. Would she say that if the reception were wonderful and glowing?

 

Sure, but depending on the context, that can entail different things. The player public reaction was definitely not great, in a way that be easily understood and conveyed, but the Heirlooms monetary success could be very different. They wouldn't have to ignore anything, if they already know that potentially, a minority of a minority, are vocally unhappy. Especially if, again, they always generally understand that a minority of a minority is always going to be a little annoyed, no matter what (just like a minority of a minority will always be content and grateful (even though thats not necessarily a positive to DE). 

If DE were making a lot of profit from the packs, but aware that many were very unhappy with them, do you think Rebecca would say "Well, i know you guys got big upset, but the Heirlooms are actually making a lot of cash right now, so you guys are obviously wrong and we know business better than you, so you should shush and let us cook!" or if she is aware that players were upset, and she was bothered by the way they handled the situation, even if they were doing decently, you don't think she would want to express such frustrations and consolidate with upset, frustrated, annoyed players? Its a bit like double speak, when they talk about certain things like Lunaro, and talking about the positives, but in a way thats inoffensive to players, and then also talking about how they missed the mark, but in a way thats inoffensive to all the people that worked hard on that, game side. Or to your question, more directly, as in would she say that if the reception (or by my meaning, internal data showed the Heirlooms were successful in ways, that had more to do with business, then yes. I think she would still say that, and I also already covered this in one of my older replies already. Since contrary to many peoples understanding, and belief, many businesses will try to accommodate, smaller minorities of fans, as far as portions being frustrated or bothered by a decision, depending on the context. Lets say, somehow, magically, all things were known to all, with full transparency. On every given issue that people had issues with, they don't need to be a majority, for that issue to be recognised and addressed or be valid either. Especially for businesses who prioritise longer term relationships with a fanbase, and one that can traditionally have retention issues. I think Rebecca is the kind of person, that would apologise for a lot of things, if it meant trying to accommodate as many different players as possible, with some exceptions. Just her background on the Community management side of things. 

This is what I mean about vague generalisations though as well. If I asked you how many, do hands, does your average healthy human, usually have, according to most medical sources etc, thats relatively simple. You can say two. Of if I asked for fingers on those hands, you could say 10 (or maybe 8, depending on your stance on thumbs). If I asked you how many people play Warframe, you could give me various stats from say Steam. If I asked you how many people brought the Heirloom packs? Or what percentage of Warframe playerbase are negative on them? What would your serious answer be? See, I am pretty open, that I don't know about DE's internal data, or how well Heirlooms sold, its why I use terms like if, and will throw out hypotheticals. A lot of us often frame assertions around data that, plainly they can't actually know, so usually end up just guessing or passing off as fact, or some other sort of appeal, that attempts to cover for the idea, they are just pulling data from nowhere. 

 

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

No, I doubt I'll quit, but I have closed my wallet to DE and it will remain closed for the foreseeable future. To that end I had an artbook order, placed the minute it was announced at TennoCon, which I cancelled in protest of the Heirloom skins. "Vote with your wallet", as they say.

 

Totally fair. My question was also more about whether you would actually listen and hear out what the new changes would be. Since again, I completely agree and sympathise, first hand, about the negative taste Heirlooms acquired and why people would be very skeptical and jaded. Just that, its also not a game breaker for me, and even less of one, if they actually make significant improvements. Like, even though I personally consider it, not happening. Lets say that DE does exactly what you personally want, and think they should, by giving them the Mesa and Volt Deluxe skin treatments. They make them available for Plat, its roughly the same amount of Plat as well. Its permanently available. Would you sit there and say "nah, not good enough, the Heirloom name is too tarnished, we should all be s critical as last time" or would your stance be softened to the naming convention, because all the other stuff was addressed?

My general point is, since a lot of different people have different thresholds and ideas about what would improve those packs, a lot of peoples stances will naturally be softened, even if for some, DE still didn't do enough. Which is always going to be a tricky and potentially frustrating issue in general. I was one of the people, that was critical, right from the beginning, and then I remember waking up one morning, and seeing a few peoples posts, saying "DE fixed the Heirlooms, they are making changes, we won", but then i read what they were changing (adding more Plat) and thought... well, nothing, nothing was actually addressed or "fixed", but sometimes their "fixes" are enough to quell the anger, and then often, quelled anger leads to apathy from a lot of people. Worse, some people can get "tired" of peoples objections, and then you also end up in this weird, spite situation, where some people just want you to drop the topic, which is its whole own thing as far as people dynamics.. Its also a bit tricky, because ultimately, we all will tend to do whats best for us, whether that be quitting the game, enduring, or even being apathetic to certain issues. 

Like as weird and silly I think the players who openly admitted they wanted to own something exclusive and special and not want others to have that opportunity, they are still a consumer with certain rights that should be made available to them, even if I think they are also being anti-consumer. 

 

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

I mean... 3 RA is $19.99 and comes with 200p. $19.99 will alternatively get you 370p alone. So we could say that 3 RA is roughly equivalent to 170p. 2 RA is then about 113p. A regular armor set is usually 100p. So, the chance of that happening? Seems to me like it's already happened :) Anything's possible if you don't roll over and act like nothing will change.

 

Oh, my bad, I more meant under the... on console, which I think is different, though I think they are changing this with Gauss Prime, but Accessories is its own bundle. In my local currency, its around $100. I wouldn't necessarily try to put a real life price on Platinum, just for such comparisons, because whilst I think a person can, its never going to be a neat comparison, because the way grinding can work in the game, as far as FTP players, versus players who might have more disposable income. I have more disposable income, but I also remember being a poor kid, who would never have been able to afford Prime Accessories. Some of which are very awesomely designed. Again, its something i just had to learn to deal with, as far as being a FTP model, and DE needs its money from somewhere, but ehhh.I appreciate the sentiment all the same though, cheers. (Oh and I also forget to mention, that even with the old system, waiting for Accessories when they returned on Unvault and the Regal Aya situation, does make them cheaper, but overall, its more of a sentimental argument, because I am generally against certain practices in video games, and many of their practices, which you and I have covered in such conversations). I definitely agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment here too. 

[Slayer-.]

12 hours ago, Ersedu said:

It will probably return in some form eventually it was a twitch drop

Baro had it the other week. 

[PollexMessier]

15 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

So my overall point is that if DE doesn't address all of the criticisms, then making more Heirlooms is just going to remain a negative affair. If they do address all of the criticisms, but still aren't going to bring back the Mag and Frost Heirloom skins, then they'll just be reopening old wounds and creating more negativity. So if DE truly intends to address the criticisms for future packs, with less bundling, less FOMO elements, cheaper, etc. like you describe, then that's the same as making a Deluxe skin pack like Volt and Mesa's and they should just do that instead. It'd be the same thing but with no baggage.

Yes, this. Exactly this. 100%

The only acceptable thing they can do with heirloom now is make them like deluxe skins. Anything less than that is just going to be met with more backlash and outrage. And at that point they may as well drop the heirloom theme and just make new deluxe skins instead. Cus every new heirloom they release like this is going to come with the question "Why can't Frost and Mag heirloom be like this?" Which the only real answer to is "We're too stingy to eat the refund cost. And Some rich pricks with a superiority complex don't want us to cus it would deflate their planet-sized egos."

They ether need to suck up their pride and un-exclusive the contents of the original heirloom pack, or drop heirloom as an idea entirely. There's no in-between that goes over positively.

[Ersedu]

We were simply discussing if it could or would come back 

I already explained everything above I’m not a nut 

And I don’t care if it comes back or not 

 

was just giving my understanding of the matter and your right I’m not a lawyer never claimed to be either 

 

the CPA’s were merely examples of why I believed they  wouldn’t be returning 

and yes law is different throughout the world 

 

there’s no need to be toxic and attack people discussing Heirlooms to understand and figure out the specifics of how exclusive this heirloom thing will be 

 

I have already stated many times I am likely wrong because I can admit when I’m wrong 

Edited January 4 by Ersedu

[Circle_of_Psi]

14 minutes ago, (PSN)Joylesstuna said:

The troll returns.

Not sure if it's a Troll at this point?

[(XBOX)C11H22O11]

23 minutes ago, Slayer-. said:

 

Try reading the posts above talking about being toxic, I find that quote offensive being tarred with the same brush, though yes I can be a pric when pissed off the rest is just wrong, not rich and have no ego so take that toxic attitude and bench it. 

I mean I didn't notice that one comment if that's what you're saying, probably has been said before but people shouldn't bash others that bought the pack, if you could afford it and you liked the deal then you were free to buy it

[Slayer-.]

1 minute ago, (XBOX)C11H22O11 said:

I mean I didn't notice that one comment if that's what you're saying, probably has been said before but people shouldn't bash others that bought the pack, if you could afford it and you liked the deal then you were free to buy it

I had an 's' at the end of 'post' when it shouldn't have been there, I agree the toxicity in this thread from the start is deplorable, there were a lot of removed posts by the mods.

If players wanted to buy the pack because of the extras in the skin pack, for me, it worked out well as I was after the bloat as they called it and worked out better for myself.

Yes, I agree DE could and should have done it differently, it doesn't give forum users an open forum to be toxic towards the players who bought it.

[TeaHands]

I caved in and bought it lol

I really wanted that Frost Signa.