PSA PSA: Heirloom Collection Platinum Changes & Lessons

[Circle_of_Psi]

5 hours ago, Katinka said:

, they've told us it's about being 'fair' to those who've already purchased, based on the assumption that a significant number of those people assigned value to the fact it's got a limited time availability.

Yeah and this is laughable at best, in fact, this caused an issue it-itself as IIRC, people got attacked because of it.

At least what I heard

[Petroklos]

Since this thread is somehow still going, I'll put down my current thoughts on the matter:

DE's response has been good. Quick changes to the bundle and a statement of intention to do even better in the future, reiterated in September's DevStream with enough sincerity that I do believe them. My only remaining ethical issue is the FOMO bs.

The bundles are still too expensive for me to justify them but I also really want the Frost Skin and Signa.

So, dearest DE; If you remove the FOMO from this run, or eventually rerun these Skins, I will buy the Celestial Bundle. Not only do the Skins look dope af but I also intend to put my money where my mouth is.

PS: Huh, changing my account eMail also deleted all of my Forum Post history?? No, it created a new Forums Account??? Weird lol.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Petroklos

[Katinka]

9 minutes ago, Petroklos said:

PS: Huh, changing my account eMail also deleted all of my Forum Post history?? No, it created a new Forums Account??? Weird lol.

That's good to know!  I'd better not change my email then as it'd probably mess with my Design Council access, which is already troublesome as the site doesn't seem to respect the fact that I've 'followed' the subforum, and most DE staff, and rarely notifies me of activity there leading to me sometimes not knowing about stuff I could contribute to until it's too late.

[(XBOX)toughdragon17]

17 minutes ago, Petroklos said:

Since this thread is somehow still going, I'll put down my current thoughts on the matter:

DE's response has been good. Quick changes to the bundle and a statement of intention to do even better in the future, reiterated in September's DevStream with enough sincerity that I do believe them. My only remaining ethical issue is the FOMO bs.

There response was half baked and there statements of well do better next time have been used multiple times before alredy giving it no merit

And there was 0 sincerity in any of there voices they sounded like they were just saying somthing to try and get people off there back for the horrible job they did emphasis on horrible

[NecroPed]

10 hours ago, Katinka said:

Yeah, this.  I want them to make changes and believe they can because of their own wording.  If their hands are tied because lawyers have advised them that a certain jurisdiction says they can't alter that aspect of the conditions of sale then I'd like them to be transparent and tell us it's a legal issue.  However, they've not told us it's a legally binding matter, they've told us it's about being 'fair' to those who've already purchased, based on the assumption that a significant number of those people assigned value to the fact it's got a limited time availability.

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. 

[Arnul.]

so then no chance of the skins getting a separate bundle without the aya and plat as I dont really want that?

1 hour ago, NecroPed said:

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. 

oh you mean because tencent. Got it.

[PublikDomain]

On 2023-10-11 at 5:34 PM, NecroPed said:

you're the one who brought it up

That's an odd recollection of events... This is what I originally quoted you about:

On 2023-10-08 at 7:47 PM, NecroPed said:

people could argue that any changes to the packs, including different packs with the same goods, means that they falsely advertised it and baited people into buying something they otherwise wouldn't have because they thought it was never coming back, couldn't be obtained in a different pack, etc..

Maybe you have me confused with one of the other people you were saying this to?

Anyways...

On 2023-10-11 at 5:34 PM, NecroPed said:

Changes themselves aren't the inherent problem here, the way the product is advertised is

Yes, I know and agree. But for the way the product is advertised to be "false advertising" - in everything I've read - is only if the advertising is currently false or misleading. There is no retroactive false advertising law I can find anywhere I'm looking. DE can sell anything they want. They can change what they sell whenever they want. They can even retroactively change things people have already bought! And those changes are not a problem, and have never been a problem in the past. The only potential problem is if they made such a change and then did not update their advertising. In that case, and in only that case, said advertising would no longer accurately inform consumers and could be misleading. Like, for example, if DE changed the availability but continued to advertise that this was your only chance or way to get these cosmetics. That would be false advertising and would be a problem. Saying "these cosmetics are no longer going away" and then updating their advertisements so consumers know they are no longer going away would be completely fine.

On 2023-10-11 at 5:34 PM, NecroPed said:

There are laws and regulations to be followed.

Likewise, yes I know and agree. Laws and regulations must be followed. And in this case, those laws and regulations are... What? Which laws and regulations say a software company cannot change the availability or terms of a license after it has been advertised? Which would not be followed?

And to be clear as well, the only reason I'm questioning on you about this is because from my perspective it's just FUD. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It's very typical on these forums across a whole slew of topics and I confront it whenever I can. Either claims can be substantiated, or they're just noise muddying the discussion.

On 2023-10-11 at 5:34 PM, NecroPed said:

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!

I did miss that last line specifying the "customizations" , so I will take back what I said about that. But again, as long as they update their advertising so it reflects the current offering, there would be nothing at all wrong with changing this.

[NecroPed]

1 minute ago, PublikDomain said:

That's an odd recollection of events... This is what I originally quoted you about:

Maybe you have me confused with one of the other people you were saying this to?

Anyways...

Yes, I know and agree. But for the way the product is advertised to be "false advertising" - in everything I've read - is only if the advertising is currently false or misleading. There is no retroactive false advertising law I can find anywhere I'm looking. DE can sell anything they want. They can change what they sell whenever they want. They can even retroactively change things people have already bought! And those changes are not a problem, and have never been a problem in the past. The only potential problem is if they made such a change and then did not update their advertising. In that case, and in only that case, said advertising would no longer accurately inform consumers and could be misleading. Like, for example, if DE changed the availability but continued to advertise that this was your only chance or way to get these cosmetics. That would be false advertising and would be a problem. Saying "these cosmetics are no longer going away" and then updating their advertisements so consumers know they are no longer going away would be completely fine.

Likewise, yes I know and agree. Laws and regulations must be followed. And in this case, those laws and regulations are... What? Which laws and regulations say a software company cannot change the availability or terms of a license after it has been advertised? Which would not be followed?

And to be clear as well, the only reason I'm questioning on you about this is because from my perspective it's just FUD. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It's very typical on these forums across a whole slew of topics and I confront it whenever I can. Either claims can be substantiated, or they're just noise muddying the discussion.

I did miss that last line specifying the "customizations" , so I will take back what I said about that. But again, as long as they update their advertising so it reflects the current offering, there would be nothing at all wrong with changing this.

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.  

[(XBOX)toughdragon17]

3 hours ago, NecroPed said:

 

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.  

Im just ganna put this hear a part of the eula about changing currency and goods

we, in our sole discretion, may modify, substitute, replace, suspend, cancel, or eliminate any Game Currency or Virtual Goods, including your ability to access or use Game Currency or Virtual Goods, without notice or liability to you, such as if we need to temporarily suspend the Game to make updates, have an emergency that requires us to disable our Services, or if we need to ultimately shut a Game down for economic or other reasons due to a limited number of users continuing to make use of the online Service over time. YOU AGREE THAT YOU WON’T ASSERT OR BRING ANY CLAIM AGAINST US, OUR AFFILIATES, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR LICENSORS (THE “COMPANY PARTIES”) RELATING TO (A) A CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN ANY GAME CURRENCY OR VIRTUAL GOODS; OR (B) A CLAIM FOR AN ALLEGED MONETARY VALUE OF GAME CURRENCY OR VIRTUAL GOODS LOST UPON (I) DELETION OR SUSPENSION OF YOUR ACCOUNT, (II) ADJUSTMENTS TO THE GAME THAT RESULT IN THE VALUE OF VIRTUAL GOODS OR GAME CURRENCY CHANGING, OR (III) MODIFICATION, TERMINATION, OR EXPIRATION OF THIS EULA

if you sighed this and they changed somethings and you sued them the main thing they most likely will get is a slap on the wrist and ordered to refund the person there money

Edited October 13, 2023 by (XBOX)toughdragon17
Clarification

[NecroPed]

1 hour ago, (XBOX)toughdragon17 said:

Im just ganna put this hear a part of the eula about changing currency and goods

we, in our sole discretion, may modify, substitute, replace, suspend, cancel, or eliminate any Game Currency or Virtual Goods, including your ability to access or use Game Currency or Virtual Goods, without notice or liability to you, such as if we need to temporarily suspend the Game to make updates, have an emergency that requires us to disable our Services, or if we need to ultimately shut a Game down for economic or other reasons due to a limited number of users continuing to make use of the online Service over time. YOU AGREE THAT YOU WON’T ASSERT OR BRING ANY CLAIM AGAINST US, OUR AFFILIATES, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR LICENSORS (THE “COMPANY PARTIES”) RELATING TO (A) A CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN ANY GAME CURRENCY OR VIRTUAL GOODS; OR (B) A CLAIM FOR AN ALLEGED MONETARY VALUE OF GAME CURRENCY OR VIRTUAL GOODS LOST UPON (I) DELETION OR SUSPENSION OF YOUR ACCOUNT, (II) ADJUSTMENTS TO THE GAME THAT RESULT IN THE VALUE OF VIRTUAL GOODS OR GAME CURRENCY CHANGING, OR (III) MODIFICATION, TERMINATION, OR EXPIRATION OF THIS EULA

if you sighed this and they changed somethings and you sued them the main thing they most likely will get is a slap on the wrist and ordered to refund the person there money

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. 

[Katinka]

1 hour ago, NecroPed said:

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, "

Is the EULA not part of the terms of sale?  I'd say it holds more weight than an FAQ.  The terms of the EULA are clearly listed and were at the time of sale, so at the point of purchase the buyer has agreed to the terms that state changes can be made.  Surely that is part of how it was advertised?  If it is advertised as potentially subject to change then it isn't false advertising if it does turn out to be subject to change and thus not prohibited by law.

[Circle_of_Psi]

40 minutes ago, Katinka said:

Surely that is part of how it was advertised?  If it is advertised as potentially subject to change then it isn't false advertising if it does turn out to be subject to change and thus not prohibited by law.

Funny enough they DID change it, and they edited the Plat inside it, Yes they did refund the Plat into Inboxs but still, I have to agree with ConDuck here.

[(XBOX)LadyWinterstorm]

On 2023-10-08 at 12:51 AM, NecroPed said:

Their ToS doesn't actually override laws though, so what they have in the ToS isn't absolute. If they released it under specific advertisements that say it's not coming back, releasing it again could mean they falsely advertised it. The ToS is irrelevant in that regard.

They could simply put all current packs on sale (20% 50% etc), problem solved 

Edited October 13, 2023 by (XBOX)LadyWinterstorm

[NecroPed]

On 2023-10-13 at 1:10 PM, Katinka said:

Is the EULA not part of the terms of sale?  I'd say it holds more weight than an FAQ.  The terms of the EULA are clearly listed and were at the time of sale, so at the point of purchase the buyer has agreed to the terms that state changes can be made.  Surely that is part of how it was advertised?  If it is advertised as potentially subject to change then it isn't false advertising if it does turn out to be subject to change and thus not prohibited by law.

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. 

 

21 hours ago, (XBOX)LadyWinterstorm said:

They could simply put all current packs on sale (20% 50% etc), problem solved 

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. 

 

On 2023-10-13 at 1:51 PM, Circle_of_Psi said:

Funny enough they DID change it, and they edited the Plat inside it, Yes they did refund the Plat into Inboxs but still, I have to agree with ConDuck here.

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)

[(XBOX)LadyWinterstorm]

2 hours ago, NecroPed said:

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. 

Most company's offer sales especially when a product is nearing retirement. DE themselves have previously put several time limited packs on sale.

 

[PublikDomain]

22 hours ago, NecroPed said:

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. 

"When promoting" just means that the statements have to be accurate when promoting. Not forever after promoting. Are Australians not allowed to have sales? They can never advertise something costing $20 and then change the price to $15 because their promotion a year ago said $20?

Like I'm reading about this on consumer.gov.au, and the only thing I can find about changes made to a product being "misleading or deceptive conduct" are in two places. The first about "silence":

Quote

Silence
Silence can also be misleading if a business fails to disclose relevant facts to a customer.
Silence can be misleading or deceptive when:

• one person fails to alert another to facts known only to them, and the facts are relevant to the decision
• important details a person should know are not conveyed to them
• a change in circumstance meant information already provided was incorrect.

Whether silence is misleading or deceptive will depend on the circumstances of each case.

That sounds quite similar! But does it say that a "change in circumstance" is not allowed? No, 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. They cannot make a change and be silent about it. If the circumstances change, which they are allowed to, then consumers just need to be informed.

The second section being about "predictions and opinions":

Quote

Predictions and opinions
A statement about the future that does not turn out to be true is not necessarily misleading or deceptive.
But promises, opinions and predictions can be misleading or deceptive if the person making the
statement:

• knew it was untrue or incorrect
• did not care whether it was true or not
• had no reasonable grounds for making it.

DE is not lying about the future condition of the packs when they say that the packs are only available until 2024 or that they will never come back. Those statements are currently true and correct. And if that statement does not turn out to be true, it's not necessarily misleading! You'd have to prove that DE knew ahead of time that these packs would never be temporary or would return and advertised them that way anyways.

22 hours ago, NecroPed said:

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"

This?

Quote

Generally, ‘unconscionable conduct’ is conduct that defies good conscience, within the context of society’s norms and expectations. For conduct to be unconscionable, it needs to be more than merely unfair or unreasonable.

The examples I find given being elderly abuse, taking advantage of people who can't read to siphon their bank accounts, and charging people excessive fees. I, uh, don't think this is in the same category...

Edited October 14, 2023 by PublikDomain

[NecroPed]

23 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

"When promoting" just means that the statements have to be accurate when promoting. Not forever after promoting. Are Australians not allowed to have sales? They can never advertise something costing $20 and then change the price to $15 because their promotion a year ago said $20?

Like I'm reading about this on consumer.gov.au, and the only thing I can find about changes made to a product being "misleading or deceptive conduct" are in two places. The first about "silence":

That sounds quite similar! But does it say that a "change in circumstance" is not allowed? No, 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. They cannot make a change and be silent about it. If the circumstances change, which they are allowed to, then consumers just need to be informed.

The second section being about "predictions and opinions":

DE is not lying about the future condition of the packs when they say that the packs are only available until 2024 or that they will never come back. Those statements are currently true and correct. And if that statement does not turn out to be true, it's not necessarily misleading! You'd have to prove that DE knew ahead of time that these packs would never be temporary or would return and advertised them that way anyways.

This?

The examples I find given being elderly abuse, taking advantage of people who can't read to siphon their bank accounts, and charging people excessive fees. I, uh, don't think this is in the same category...

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.

On 2023-10-14 at 12:50 PM, (XBOX)LadyWinterstorm said:

Most company's offer sales especially when a product is nearing retirement. DE themselves have previously put several time limited packs on sale.

 

Yes and thats fine. But it doesn't solve most of the problems at hand. 

 

23 hours ago, ConDucktorWhirl said:

Did the number of platinum change in the pack since its release? yes. Yes it did. Addition and subtraction are methods of CHANGE

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.

Edited October 15, 2023 by NecroPed

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

I want to be pretty transparent and concise that I am not trying to argue, or snipe, or pick a fight or anything. All of the following is meant with kind, and friendly intent. 

 

On 2023-10-14 at 12:17 PM, NecroPed said:

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.

 

On 2023-10-14 at 2:50 PM, (XBOX)LadyWinterstorm said:

DE themselves have previously put several time limited packs on sale.

 

3 hours ago, NecroPed said:

Yes and thats fine.

 

To my perception, it feels like you are leaning a little too hard on the devils advocate positioning. to be clear, I don't disagree with every point you make, I think many points you have made, are reasonable, and some accurate as well. You just also seem to employ this technique, where in absence of hard facts and knowledge, you lean towards hypotheticals that suggest DE can't or shouldn't do something based on interpretations of law or fairness. Also and to your credit, if I am not mistaken, you are also transparent about your legal understanding and expertise, as to not overstep, which I think is good, but also, in a way, sort of just fuels more defensive rhetoric. Which I wouldn't say is an inherently bad thing, since we all often do that in conversation with each other. I myself am sort of doing that now, for example. 

Thus I'd like to clarify my intent is to assist communication, and highlight clarity. In your first quote here, you said "it doesn't sound like something they would do", but later state "yes thats fine" were you aware that DE has offered similar before, and with such limited time exclusives, given heavy discounts before they retired? Not a trick question, like, you might believe those bundles were different. Similar arguments apply though right? Since many of those packs, never mentioned, that near the retirement of the pack, they would be heavily discounted.

So to you, is that an example of false advertising or unfairness? Some players paid twice the amount for the same exclusives. Or, is that on a consumer to be aware of the potential of such practices and possibilities? Especially if there has been a precedent? Since this thread has had a few consumers/players who have been filled in with new knowledge and understandings of some of DE's past (myself included, thanks to some older players pointing out certain past changes implemented by DE). 

Or possibly an even faster shortcut, just a sheer hypothetical, that is a bit ridiculous, for the purpose of communicating an idea. If a court of Internationally recognised respected and esteemed lawyers, legal experts, judges, what not, experts in relevant matters, and top DE staff, in the most positions of power and authority, all confirmed and clarified, they could make several changes to the bundle, without any issues or risks, for various legal, and technical reasons. What would your response be? Like, oh cool, glad to know? Thats settled then? To be clear, I am not saying that the hypothetical is realistic, I am just curious. I am familiar with a lot of rhetorical techniques that people employ, and sometimes it can cause discussions to drag on a bit, and its to due with the nature of vague, complicated concepts, like we often deal with, with say the law, or ethics/morality, history, where we have to deal with different peoples different degrees of understanding and perceptions around info that isn't always clear, obvious, settled or just relies on other info, or presuppositions, or context or...

Like as far as I can tell, most of us in this thread or last few pages, are expert lawyers in this area, but so the conversation is dragging a little bit, because it gets nebulous and interpretive, but not necessarily in a way that promotes finding common ground and understanding. 

I hope that makes sense?

I do think, personally, that some of the people in this thread, have unrealistic ideas of what DE can and should do, but I do also think its possible for some to go too far in the opposite direction, as far as playing devils advocate or hypothetical "defence lawyer" for DE as well. I mean, i have some other personal objections as well, I think too many people oversimplify the nature and interaction of consumers and businesses and how neither are monoliths, and how both can have internal disagreements and structures, but eh. 

Anyway, cheers and take care! 

[(XBOX)LadyWinterstorm]

7 hours ago, NecroPed said:

Legally speaking there is a difference. A change is changing what is already being provided

So how about the Luna renewal pack that was advertised as having a Rifle Riven in, but actually it was a Kitgun riven. This is false advertising?

[Circle_of_Psi]

3 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

consumers and businesses and how neither are monoliths, and how both can have internal disagreements and structures

Isn't there a saying

Consumers/Customer is always right?

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

15 minutes ago, Circle_of_Psi said:

Isn't there a saying

Consumers/Customer is always right?

 

There are a few sayings along those lines, yes.

Along with the saying "Give the lady what she wants", "The customer is always right" is attributed to an American businessman, Marshall Field, but also popularised from certain other businesses, businessman from around the same time. They didn't invent the general idea though, since, at its core, it and many of the ideas criticisms have existed for far longer. There are pros and cons to the idea, also depending on context. 

In a competitive setting, valuing customer satisfaction can be smart to value. Consider an artist who lives off commissions. Some potential customers may be a bit critical or lack the best, polite or otherwise respectful attitudes, but not in an extreme way, just maybe they are a little rude in a sense. The artist may have fans of their work, who may be overly defensive, but that artist may consider the patronage, payment of customers more important. Not just that, but if their fans are too defensive, and drive away potential customers just for not being as blindly positive or optimistic towards the artists work... In such a case, the artist might try to explain the idea, "the customer is always right" because their goal, is to create a product the customer will be satisfied with, even if it means they have to improve their work or make adjustments within reason, to meet the customers wishes. 

In another setting though, like say... a clothing store. Customer might accuse the sales person of looking at them funny, and being weird because they have tattoos. Then demand a 50% discount because of the stress they experienced, then shout abuse at the sales person. They might say "customer is always right!" except the manager of the sales person, might disagree in this instance. They might view the customers as being rude, hostile and entitled, and that the business would be better off without their money. 

DE does strike me as the type of business that does value and prioritise customer satisfaction, and doing their best to maintain that sense and atmosphere. I don't really think some certain fans get that though, or that their defence of DE may actually be counter productive and also entirely for unexplored selfish reasons. For example, I like a lot of what DE does, but... I never try to undermine, dismiss, or downplay other peoples criticisms. I'll share why I might disagree personally, but that data is still important to DE, especially if I am a minority. At most I like to give context to it. DE absolutely does not need me to defend it, and more so, it may be counter productive anyway. Unless that defence is coming with a lot of money... but also the sense, and idea of being more consumer friendly, in of itself is a way to market yourself to attract money and value as well. Which is why its crazy to me, when some individuals try to leverage spite against other players, under the idea they are supporting DE, because it really just makes it seem like they have developed a brand loyalty mindset and can't distinguish a businesses interests from their own personal preferences and whims. 

That being said, consumers/players interests, preferences and habits clash in all sorts of weird ways that complicate above as well. They have in Warframe, ever since Steve talked about the one player who didn't want to play with "poor people" and that made him a bit reflective and influenced how he wanted the FTP aspects to work, against that particular attitude. 

I also like discussing "The customer is not a moron" (generally agree, but again, may depend on context), and "If I ask the consumers what they want, they would have told a faster horse”, and "People don’t know what they want until you show it to them", bit critical of the latter two, but do think they can have some application in certain contexts. 

[NecroPed]

17 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

snip

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.

14 hours ago, (XBOX)LadyWinterstorm said:

So how about the Luna renewal pack that was advertised as having a Rifle Riven in, but actually it was a Kitgun riven. This is false advertising?

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.  

[MirageKnight]

13 hours ago, Circle_of_Psi said:

Isn't there a saying

Consumers/Customer is always right?

Yes and no. It's argued that the original saying is longer and reads "The customer is always right in matters of taste" - roughly meaning that the customer always knows what they want and are willing to buy and you can't convince them otherwise.

The more common shorter phrase means that a customer should ALWAYS be listened to and treated with respect and courtesy - regardless of whether they are "right" or not. There's a number of different aspects to this, but that's one of them (ref: my best friend that has worked as a retail sales associate for years).

I believe one of the original intents of the phrase was to mean that the customer is "right" in the collective sense that, if people aren't buying a given product from a merchant, then the merchant is offering something that customers don't want and that the merchant is failing to "listen" to them. Customers know what sells and what doesn't and if they're not buying a given product, then they’re “right” in that it doesn’t deserve to be purchased and that they should be listened to if you want to make a sale off them.

Offer people what they want or at least a reasonable compromise and they'll buy it. Refuse or fail to offer what they want or fail to offer a reasonable compromise and you lose a sale.

 

13 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

They have in Warframe, ever since Steve talked about the one player who didn't want to play with "poor people" and that made him a bit reflective and influenced how he wanted the FTP aspects to work, against that particular attitude. 

I understand where Steve was coming from there, but is that REALLY the kind of person you want to have in a heavily co-op focused game though?

[(NSW)Master2873]

When Warframe fans see OW2's $40 fomo skins.

Spoiler

 

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

18 hours ago, NecroPed said:

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.

 

Thanks for the reply, and well yeah. As far as generalisations go, with a lot of such packs, I'll use the Deimos Supporter pack as an example, when they are first announced, the priority is to make sales right? It can be counter productive, to so heavily advertise and make clear, that in a few months, you can purchase the bundles at 40% off. As far as I am aware, by virtue of them having done so many times, its also unnecessary. From what I know, there can be a few motivating factors behind why sales will eventually happen in this context, and sales and potential for profit is likely again, one of the main reasons. You get a lot of people on launch, who want new things, but then before the pack retires, you want to get as much value as you can from it, and adding sweeteners or motivating incentives for potential customers can do that. 

For the Heirloom packs specifically, have DE expressed such items will not go on sale?

Also are you sure that a breach would still be established if it was proven they had plans to put items on sale?

Like I think we have to untangle some concepts here, how regularly do you see DE put out disclaimers that items they put out will "definitely not be put on sale in the future", because then, naturally, if they did, it would reflect badly and put them in certain types of risk, but I don't usually see such specific language used. There have also been instances where they have gone back on their wording, because often, their wording is motivated by the idea of what will generate value and conform to their perceived bests interests, in a net positive way. Which also means... with that same motivation, and goal, other variables can change, which means they would (or could) reevaluate, make changes, and their expressions, communication, wording may then change and reflect that. There may be situations, in which they aren't legally culpable at all. I am not a lawyer or expert in such matters. I do know a little, but the little bit I do know, is enough to know, there is a lot more to it, than I think this thread can handle. Not only that, a lot of legal systems are playing a bit of catch up in regards to gaming monetary practices. Like if you have ever seen videos of interactions between different legal experts, some younger, trying to explain lootboxes to older, less informed legal experts, to talk about what sort of restrictions should be appropriate. Many players new to Warframe, can be a bit confused over how a Prime Access can be so expensive, just to get "one Prime Warframe" when you can get like 8 Prime Warframes, with the Platinum you get from Prime Access, from other players... and whats this? You can also get Prime Warframes for free? Whats the point in paying so much real money for a Prime Access? Did I get ripped off? Well... Then also if you were a 70 year old Lawyer who has never played video games at all... So often its important and valuable, to establish, when a business is making changes, because of internal machinations, around seeking their own bests interests as they perceive them, then making changes based on those same priorities, versus being upheld or obligated legally. 

Which I think is the crux of the issue for some people. Like, its an unpopular opinion in this thread, based on what I have read, but I personally do not think any of the people we see in Dev Streams are the architects of Heirloom pricing points. To be blunt, its just my guess and intuition, i have no hard factual evidence for my belief, and I could be one hundred percent, completely wrong. I don't know Digital Extremes hierarchy or internal decision making processes. To me? Creative Director is up there, as far as decision making... around creative, gameplay, plot directions... Beyond that though? Well DE also has a President, (James Schmalz) I do know him from the No Clip Documentary series. They have a CFO, Chief Financial Officer, a Chief Operating Officer, several other Directors, General, and Marketing Directors, Sales, Marketing , Finance Departments, with their own hierarchies. Not just that, but its not like people in those positions, just randomly decide things, they have people under them presenting them with info, trends, suggestions, data, and then some of those positions may also be from outside sources too... So my amateur guesswork, we do have a Dev Team, we see, and know the names of faces of, and so I get why a lot of people focus in on them specifically, but there are a lot of careers and jobs, where people for various reasons, have to be the one relaying and communicating info. Middle people, public relations, community team, creative types, the face or voice of a Dev team. Peoples who job is "I didn't direct this decision, but... I have to paraphrase and word it, for public consumption, and my job is to make it sound as good as I can, which means I have to try and balance how transparent and sincere "we" are, whilst also passively and implicitly realising that we are a business who likes money, from people too".

Now, I imagine there are a lot of people who think my take is too generous towards some members of DE, but I don't really care about trying to convince them, nor do I think they are necessarily wrong, after all, I acknowledge I may be wrong. Unfortunately its also the sort of information we can't really access. Generally most jobs, businesses don't like when their employees reveal too much of the internal processes in this way. Like, in the next Dev Stream, if one of them spoke up and said "well I personally think Heirlooms was a disaster, and terrible decision for our company, but our Chief Financial Officer outranks us, and demanded this, so well S#&$. I'll tell you guys all this though, I am sure they won't mind, plus what are they going to do? Fire me?" cut to the next Dev Stream where we meet our brand new Community Manager or Sound Designer... 

Same with the legal miniature. Unless a knowledgeable legal expert, with a willingness and patience steps in, for most of us, its just speculation and guesswork. Which I think is like, okay still, to converse over, but I don't necessarily think its that conducive or fruitful either. They can sort of drag on. Like, with above, I shared I view I have, but I am not really trying to address all the people with different views that compete with mine. Even if I think the reasoning behind my guesses are more thoughtful than the guy saying "DE Betty is responsible, she needs to say something, she is in charge", neither of us really know.

Oh also I agree, about addressing peoples problems. I do think one complicating factor in all this, is that so many different problems exist for large overlapping smaller groups of people. Some are bothered by the Accolade aspect and implication of being a "10 Year Supporter", some the FOMO aspects, some the bundle options, some the sheer pricing and relative value, some the inclusion of Regal Aya and Plat and idea of inflated prices, or how they rolled this out with Tennocon hype, for some, its some of these things or all, plus some others.

Oh and no worries, I understand I write a lot, and I just awoke recently when I wrote this too, so empathise. Hope you get to have some proper rest soon, and thanks for the convo! 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, MirageKnight said:

I understand where Steve was coming from there, but is that REALLY the kind of person you want to have in a heavily co-op focused game though?

 

Oh, just in case my wording wasn't the best or that clear, Steve was against the idea of the player who wanted to be treated better and differently from the "poor player", he recounted the story to the interviewer to explain what they didn't want from players, as far as attitudes. 

I am also trying to be careful with my wording, because I am going off memory, which can be unreliable and I am also paraphrasing someone. I am just having difficulty trying to source the original Steve interview where he touched on this. I am pretty sure it wasn't the No Clip documentary, but there are quite a lot of interviews too, so hard to track down. I should bookmark it if I find it. The No Clip interviews are pretty good though, for anyone who hasn't seen them. Basically I think Steve was being pro consumer and ethically just in that instance. He wanted players who would cooperate, as you imply would be better for the game. 

In the link I did provide, Steve references the Macys/Nordstroms tire example/story. Which based on your other reply, you may already know (I thought that was well written as far as explanations and context behind "the customer is always right"), since its often brought up in such discussions. Which for those that do not know, is the story of a person who wanted to get a refund/return a set of tires, but went to a clothing store to do so. A clothing store, that did not sell tires. The receipt also clearly being for a different store. The sales clerk however still processed the refund, and then in their own time, went to the actual tire business and got their money back. With the idea, being, even though the customer was clearly wrong, there was a perceived benefit, in treating them well, giving them what they wanted, and what that might mean to that person and the store overall.

Personally, I never cared enough to fact check that story, it almost sounds made up, but I do like that Steve is aware of it, and references it to emphasis that they want a long term relationship with their players/customers, and they don't want to prey on you hard. Or to paraphrase him "We don't want to get you hard, now. We want you to stick around, thats more valuable long term".  Which I think, is why Warframe has lasted so long. 

Hope that clarifies, and again, really liked your thoughts on customer service ideas.