PSA PSA: Heirloom Collection Platinum Changes & Lessons

[(XBOX)Mastermitchel89]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Compare that to the earliest Prime Access packs. The cosmetics included were available for a limited time, only available to those packs, with only the packs that were available, and were marketed as "exclusive" with no expectation that they'd ever return, and people bought them under those advertisements.

Were they overpriced with items added in to inflate the price?

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

And yet DE introduced the Prime Vault that brought back these once "exclusive" cosmetics. Has anything bad happened from that? No.

Thats because these prime packs aren't seperated into thinned bundles and everything (the primes stuff) is as ordered on the menu with an extra side of boosters for a 1/ 4, 3 months, 25%, of the year

[NecroPed]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Compare that to the earliest Prime Access packs. The cosmetics included were available for a limited time, only available to those packs, with only the packs that were available, and were marketed as "exclusive" with no expectation that they'd ever return, and people bought them under those advertisements.

And yet DE introduced the Prime Vault that brought back these once "exclusive" cosmetics. Has anything bad happened from that? No.

I don't see anywhere there that explicitly says that it's never returning, only available in these packs, etc. for the prime access packs. It says it's retiring, but it doesn't explicitly say it's not returning ever again or that it's explicitly only available in these packs, and explicitly not available individually etc.. 

 

And the prime access faq also states:
 

WILL THE EXCLUSIVE ITEMS BE AVAILABLE IN-GAME AFTER A NEW PACK IS AVAILABLE?

No. The Exclusive items in Prime Access are Exclusive to the Prime Access and Prime Vault Programs. You may see them rotated within the Programs but they will not be made available in-game

Edited October 10, 2023 by NecroPed

[PublikDomain]

51 minutes ago, NecroPed said:

I don't see anywhere there that explicitly says that it's never returning, only available in these packs, etc. for the prime access packs. It says it's retiring, but it doesn't explicitly say it's not returning ever again or that it's explicitly only available in these packs, and explicitly not available individually etc.. 

 

And the prime access faq also states:
 

WILL THE EXCLUSIVE ITEMS BE AVAILABLE IN-GAME AFTER A NEW PACK IS AVAILABLE?

No. The Exclusive items in Prime Access are Exclusive to the Prime Access and Prime Vault Programs. You may see them rotated within the Programs but they will not be made available in-game

And the Prime Vault didn't used to exist. That FAQ didn't used to exist. At one point exclusive was exclusive, you could only get Prime cosmetics from Prime Access and Prime Access went away. It was your "last chance", just as they advertised it and sold the packs as, right up until it wasn't and it wasn't the "last chance" anymore. You can say the same "someone bought because it was their last chance and it then it came back" false advertising spiel about old PAs and nothing bad happened then.

Or how about how these packs were advertised as being available only through Prime Access?

Quote

Make the newest Primes yours - instantly - including Loki Prime, Bo Prime and the first-ever Prime Sentinel - Wyrm Prime. Plus, get Exclusive Gear available only through Prime Access!

Quote

Get Nova Prime Access now and make the newest Primes yours - instantly - including Nova Prime, Soma Prime and Vasto Prime. Plus, stock up on discounted Platinum and get Exclusive Gear available only through Prime Access!

And then they were made non-exclusive and available through the Prime Vault. Isn't this the same "false advertising"? With the big pile of nothing this turned out to be, why would Heirlooms be any different? It didn't stop DE from changing terms before. Especially with a more mature EULA that covers DE's bases more thoroughly? It's just FUD.

Edited October 10, 2023 by PublikDomain

[NecroPed]

13 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

And the Prime Vault didn't used to exist. That FAQ didn't used to exist. At one point exclusive was exclusive, you could only get Prime cosmetics from Prime Access and Prime Access went away. It was your "last chance", just as they advertised it and sold the packs as, right up until it wasn't and it wasn't the "last chance" anymore. You can say the same "someone bought because it was their last chance and it then it came back" false advertising spiel about old PAs and nothing bad happened then. With the big pile of nothing that turned out to be, why would this be any different? Especially with a more mature EULA that covers DE's bases more thoroughly? It's just FUD.

Yes, I know it didn't originally exist, but it still doesn't explicitly say it's never returning, not available individually etc. while the heirloom page explicitly states this. "Last chance" is also vague and can mean "last chance before it returns", they even use the same phrase when vaulting a warframe "last chance for ___ prime", without explicitly saying that it's not returning it is not actually the same. And while I would argue this could be seen as misleading, at least in the general sense, I'm personally not sure it would be considered false advertisement legally speaking, or at least in the same regard to explicitly stating it's never returning etc.. 

The big difference here is that the heirloom packs EXPLICITLY state that they're never returning, not available individually etc. 

Sure, maybe nothing would happen here too, but it would be pretty stupid for DE not to take that into consideration if it's legally enforceable. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by NecroPed

[PublikDomain]

18 minutes ago, NecroPed said:

The big difference here is that the heirloom packs EXPLICITLY state that they're never returning, not available individually etc.

And in the exact same way DE EXPLICITLY stated that Prime cosmetics in early Prime Access packs were exclusively available only in Prime Access and were not available individually. Which they were, right up until they weren't.

Or how about when DE sold the Saita Prime Operator suit and later changed how it looked after people had already bought it? People paid for something and then it was changed.

Edit: Or how about when DE added separate Prime Accessories packs, something previous purchasers had no access to? Like if they were to add a 4th cosmetics-only pack here?

My point is: DE changes things, even exclusive, cash-only things, all the time. They change the terms, they change the contents, they change how things are bundled. Was there ever a problem then? No, so why would there be now?

Edited October 10, 2023 by PublikDomain

[NecroPed]

55 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

And in the exact same way DE EXPLICITLY stated that Prime cosmetics in early Prime Access packs were exclusively available only in Prime Access and were not available individually. Which they were, right up until they weren't.

Or how about when DE sold the Saita Prime Operator suit and later changed how it looked after people had already bought it? People paid for something and then it was changed.

Edit: Or how about when DE added separate Prime Accessories packs, something previous purchasers had no access to? Like if they were to add a 4th cosmetics-only pack here?

My point is: DE changes things, even exclusive, cash-only things, all the time. They change the terms, they change the contents, they change how things are bundled. Was there ever a problem then? No, so why would there be now?

As far as I can tell right now they did not necessarily explicitly state this in the same way and that's my point. If you can find a faq from the original prime access that states this I will rescind my words, but I cannot find it and it's too far back for me to possibly remember so I can only use what's currently stated and what's in the original announcements, neither of which explicitly state this, so is not the same as how they're explicitly stating that the heirloom skins aren't ever returning or available individually. 

There is a difference to just currently stating that they're only available in a particular pack without reference to future unreleased and unthought-of packs and explicitly stating they're never returning. 

And because they got away with something that maybe shouldn't have happened they should just keep ignoring laws? And even then, I'm not sure on the explicit legality of that specifically, it sure isn't the first time I've seen it happen, but it did happen for the sake of other people so there could even be some loophole there in that the change is considered fair for that reason and so is exempt from the consideration that it's bad or illegal, there can be caveats to laws like that, for an unrelated example: Discrimination laws can be exempt when explicitly only hiring minorities for the sake of increasing diversity, or hiring only female workers for a female restroom position, when the base laws language would generally say that both are illegal by definition of discrimination. Though I'm more willing to bet that it's because it could have resulted in the game being banned in China given controversy around the unforeseen details they were trying to avoid with that skin change. Maybe that one is covered in the ToS, but if it is in breech of an actual law the ToS still wouldn't  necessarily override that. 

Did they explicitly state they're never returning/aren't available individually? Or did they just say they're only in prime access? Because the second isn't necessarily a lie if something comes afterward (let alone the fact that prime vault can potentially be considered an extension of prime access too), because it's not explicit, it can still mean just right now. And while you can argue that this is misleading, there is still the potential for this to not be considered misleading advertisement as far as the law is concerned. 

My point is that there is more to it than us just wanting change and it being possible and plausible. 

Just because there wasn't anything done in the past doesn't mean there wont or can't be now. A lot of companies keep getting away with illegal things until they're caught out, that doesn't mean we should let them keep doing it let alone push them towards doing so. My point is that they can change the ToS all they want but it doesn't override any actual breech in laws. I'm not a lawyer or an expert on law, but I know at the very least that a ToS does not override laws. And there's also the fact that these types of cases can take years to take effect on a company, for example it was only last year that Samsung was charged $14mil by the Australian Federal Court for misleading advertisement in regards to phones released as far back as 2016. That's 6 whole years for the consequences to happen. Using that as a basis, [while I'm doubtful] there still could be something being done about these things and we just don't know it yet, and just because they haven't suffered consequences yet doesn't necessarily mean they still wont. 

If they can legally introduce an extra pack without concern, I would 100% support them doing so and even personally recommend them doing so. But, I cannot throw away the idea that there are problems that can come from not handling this as a business is expected to. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by NecroPed

[PollexMessier]

On 2023-10-10 at 12:04 AM, NecroPed said:

As far as I can tell right now they did not necessarily explicitly state this in the same way and that's my point. If you can find a faq from the original prime access that states this I will rescind my words, but I cannot find it and it's too far back for me to possibly remember so I can only use what's currently stated and what's in the original announcements, neither of which explicitly state this, so is not the same as how they're explicitly stating that the heirloom skins aren't ever returning or available individually.

Wayback machine exists, and here's what I got for you from Ember prime's faq

https://web.archive.org/web/20140605060950/https://warframe.com/prime-access-faq

Few things to note. They did say the items may return, however they explicitly stated two things about this that they didn't keep their word on.
1. That they would only be available through prime access. Prime vault was arguably not prime access, Prime resurgence definitely isn't. In fact, hilariously, by offering regal aya in the Heirloom pack, the Heirloom pack itself is directly violating this statement, as that's also not prime access, but is giving access to past prime accessories through regal aya.
And 2. They said they would not be made available in game. Now in game is the only way to obtain them.

I really wish I could see the same pages for mag and frost prime as the earliest ones. But I can't find anything on them.

I'd be interested to know what changes this line goes through over time, but It's too late at night for me to dig through every prime access faq to see if it ever directly states they wont come back at all. The faq must have changed a few times over so many prime releases.

Edit:
Frost and mag didn't have a prime access. They were only earnable on release.
And the only difference in today's prime access faq on exclusivity is "The Exclusive items in Prime Access are Exclusive to the Prime Access and Prime Vault Programs"
Which is hilarious because prime vault has been replaced by resurgence so that doesn't even apply anymore. And is an acknowledgement that they are in fact different programs and they've violated their previous faq statements on prime access exclusivity.

Edited October 12, 2023 by PollexMessier

[NecroPed]

5 hours ago, PollexMessier said:

Wayback machine exists, and here's what I got for you from Ember prime's faq

https://web.archive.org/web/20140605060950/https://warframe.com/prime-access-faq

Few things to note. They did say the items may return, however they explicitly stated two things about this that they didn't keep their word on.
1. That they would only be available through prime access. Prime vault was arguably not prime access, Prime resurgence definitely isn't. In fact, hilariously, by offering regal aya in the Heirloom pack, the Heirloom pack itself is directly violating this statement, as that's also not prime access, but is giving access to past prime accessories through regal aya.
And 2. They said they would not be made available in game. Now in game is the only way to obtain them.

I really wish I could see the same pages for mag and frost prime access as the earliest ones. But I can't find anything on them

Thanks for that, just for some notes on this (Again I'm not a lawyer though so this is my speculation based on a point of ignorance and I am not trying to be absolute)

Rotating within the program and being exclusive to prime access can arguably apply to both vault and resurgence because they can be seen as in extension to prime access/part of the same program. It could also be argued that they don't need to state any future systems that might have those items as long as they don't explicitly say that it never will return as long as it's accounting for all current methods of obtainment. Stating that they're only in prime access can essentially mean that currently they're only in prime access but don't necessarily need to be. Prime unvault was just temporarily returning prime access after all. Prime Resurgence is basically just renamed unvaulting. The regal aya gets a bit iffy, but I think since you are purchasing a currency that can be used for that purpose it's possibly different. The existence of what you're buying is in the resurgence, not the regal aya. So the method of obtaining regal aya shouldn't matter as long as prime resurgence itself is already justified. 

"In-game" can be pretty vague too, but this tends to be meant in the sense that you purchase it with in game resources or obtain it as a reward, not literally just opening the game and purchasing it, you can technically even buy prime access from in game this way but it is still not necessarily considered an in-game purchase. As I'm not a lawyer though, I wont definitively speak to the legality of this. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by NecroPed

[Katinka]

8 hours ago, PollexMessier said:

I really wish I could see the same pages for mag and frost prime as the earliest ones. But I can't find anything on them.

Frost and Mag didn't get a Prime Access.  They were added to the game while the Founders pack was still available and Prime Access started with Ember after that.

May 3rd 2013 for Frost Prime, September 13th 2013 for Mag Prime, November 1st 2013 was end of Founders program, November 20th 2013 was Ember Prime's release.

[(XBOX)toughdragon17]

This whole herloom debacle has left me in a constant angry state twords DE and how they've treated there loyal fans as nothing more than walking money bags instead of the loyal people who have been with them throughout there whole time developing warframe 

 

If these next updates are not to the highest quality and if they have predatory transactions in them many people including me will most likely quit the game indefinitely 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by (XBOX)toughdragon17
Typo

[NekroArts]

21 minutes ago, (XBOX)toughdragon17 said:

If these next updates are not to the highest quality and if they have predatory transactions in them many people including me will most likely quit the game indefinitely 

You might as well quit now, very unnecessary to wait for it to happen when you're this angry.

[PublikDomain]

On 2023-10-09 at 9:55 PM, (XBOX)Mastermitchel89 said:

Were they overpriced with items added in to inflate the price?

YMWV, but arguably yes absolutely. I know I certainly don't want to pay an inflated price for boosters I've no use for.

23 hours ago, NecroPed said:

And because they got away with something that maybe shouldn't have happened they should just keep ignoring laws?

What I'm saying there is no such law. There's nothing DE "got away with" in creating the Prime Vault, or adding separate PA accessories packs, or changing Saita Prime - none of that was some nefarious law-ignoring action. What law was broken? Where is it? Can you point to where any country's laws say software can never ever be changed after it is sold? No company can ever bring a retired product back, or change their pricing structure, or remove a feature, or change availability? Like, just think about it for a second: how could any business continue to do business if any of these kinds of changes resulted in rampant lawsuits?

Nevermind the US, where players have waived their right to class-action lawsuits and have agreed to settle any disputes in arbitration so it's not like any of this matters anyways, even in the EU I can't find anything saying that a change to a product creates some retroactive claim of "false advertising". The "false advertising" I do find in EU law is where a company intentionally misleads or bullies consumers. For example, it would be "false advertising" if DE continued to advertise these packs as time limited even after saying they weren't anymore. It would be "false advertising" if they said the packs came with Mumbo Prime, but they didn't actually come with Mumbo Prime. What's not "false advertising" anywhere I look is changing the terms, or changing the contents, or changing the price. They can do whatever they want, they just have to be upfront about it. That's pretty much it. And the worst that might happen is a that a non-US player might ask for some proportionate redress, something which absolutely nothing prevents DE from providing.

23 hours ago, NecroPed said:

And even then, I'm not sure on the explicit legality of that specifically, it sure isn't the first time I've seen it happen, but it did happen for the sake of other people so there could even be some loophole there in that the change is considered fair for that reason and so is exempt from the consideration that it's bad or illegal

It's a bit of an aside, but how would this be in any way different from changing the availability of these packs for the sake of the people who will join our community after 2023? Making the packs more available for the sake of current and future players is just as positive and well-intentioned as changing the Saita Prime's appearance for the sake of players offended by the imagery.

23 hours ago, NecroPed said:

Did they explicitly state they're never returning/aren't available individually? Or did they just say they're only in prime access? Because the second isn't necessarily a lie if something comes afterward (let alone the fact that prime vault can potentially be considered an extension of prime access too), because it's not explicit, it can still mean just right now. And while you can argue that this is misleading, there is still the potential for this to not be considered misleading advertisement as far as the law is concerned. 

They said that they were available only through Prime Access, which was true until it wasn't. Old Prime Access content was not legally bound to only ever be available in Prime Access just because they were initially advertised that way. It wasn't "false advertising" to say:

Quote

Make the newest Prime yours - instantly - including Trinity Prime and the Kavasa Kubrow Prime Armor. Plus, get Exclusive Gear available only through Prime Access!

Yet only a few months later reintroduce previously exclusive Prime Access cosmetics in the first Prime Vault, making that that kind of content no longer "available only through Prime Access". All DE had to do was be upfront about the terms, like how the Prime Access FAQ now includes:

Quote

Will the exclusive items be available in-game after a new pack is available?

No. The Exclusive items in Prime Access are Exclusive to the Prime Access and Prime Vault Programs. You may see them rotated within the Programs but they will not be made available in-game

They also no longer use the "available only through Prime Access" language. All they need to do is be clear and upfront about the terms. They can change them - they just need to be clear about it.

And if we're nitpicking semantics, it wouldn't necessarily be a lie either if they added Frost and Mag Heirloom skins to the market or added a 4th pack as so many have requested. All the FAQ says is that the Collections are time-limited and will never come back, and that the contents of the Collections will not be available for purchase separately. It says nothing about the skins themselves never being able to come back. Adding the skins to a market bundle wouldn't be one of the cash-only Collections that contain plat and RA and will retire, nor would they be available for purchase separately.

Edited October 11, 2023 by PublikDomain

[(PSN)Spider_Enigma]

the issue with the heirloom pack is that it was $75 during a 10 year anniversary and this is before they added more to the bundle, the new value is fine, and they cant change the price and gave platinum for the difference for those that have bought it because console markets wouldnt alow it

if this was $45 with just the skins and boosters ect sure, the main thing they thought would be fine was that putting regal aya in to raise the price of the bundle was a good idea in the first place and regal aya cant be used to buy a current prime, only a vaulted prime... granted u can buy vaulted armor but u also have to wait for it to rotate around to it

 its also not our job to chose the prices, if they want to charge $75 they can if they think the time spent on it would be equaled out by the sales and  they are not a charity 

but we also don't want future skin bundles to be $75 witch is the new price for a full 150+ hours game otherwise they will become blizzard 

Edited October 11, 2023 by (PSN)Spider_Enigma

[(XBOX)toughdragon17]

7 hours ago, NekroArts said:

You might as well quit now, very unnecessary to wait for it to happen when you're this angry.

Iv slowed my playing down by a lot I still have my freands and family that play warframe but there with me on stopping if the updates aren't amazing  so if they don't make it amazing ill have no reason to stay playing 

 

And my anger has only fueld my determination to constantly make them remember they did wrong and let them know we aren't happy so they don't try this stunt again

[NekroArts]

25 minutes ago, (XBOX)toughdragon17 said:

Iv slowed my playing down by a lot I still have my freands and family that play warframe but there with me on stopping if the updates aren't amazing  so if they don't make it amazing ill have no reason to stay playing 

 

And my anger has only fueld my determination to constantly make them remember they did wrong and let them know we aren't happy so they don't try this stunt again

The whole purpose of this thread was to make the changes now, if not before the deadline. Staying if the the updates are amazing while still being burned by the Heirloom decision gives off an outlook that DE can/will get away with it. 

Many times before, you made posts questioning why DE made no changes after x amount of feedback and at each of those moments were proof that you and everyone else overestimated your own passion behind this campaign. It didn't change anything now other than a promise for radical changes on the next set; it begs the question: if this didn't work then what's the explanation for it working on previous cases? Answer: DE has different levels of flexibility/firmness on those cases. If you find yourself "winning" on preventing another stunt like this, good chances are that battle pales in comparison to this nuclear war.

From here on out, constant reminders about the first Heirloom pack will be more like an elaborate form of bumping an old thread instead the "passion" within the first month of this thread. While you and others are putting effort, DE is basically just ignoring it (which is shockingly easy, assuming there are no extremes). Anyone who ever participated in any kind of long campaign rooted in anger knows this to be true - putting "passion" behind it will be detrimental to your own well-being and life. It explains why quality of posts from most users are less intense than what they were initially or just rarely posting about said topic.

[(XBOX)toughdragon17]

4 hours ago, NekroArts said:

The whole purpose of this thread was to make the changes now, if not before the deadline. Staying if the the updates are amazing while still being burned by the Heirloom decision gives off an outlook that DE can/will get away with it. 

Many times before, you made posts questioning why DE made no changes after x amount of feedback and at each of those moments were proof that you and everyone else overestimated your own passion behind this campaign. It didn't change anything now other than a promise for radical changes on the next set; it begs the question: if this didn't work then what's the explanation for it working on previous cases? Answer: DE has different levels of flexibility/firmness on those cases. If you find yourself "winning" on preventing another stunt like this, good chances are that battle pales in comparison to this nuclear war.

From here on out, constant reminders about the first Heirloom pack will be more like an elaborate form of bumping an old thread instead the "passion" within the first month of this thread. While you and others are putting effort, DE is basically just ignoring it (which is shockingly easy, assuming there are no extremes). Anyone who ever participated in any kind of long campaign rooted in anger knows this to be true - putting "passion" behind it will be detrimental to your own well-being and life. It explains why quality of posts from most users are less intense than what they were initially or just rarely posting about said topic.

So what your saying is we half to put more passion into keeping them from making the same mistakes and more passion in our goals of getting a 4th pack and stopping DEs tirade of well do better next time act ?

[MirageKnight]

On 2023-10-09 at 8:57 PM, (XBOX)Mastermitchel89 said:

also you might be wondering about this

We don't abandon Hostages, Kidnapped people and Victims of Various torture just because its too late to stop the first few

We Save Them from the suffering and pain, don't blame me when society forces money to be an extension of a humans being thus their pain and suffering in tow

I’m all in favor of showing justice and respect for people regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, economic and educational background and such…

…but what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

On 2023-10-09 at 8:57 PM, (XBOX)Mastermitchel89 said:

Well you see this person MirageKnight doesn't seem to understand the difference between Preventing the problem versus Avoiding the problem

Actually I do…

Like a lot of people here, I have seen and identified a problem that should be fixed in a timely manner. It’s a given that I also don’t want this problem to be repeated in the future.

In protest of DE doing nothing else to remedy this situation, I’ve chosen to NOT buy items from this offering and I encourage others to do the same as a way of sending a clear message that we don’t approve of this kind of disrespect. This is in addition to my vocal criticism of the pack and their tone deaf, half-baked handling of the feedback they were given by us.

That being said, it’s ultimately on DE and their backers as to how to proceed - there’s only so much influence we have and only so much we can do.

It would be great if they turned around and said “We’ve looked at the situation and decided changes are in order. We’re really sorry about how we handled this situation and it’ll never happen again.” and addressed the situation now rather than later… but I’m a realist and I’m not holding my breathe.

My thanks to everyone here that’s making sure that DE is reminded of how they screwed up and how a decent chunk of players are not going to simply forget about this.

Edited October 11, 2023 by MirageKnight

[NekroArts]

3 hours ago, (XBOX)toughdragon17 said:

So what your saying is we half to put more passion into keeping them from making the same mistakes and more passion in our goals of getting a 4th pack and stopping DEs tirade of well do better next time act ?

I'm saying if this passion (assuming it was the maximum) didn't work this time, then how can you be so sure it will work the next time? Especially when, as of right now, the intensity has definitely dropped dramatically.

Quitting in theory has more potential in causing a change than someone who makes a "critical" passion post and yet still stays when nothing changes. I've witness multiple times where someone just ended up "hating" themselves for committing so much to the game, still get disrespected, and they can't bring themselves to quit the game because they're tied down by sunk-cost fallacy, false hope, nostalgia, and so on. Those that did will go on about how they should've done it early and they "hate" themselves for not doing so. Making a declaration to potentially quitting and having to wait for it to happen gives and outlook that "DE have you in their hand and they can continue to disrespect you until they milk out all your usefulness (if it ever ends)".

[NecroPed]

20 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

What I'm saying there is no such law. There's nothing DE "got away with" in creating the Prime Vault, or adding separate PA accessories packs, or changing Saita Prime - none of that was some nefarious law-ignoring action. What law was broken? Where is it? Can you point to where any country's laws say software can never ever be changed after it is sold? No company can ever bring a retired product back, or change their pricing structure, or remove a feature, or change availability? Like, just think about it for a second: how could any business continue to do business if any of these kinds of changes resulted in rampant lawsuits?

Nevermind the US, where players have waived their right to class-action lawsuits and have agreed to settle any disputes in arbitration so it's not like any of this matters anyways, even in the EU I can't find anything saying that a change to a product creates some retroactive claim of "false advertising". The "false advertising" I do find in EU law is where a company intentionally misleads or bullies consumers. For example, it would be "false advertising" if DE continued to advertise these packs as time limited even after saying they weren't anymore. It would be "false advertising" if they said the packs came with Mumbo Prime, but they didn't actually come with Mumbo Prime. What's not "false advertising" anywhere I look is changing the terms, or changing the contents, or changing the price. They can do whatever they want, they just have to be upfront about it. That's pretty much it. And the worst that might happen is a that a non-US player might ask for some proportionate redress, something which absolutely nothing prevents DE from providing.

It's a bit of an aside, but how would this be in any way different from changing the availability of these packs for the sake of the people who will join our community after 2023? Making the packs more available for the sake of current and future players is just as positive and well-intentioned as changing the Saita Prime's appearance for the sake of players offended by the imagery.

They said that they were available only through Prime Access, which was true until it wasn't. Old Prime Access content was not legally bound to only ever be available in Prime Access just because they were initially advertised that way. It wasn't "false advertising" to say:

Yet only a few months later reintroduce previously exclusive Prime Access cosmetics in the first Prime Vault, making that that kind of content no longer "available only through Prime Access". All DE had to do was be upfront about the terms, like how the Prime Access FAQ now includes:

They also no longer use the "available only through Prime Access" language. All they need to do is be clear and upfront about the terms. They can change them - they just need to be clear about it.

And if we're nitpicking semantics, it wouldn't necessarily be a lie either if they added Frost and Mag Heirloom skins to the market or added a 4th pack as so many have requested. All the FAQ says is that the Collections are time-limited and will never come back, and that the contents of the Collections will not be available for purchase separately. It says nothing about the skins themselves never being able to come back. Adding the skins to a market bundle wouldn't be one of the cash-only Collections that contain plat and RA and will retire, nor would they be available for purchase separately.

And I'm only commenting on that because you brought it up as an issue, which is actually a pretty different situation, but like I said I do not know the legality of that situation, which is part of the point I'm making, from a point of ignorance we should not treat it like they can just do whatever we want just because we want it. Its not exactly the same thing here and these cases can take time too, so just because they haven't faced consequences yet doesn't mean they still wont, and if nothing was broken then it doesn't necessarily mean nothing was broken now if they do things differently, which they have (and under certain circumstances it could still come under false advertisement if something changes, because it wasn't necessarily advertised as what it was changed into, that's why explicit statements like that they're never returning or are never being sold individually are important. Changes themselves aren't the inherent problem here, the way the product is advertised is).

And I wasn't saying that specific example was necessarily against the law, you're the one who brought it up, I was simply trying to expand on what you were saying under the assumption that you thought it was against the law.

Sure, US citizens waive their right to a class action suit with LIMITED EXCEPTION. Though I don't know the exceptions here, this still doesn't mean what they're doing can't be wrong, against the law or that they shouldn't do it just because one country can't collectively do anything about it. That just reinforces what I said in that they shouldn't keep doing something just because they get away with it, does it not? If there is an entire region that basically can't fight against it, we should probably have more people speaking up about it so they don't get away with things that they shouldn't, right? (Arbitrations against companies are only successful for like 1.5% of the non-companies just to reinforce the idea that relying on an arbitration clause is generally bad for anyone but the company)

And in Australia it's not actually limited to being "intentionally misleading", false advertisement is also for unintentionally misleading or false advertisements too, the company does not need to be doing it intentionally or even with malicious intent. Which leads me to another point, in that they have to account for so many different countries, it is better to assume the possibility of a breech than to disregard it as a possibility. It gets a lot more complicated the more countries involved, which is one of the reasons companies might be (And should be) hesitant to jump into changes that people are suggesting.

No, they cannot just do what they want. This is one of the points I'm trying to get across, because to put it as simple as possible, no, they cannot just do whatever they want, or whatever we want. There are laws and regulations to be followed. Their ToS even states that changes are possible "Except as otherwise prohibited by applicable law", so their ToS literally reinforces what I'm saying in that they can't just do whatever they or we want just because we or they want it and that they do in fact need to follow laws which is where this current entire discussion stems from. 

It could be false advertisement if they re-released these packs after saying they were never returning. It could be false advertisement to release these items individually. These are things I can plainly see because of how it's advertised, and for all I know, as someone who isn't a lawyer, there could be much more that I'm not even aware of, so I'm not in any way going to just treat this like they can do whatever we or they want just because we or they want it, because it is simply not the case. To say such a thing is honestly absurd, seriously.

I've already tried to explain to you that there is a difference between EXPLICITLY SAYING IT IS NEVER RETURNING and saying that it is currently only available in a particular pack. They don't necessarily have to account for future unreleased packs when stating what packs items are currently in, but IF THEY EXPLICITLY STATE THAT THEY'RE NEVER RETURNING THAT IS DIFFERENT. You're right, it's not necessarily false advertisement to say that it's only available in prime access. It would however be false advertisement to release the heirloom skins individually, or to release them again after these bundles end because they are explicitly advertised in this way. 

How is it different? Because they are EXPLICITLY ADVERTISING IT AS NEVER RETURNING and NOT SOLD INDIVIDUALLY, I don't know how many times I have to say this. This isnt about whats in the packs its about how they advertised them. 

And that's different because it was done to stop something genuinely offensive from being in their work not just to give players what they want. There can literally be caveats to laws that account for that kind of thing. There are caveats for laws that literally account for racism and offensive content in a similar regard but don't account for every little positive thing 'for the sake of others' just because it's something they want. SO no, just because they're able to make changes for one thing doesn't necessarily mean they can for another, and it doesn't necessarily mean that a change isn't a breech of advertisement laws either. There is a big difference to just giving us what we want just because we want it and changing something so it is no longer offensive that doesn't necessarily go against its original explicit advertisement. Why I even have to explain this is honestly beyond me. Making changes because something is offensive is completely different to literally just giving players what they want just because they're asking for it. 

Lawsuits probably would happen more if companies didn't think through what they're doing and actually treat the situation carefully. Let alone the fact that companies not only need to be called out for it and investigated by another party, companies DO get consequences from these kinds of things. Samsung just last year paid 14 million in fines for breaching false advertisement laws because of a misleading advertisement from 6 years beforehand, it happens and it takes time to address. It would be genuinely stupid for a company to blindly listen to players to just give us what we want without thinking this stuff through.

And like I've said, saying "only available in prime access" can simply mean that it is CURRENTLY only available in prime access, with the ability to rotate within the program (Which could technically include both prime vault and resurgence because they're in extension to prime access and essentially different parts of the same program and prime access doesn't explicitly state the items are never returning), EXPLICITLY STATING that it is NEVER RETURNING and then going back on that is different. 

Yeah and they probably did that change to prevent it from being seen as misleading, which is something that could have even potentially been argued there even though I think they're fairly safe in that regard. 

No, it does actually reference the cosmetics specifically. It could be false advertisement if they released them individually, or released them again after the current time period, since they explicitly advertised it as such. Like i said if they can do it legally then they should, I'm just not going to throw the idea out that they can just do whatever the #*!% we want just because we want it like so many people are treating it. It is simply not the case and as a company they do need to take these kind of things into consideration. 

Q: How long are these Heirloom Collections available?
A: This set of Heirloom Collections will be available until December 31, 2023 at 11:59 p.m. ET.

Q: Will these Heirloom Collections return after 2023?
A: The Mag and Frost Heirloom Collections are only available now until December 31, 2023, at 11:59 p.m ET. This is your only chance to get these exclusive new Customizations!

- Explicitly stating these current packs are only available now and this is your only chance to get these exclusive cosmetics, so they are explicitly stating that these cosmetics are never returning. (And yes this is different to saying "Last chance to get") If your only chance to get these exclusive cosmetics is these limited time bundles that are explicitly stated to never return, then they are explicitly stating these exclusive cosmetics are never returning. And this is different to the prime access example because that part of the faq is in regards to whether it's going to be available in game, not whether it's going to ever return.

Q: Can I buy the items separately?
A: No, the items contained in Heirloom Collections can only be purchased as a bundle and will not be available individually.
- Explicitly stating that the items contained within the collections can only be purchased as a bundle and will not be available individually. 

So looking at this, from a point of ignorance, to avoid any changes from being a breech of false advertisement, then it at least cannot return after these packs end, so that's 1 problem they possibly can't address at all, and it at least has to be bundled and they cannot be available individually, so that's 1 problem, that if possible to address, still has to be bundled and doesn't fully address the issues.

I would like to say that I think they can introduce another bundled pack right now, but as I am from a point of ignorance I am not going to assume that they can do it regardless just because we want it, because this stuff isn't that simple. I would guess at best they could bundle both the skins together right now, which would be better than nothing but doesn't address everything, let alone how everyone wants it to be addressed, which is my main point here. We can't just simply get what we want just because we want it. I'm not necessarily saying that they are even necessarily breeching laws here, or that they can't do anything more, just that it absolutely needs to be taken into consideration, ESPECIALLY since most of us are from a point of ignorance and do not know enough to definitively say whether or not they can actually do what we're asking. 

And I want to be clear, I am not trying to justify them doing nothing here, I am simply trying to reinforce the idea that they cannot just do what we want just BECAUSE we want it. IF there are laws being broken they aren't exempt from that, it is stupid for a company not to take these kind of things into consideration, and it is completely understandable for a company to be hesitant to make change because of this kind of stuff because it is NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST GIVING US WHAT WE WANT BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR IT.

Edited October 12, 2023 by NecroPed

[(XBOX)sinamanthediva]

1 hour ago, NecroPed said:

NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST GIVING US WHAT WE WANT BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR IT.

I hate to break the news to you but they did change it because we did ask for it.  The change wasn't the change that most here wanted but it WAS A CHANGE.  They can do basically whatever they want, when they want, how they want, and we have to live with it.  They are not breaking any laws by making changes unless they are explicitly being devious and taking peoples money with out providing something in return, they CAN make changes.  They didn't advertise the Heirloom packs with the current amount of Platinum offered yet here we are with a CHANGED amount not originally advertised.  I would think that qualifies as "misleading" or fraudulent advertising but they still made the changes.  Why?  Because they can under the TOS that we agreed to as a binding contract.  I understand your Devil's advocate position and I commend you for trying to make their actions appear to be altruistic in nature because it "might be more complicated" than we know.   I don't need to be a lawyer to smell the coffee and wake up to the reality of the situation being they could do something more to allow us poor folk the ability to obtain these nice shiny skins. But have chosen NOT to offer them in a more affordable Anniversary-Celebration-Like price range.  It is that simple.  The paradox being that if they had offered the skins at a reasonable price, they most likely would have made a LOT more money.   Now don't get me started on the 10 year supporter Accolade, as that is just plain tacky and rude to all players with any amount of time and money invested in the game.

Good Chats!

[NecroPed]

43 minutes ago, (XBOX)sinamanthediva said:

I hate to break the news to you but they did change it because we did ask for it.  The change wasn't the change that most here wanted but it WAS A CHANGE.  They can do basically whatever they want, when they want, how they want, and we have to live with it.  They are not breaking any laws by making changes unless they are explicitly being devious and taking peoples money with out providing something in return, they CAN make changes.  They didn't advertise the Heirloom packs with the current amount of Platinum offered yet here we are with a CHANGED amount not originally advertised.  I would think that qualifies as "misleading" or fraudulent advertising but they still made the changes.  Why?  Because they can under the TOS that we agreed to as a binding contract.  I understand your Devil's advocate position and I commend you for trying to make their actions appear to be altruistic in nature because it "might be more complicated" than we know.   I don't need to be a lawyer to smell the coffee and wake up to the reality of the situation being they could do something more to allow us poor folk the ability to obtain these nice shiny skins. But have chosen NOT to offer them in a more affordable Anniversary-Celebration-Like price range.  It is that simple.  The paradox being that if they had offered the skins at a reasonable price, they most likely would have made a LOT more money.   Now don't get me started on the 10 year supporter Accolade, as that is just plain tacky and rude to all players with any amount of time and money invested in the game.

Good Chats!

I'm not saying they can't change anything that we want. Just that they can't necessarily always do it JUST because we or they want it. 

No they can't, they have to abide by laws. They can do what they want within the law and their set terms and we have to deal with it yes, but they can't do everything just because we or they want it. 

No, in Australia at least, false and misleading advertisement doesn't even have to be intentional.

Adding a bonus afterwards is not misleading as it was simply never accounted for in the original pack. The problem here is that they've explicitly advertised it as never returning and not being available individually, which can be false advertisement if they change it now, considering people have already bought it under that advertisement. Though there is still more they could possibly do without a breech, like a cheaper bundle that contains the skins now, but this needs to happen before the current bundles end and they can't be available individually so not everyones problems can be resolved here. 

Their terms literally state that its exempt when there is a law saying otherwise. Just because they have it set in their terms doesn't mean those terms are above the law. 

[(XBOX)sinamanthediva]

2 minutes ago, NecroPed said:

I'm not saying they can't change anything that we want. Just that they can't necessarily always do it JUST because we or they want it. 

No they can't, they have to abide by laws. They can do what they want within the law and their set terms and we have to deal with it yes, but they can't do everything just because we or they want it. 

No, in Australia at least, false and misleading advertisement doesn't even have to be intentional.

Adding a bonus afterwards is not misleading as it was simply never accounted for in the original pack. The problem here is that they've explicitly advertised it as never returning and not being available individually, which can be false advertisement if they change it now, considering people have already bought it under that advertisement. Though there is still more they could possibly do without a breech, like a cheaper bundle that contains the skins now, but this needs to happen before the current bundles end and they can't be available individually so not everyones problems can be resolved here. 

Their terms literally state that its exempt when there is a law saying otherwise. Just because they have it set in their terms doesn't mean those terms are above the law. 

It wasn't an OOPSIE we forgot to account for the Platinum that prompted the change, it was the players that voiced their discontent.  They CHANGED it because they could just like they can say OOPSIE, we changed our mind and we will now offer it every anniversary celebration.  Even if it considered fraud, there is no intrinsic value lost if they offer it again some other time.  Players are not losing any money by such changes thus there is nothing to sue for except hurt feelings.  The laws pertaining to fraud are in place to prevent loss of actual money not exclusivity.   They even said something like it wouldn't be fair to those players that already purchased, not it is against the Law if we make changes, because clearly they can and they have.  I don't know why you continue to subscribe to this notion that maybe they can't because it's against the law somewhere in the world.  The only people being swindled are the one's who actually paid for this overpriced "celebration in support of our 10 year anniversary" bundle.   There is no amount of Plat or Regal Aya they could add that would make me spend nearly $100 for two Cosmetic Skins, regardless of how exclusive they are or not.  There is NO Cosmetic ever created worth $100 unless it was handcrafted by Picasso or Dali themselves, and even then it would still be outrageous.   The only way DE will ever stop this nonsense is when there is less than ideal sales results and apparently they have met their sales quota hence the lack of new more cost appropriate bundle.  Maybe the Christmas spirit will instill some charitable notion to create something for the poor folk like Tiny Tim. Let's hope that DE Scrooge learns their lesson and acts accordingly.

God Bless Us ALL ( with a better deal on the Heirloom Skins!)

[NecroPed]

4 minutes ago, (XBOX)sinamanthediva said:

It wasn't an OOPSIE we forgot to account for the Platinum that prompted the change, it was the players that voiced their discontent.  They CHANGED it because they could just like they can say OOPSIE, we changed our mind and we will now offer it every anniversary celebration.  Even if it considered fraud, there is no intrinsic value lost if they offer it again some other time.  Players are not losing any money by such changes thus there is nothing to sue for except hurt feelings.  The laws pertaining to fraud are in place to prevent loss of actual money not exclusivity.   They even said something like it wouldn't be fair to those players that already purchased, not it is against the Law if we make changes, because clearly they can and they have.  I don't know why you continue to subscribe to this notion that maybe they can't because it's against the law somewhere in the world.  The only people being swindled are the one's who actually paid for this overpriced "celebration in support of our 10 year anniversary" bundle.   There is no amount of Plat or Regal Aya they could add that would make me spend nearly $100 for two Cosmetic Skins, regardless of how exclusive they are or not.  There is NO Cosmetic ever created worth $100 unless it was handcrafted by Picasso or Dali themselves, and even then it would still be outrageous.   The only way DE will ever stop this nonsense is when there is less than ideal sales results and apparently they have met their sales quota hence the lack of new more cost appropriate bundle.  Maybe the Christmas spirit will instill some charitable notion to create something for the poor folk like Tiny Tim. Let's hope that DE Scrooge learns their lesson and acts accordingly.

God Bless Us ALL ( with a better deal on the Heirloom Skins!)

Yes and thats why thats not misleading, and they can't just change that if it's a breech in a law. That's my point. There are changes that we want that they could make but not for everything and I think people need to realize that. 

This isn't about fraud, it's about false or misleading advertisement, I only brought up fraud previously for a separated example. If they make changes that are not consistent with the original advertisements then it could be in breech of false advertisement laws.  And they explicitly advertised them as never returning and not sold individually. So they can only really release a new bundle, and during the current bundles period, but this still doesn't address every concern here so I think people need to be realistic. 

I keep arguing this notion because the law is above their terms of service, plain and simple. If we keep trying to argue that something should change a particular way but it does turn out that its illegal and they can't do it, we've wasted our time and efforts arguing for something that couldn't even happen so it's not even going to be useful suggestions for DE to implement the right change. People should understand that not everything can be done simply just because someone wants it and there are layers to why something may or may not be possible or plausible. The more realistic we are in our suggestions the more likely they can do something about it. And part of that is understanding the legal side of things so we're not all just suggesting what basically equates to being impossible. 

I can understand not liking the pricing and tiers, and adding plat only addressed one of the smallest issues in a very limited way, but it doesn't necessarily mean they can do whatever they want, this was easy because they could just add to the pack without any actual change, so as far as I know it is not really possible for it to be a breach to add plat (unless they didn't provide it to people who already purchased it then that could be another issue). They still have to abide by laws, and because law can be pretty vague and isn't always absolute it's generally smarter to assume the possibility of it being in breach than to disregard it completely, it is a good idea for them to take the time to consider what they do before doing any actual changes, unfortunately they might not be able to legally do everything people want to happen without consequences they would rather avoid though. 

[Katinka]

9 hours ago, (XBOX)sinamanthediva said:

They even said something like it wouldn't be fair to those players that already purchased, not it is against the Law if we make changes, because clearly they can and they have.

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.

[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