PSA PSA: Heirloom Collection Platinum Changes & Lessons

[MirageKnight]

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

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

Yes it did - much appreciated and thanks :)

[PublikDomain]

On 2023-10-14 at 5:16 PM, NecroPed said:

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.

Yes, they need to be accurate at the time. And they are currently accurate at this time. The packs are currently available only until Dec 31st and will never return. It is not a lie for DE to say this when it is true. And they have very reasonable grounds for saying those things: because the same law we're talking about says they need to inform consumers about these kinds of terms.

But past ads they do not need to remain accurate even into the future. Things are allowed to change. Ads only need to be accurate at the time.

Quote

Businesses should:

• give current and correct information
• use easy to understand language
• check that the overall general impression is accurate
• be specific with claims to avoid misunderstandings
• back up claims with facts and evidence
• note important limitations or exemptions
• keep consumers updated if things change. For example, if the business will no longer be able to supply a product within the timeframe provided to the consumer.
• correct any misunderstandings
• be prepared to prove claims.

https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/false-or-misleading-claims#toc-false-claims-and-misleading-impressions

Notice how business need to provide current and correct information? And just need to tell people if things change? Things change and everyone knows this, even the ACCC.

"Going back on that advertisement" is not in and of itself false advertising. It would only be false advertising if a company knew ahead of time that they would "go back on that advertisement" and still lied to consumers about something they knew was never true at the time, or if they went back on an advertisement but never informed anyone of the change. That's what the law you're evoking says. It's written out in plain English and they even provide case studies as examples. It's actually pretty admirable how easy they've made it to follow.

On 2023-10-14 at 5:16 PM, NecroPed said:

it just means that they need to respect their original advertisement in that its not returning and not sold individually.

None of the law you're pointing to says this. Business do not need to hold themselves to their original advertisements. Specs can change. Ratings can change. Availability can change. Statements made about the product can change. Promises can change. No one can see into the future. Business only need to ensure that their current advertisements accurately reflect the current product at the time.

On 2023-10-14 at 5:16 PM, NecroPed said:

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.).

And what I've found on that topic is this:

Quote

Samsung has agreed to pay a $14m penalty for misleading claims that seven of its Galaxy phones were water-resistant when the devices could stop working after being used in swimming pools or ocean water.
...
The competition watchdog had alleged Samsung misled and deceived customers with its claims about phones across more than 300 advertisements since February 2016. In court on Thursday, the barrister for Samsung, Nicholas De Young, said the full calculation of advertisements affected came to 684.

The ads online, TV, and on billboards showed the phones being water-resistant and being used at pools and beaches, despite the phones not being suitable for use in pool water or salt water.
...
The company has admitted that if the devices were used in salt water or pools, there was “a material prospect of damage by corrosion to the charging port of the phone”, the barrister for the ACCC, Caryn Van Procter, told the court.

During that time, Samsung sold 3m of the Galaxy phone models included in the agreement in Australia.

So Samsung either knew or didn't care that these claims were false and advertised them that way anyways, and while lying about their product sold 3m units. The ads were a lie while they were being run. The ads were lies at the time.

DE's ads that the Heirloom packs are limited is not a lie. If availability would later change, those previous claims would not still not have been lies at that time. They would only be lie if they changed availability and continued making a claim that was now not true, statements that like Samsung's would be lies at the time.

[----Legacy----]

15 hours ago, (NSW)Master2873 said:

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

  Hide contents

 

Oh! Since there's sayings being brought to the topic i'm gonna add "the sorrow of many is a fool's consolation" for this one.

Other devs adding overpriced fomo skins doesn't justify DE suddenly doing the same, even less when DE builts its reputation on listening to player feedback in their early days which is also part of what made warframe end up praised as "free to play done right" back in the day due to how almost everything is accessible even for people who decide to not spend money in the game.

Also, isn't Overwatch that adult series which became really famous, enough for blizzard to do not only one, but 2 games about it? *Uses smoke bomb and bullet jumps away*

[Stafelund]

3 hours ago, ----Legacy---- said:

Oh! Since there's sayings being brought to the topic i'm gonna add "the sorrow of many is a fool's consolation" for this one.

Other devs adding overpriced fomo skins doesn't justify DE suddenly doing the same, even less when DE builts its reputation on listening to player feedback in their early days which is also part of what made warframe end up praised as "free to play done right" back in the day due to how almost everything is accessible even for people who decide to not spend money in the game.

Also, isn't Overwatch that adult series which became really famous, enough for blizzard to do not only one, but 2 games about it? *Uses smoke bomb and bullet jumps away*

I think even OW players aren't liking the monetization in Overwatch 2.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Stafelund

[----Legacy----]

6 hours ago, Stafelund said:

I think even OW players aren't liking the monetization in Overwatch 2.

I played the first one and had quite some fun until certain balance decisions were made (i hated role locks and all it implies for casual gameplay without a premade team).

Haven't even bothered with OW2 and its monetization is a big part of why.

[(NSW)Master2873]

16 hours ago, ----Legacy---- said:

ther devs adding overpriced fomo skins doesn't justify DE suddenly doing the same

Not sure where you got that from exactly. I was making a joke about OW2 players being upset with the skins being so expensive. If you even look through this post's thread, you'll even see that I've spoke against the Heirloom Skins. Also, those OW2 skins are recent.

[(NSW)Master2873]

13 hours ago, Stafelund said:

I think even OW players aren't liking the monetization in Overwatch 2.

They are absolutely not. It seems Activision is going Fortnite-tification with their games. Even going as far as to add a third type of battle pass for even more with some of thier games. To get the newest skins in OW2, you'll end up spending $80 total for the 2. That sounds familiar lol...

Edited October 17, 2023 by (NSW)Master2873

[----Legacy----]

7 hours ago, (NSW)Master2873 said:

Not sure where you got that from exactly. I was making a joke about OW2 players being upset with the skins being so expensive. If you even look through this post's thread, you'll even see that I've spoke against the Heirloom Skins. Also, those OW2 skins are recent.

My bad for thinking you said that to justify DE; seen certain people who would legit justify anything from them no matter how nonsense it is and i don't really focus on who writes a message unless it becomes necessary (such as calling out someone consistently spitting nonsense, misinformation, fallacies, whatever)

Stuff like this only shows the direction where companies want to push the gaming industry, so the practice becoming more widespread is anything but a consolation.

[(NSW)Master2873]

5 hours ago, ----Legacy---- said:

My bad for thinking you said that to justify DE; seen certain people who would legit justify anything from them no matter how nonsense it is and i don't really focus on who writes a message unless it becomes necessary (such as calling out someone consistently spitting nonsense, misinformation, fallacies, whatever)

Stuff like this only shows the direction where companies want to push the gaming industry, so the practice becoming more widespread is anything but a consolation.

I also probably could have worded the joke/meme a bit better too, to be honest lol. You're good, no worries. Also, hopefully that comment didn't come off as aggressive. I usually speak, and type bluntly at times, and it can seem that way, or at least to me it can.

[NecroPed]

On 2023-10-16 at 1:33 AM, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

 

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! 

 

 

As far as I know, no, I don't believe DE have stated they wont go on sale, so it is entirely possible that they will, it's not a call I can make. Though given the current situation I think it's possible it will upset players unless more problems are addressed first. 

While I can't say for certain, and proving such a thing would be hard, I am confident that in this hypothetical it would be a breach if they had advertised that they had no plans to discount it, but secretly did plan to, in order to try and mislead people into purchasing without waiting for a sale thinking that it wasn't coming or at least in the foreseeable future (the closer to release the worse it could be too, putting it on sale 2 days after the release could be a stronger case than in the final week, since it's not consistent with how sales are generally managed, and has more reason to being put on sale towards the end) when they could have waited for a sale had they known or weren't mislead into believing it wouldn't be happening. 

Referencing claims about the future, predictions and silence in regards to false and misleading advertisement (copied some bits from ACCC and similar websites into the spoiler below), in this hypothetical it suggests to me that it would be a breach in that regard, due to keeping silent about planning a discount while suggesting that there isn't one coming, knowing it was an untrue statement at the time, did not care whether it was true or not and had no reasonable grounds to make the claim, and while I think that the statement about the future adequately addresses the range of uncertainty it would need to be something they didn't have planned at the time of that advertisement. So as long as they are adequately addressing variables and not making explicit statements about it not ever being discounted then it's fine as far as I can tell. 

Spoiler

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 may be misleading and deceptive if, for example, 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.

Claims about the future

A business that makes a claim about future matters (including predictions or projections) must have reasonable grounds for doing so at the time of making the claims. If it does not then the business can be guilty of misleading or deceptive conduct. It is the responsibility of the business that made the claim to show that it had reasonable grounds to make the statement. It is important that you consider, or adequately address, the range of uncertainties and variables involved when making claims about the future.
 

Example: A real estate agent claims that a golf course will be developed in the area within the next year as a major selling point to the properties sold. The agent continues to make these claims despite knowing there are no plans to develop a golf course. The agent is misleading potential purchasers by suggesting there are such plans when the agent has no reasonable grounds to do so.

 

Silence can be misleading

In some circumstances, failure to disclose information can be misleading. This is particularly the case if a business provides some information to a consumer but doesn't mention important details the consumer should know that are relevant to their decision.

The only times that I'm aware of/think off the top of my head that they have used this kind of "never" language is in regards to founders packs (I can't remember specific language and can't be bothered looking for it right now) and the heirlooms in regards to never returning, or unique paid items never being available in-game. Though I think this example of "never being discounted" is good in that it highlights the same reasoning behind the potential breach, and is a lot more straightforward and can be directly applied to things that aren't games, while translating quite well. 

 

I am in a similar boat to you in regards to who's decision it was, I'm more inclined to believe that they are secondary in regards to that, not that they necessarily have no role in it at all, but also aren't the only people responsible and possibly even not the originator of the idea. But, until and if they're able to make the distinction then I think generalizing them to DE as a group is fine, though being specific towards particular people with no proof of who was involved is definitely a bit silly. 

 

On 2023-10-16 at 5:56 AM, PublikDomain said:

Yes, they need to be accurate at the time. And they are currently accurate at this time. The packs are currently available only until Dec 31st and will never return. It is not a lie for DE to say this when it is true. And they have very reasonable grounds for saying those things: because the same law we're talking about says they need to inform consumers about these kinds of terms.

But past ads they do not need to remain accurate even into the future. Things are allowed to change. Ads only need to be accurate at the time.

Notice how business need to provide current and correct information? And just need to tell people if things change? Things change and everyone knows this, even the ACCC.

"Going back on that advertisement" is not in and of itself false advertising. It would only be false advertising if a company knew ahead of time that they would "go back on that advertisement" and still lied to consumers about something they knew was never true at the time, or if they went back on an advertisement but never informed anyone of the change. That's what the law you're evoking says. It's written out in plain English and they even provide case studies as examples. It's actually pretty admirable how easy they've made it to follow.

None of the law you're pointing to says this. Business do not need to hold themselves to their original advertisements. Specs can change. Ratings can change. Availability can change. Statements made about the product can change. Promises can change. No one can see into the future. Business only need to ensure that their current advertisements accurately reflect the current product at the time.

And what I've found on that topic is this:

So Samsung either knew or didn't care that these claims were false and advertised them that way anyways, and while lying about their product sold 3m units. The ads were a lie while they were being run. The ads were lies at the time.

DE's ads that the Heirloom packs are limited is not a lie. If availability would later change, those previous claims would not still not have been lies at that time. They would only be lie if they changed availability and continued making a claim that was now not true, statements that like Samsung's would be lies at the time.

Yes, and when that is an explicit statement about the future that is entirely their choice, they need to commit to it for it to have been true at the time, an explicit statement about the future cannot even be proven true at the time, it can only be proven not to have been true at the time it becomes false, in the future. One of the reasons why laws like this exist is to stop companies from being able to say whatever they want and then change it later without consequence. I honestly think the extent you're arguing this is ridiculous. Yes, they have reasonable grounds to say it, as long as they commit to it. If they were to change it and not commit to it then no they didn't have reasonable grounds to say it and the statement was not true because it was entirely their choice at the time, if they do not need to commit to it never returning they never needed to make the statement so it is misleading. And even if you can argue that they had reasonable grounds to make the claim at the time (which I would argue is only if they commit to the statement), this does not exempt it from everything else, it is simply a requirement. 

Yes and the terms they specified are that it's never returning. Yes, and the ACCC also knows that these are not necessarily explicit necessary criteria that exempts cases and are mostly just examples or criteria that they must follow, it does not mean that it automatically becomes exempt. The ACCC also knows that change does not mean an advertisement never happened. Things change, yes, that's why they have statements about predictions and the future, but these statements do not detail any inherent defence because of detailing changes, the ACCC also states that businesses shouldn't make promises they can't keep, like you know... promising that they're not returning. Notice how it says "for example" as well, these are examples, not explicit necessary criteria. 

From the consumer affairs website:

Note: The case studies used on this page are examples only; outcomes may differ in individual cases.

 

 

Past ads do not necessarily need to account for the future, but an EXPLICIT STATEMENT ABOUT THE FUTURE is not exempt from laws just because it's changed afterwards. Businesses do not 'only need to ensure that their current advertisements accurately reflect the current product at the time.', that is just simply not true. They simply MIGHT be exempt under certain cases. In this case DE have EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED THE VARIABLES AND UNCERTAINTY with an EXPLICIT CHOICE NOT TO HAVE THE ITEMS RETURN, going against this and releasing them again afterwards means they will be going against the original advertisement. Saying it is never returning and then returning it is explicit information that conveys a false impression, and just like a lot of these things they are examples and aren't explicit criteria

 

Spoiler

Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

 

The conduct must be in trade or commerce. It includes conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive a person. Misleading conduct is conduct that leads a person into error. Deceptive conduct suggests intention to deceive, although intention is not relevant. The person misled or deceived does not need to prove loss or damage.

Consumer examples of misleading or deceptive conduct include:

• Promotions or advertisements that include false or inaccurate information
• Statements that fail to disclose important information
• Information that conveys a false impression

• The error in this case would be purchasing something when you wouldn't have because you felt the need to buy it before it went away forever, just to find out you did not need to buy it then because it did come back. The information that conveys a false impression [if they don't commit to it] is the explicit statement that says it's never returning. Changing the statement does not mean the statement was not made at the time, it's actually what can prove that it conveyed a false impression. 

Yeah they need to provide current, correct and accurate information without misleading people (and that doesn't necessarily make it completely exempt if they do). Like you know... Telling people something wont return and not just changing their mind and returning it because then that information was in fact misleading people into thinking it was never returning... It wasn't accurate information if they bring it back after they explicitly say it's never returning. 

When that advertisement is an EXPLICIT STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH IT IN THE FUTURE then yes, going back on that advertisement absolutely can be false advertisement.

Businesses don't necessarily need to hold themselves to original advertisements and they can go against original advertisements, but if their advertisement EXPLICITLY DETAILS THAT IT WONT RETURN then they do need to hold themselves to that original advertisement for it to be considered true. The item returning is what makes the statement false. Changing it after making the statement does not matter. Changing the advertisement is just one part of rectifying false advertisement. The courts could see this as enough rectification depending on the case for all I know, but changing the advertisement does not mean you didn't originally falsely advertise it. Them knowing if they were planning to change it or not is simply just one example where it could be proven to be false advertising. It is not explicit necessary criteria. To say it is only false advertisement under those conditions is not true, the courts decide on a case by case basis and these are examples, not explicit necessary criteria. Just because a business SHOULD detail changes, does not mean that it is inherent defence against them if they do, I honestly find the idea absolutely ridiculous. Yes, they SHOULD keep customers updated, but nowhere does it explicitly say that "informing customers of a change always makes it exempt". And the exemptions for predictions and opinions are generally for things outside their control, not something that is entirely their decision.

Yes, no one can see in the future, that's why they SHOULDN'T MAKE EXPLICIT STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FUTURE THAT THEY CANNOT COMMIT TO BECAUSE IT WOULD THEN BE MISLEADING. Businesses need to ensure they're not MISLEADING CONSUMERS, both intentionally and not, it is not explicitly about "only needing to ensure that their current advertisements accurately reflect the current product at the time.". 

 

Spoiler

False or misleading representations explained

It is unlawful to make false or misleading representations about products and services when supplying, offering to supply or promoting those products or services.

For instance, a business must not make false or misleading representations about:

• the standard, quality, value or grade of products or services
• the composition style, model or history of products
• whether the products are new
• a particular person agreeing to acquire products or services
• testimonials by any person relating to products or services
• the sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, benefits and uses of products or services
• the price of products or services
• the availability of repair facilities or spare parts
• the place of origin of a product - for example, where it was made or assembled. For more information, view our Country of origin claims page
• a buyer's need for the products or services
• any guarantee, warranty or condition on the products or services. For more information, view our Refunds repairs and returns section.

Whether a representation is considered false or misleading will depend on the circumstances of each case, and what misleads one group of consumers may not necessarily mislead others.

A representation can be misleading even if it is partly true.

 

False claims and misleading impressions

Businesses mustn't mislead consumers

Businesses should be honest in their dealings. Businesses shouldn't try to gain an unfair advantage by making misleading claims about their products or services.

It makes no difference whether a business intends to mislead or not.

Information must be accurate and truthful

Any information or claim that a business provides about its products or services must be accurate, truthful and based on reasonable grounds.

This includes:

• Information on prices
• images and descriptions of what is offered
• claims about the value, benefits, qualities or performance of products and services
• shipping options and delivery times.

This rule applies to any communication by a business, including through:

• advertising
• product packaging
• a quotation
• any information provided by staff, whether verbally or in writing
• social media
• testimonials
• websites or any other platform.

Any statement that creates a false impression about goods and services can be breaking the law.

 

A business that makes a claim about future matters (including predictions or projections) must have reasonable grounds for making the claim at the time of making the claim. The business is responsible for showing that it had reasonable grounds to make the claim.

Businesses need to make sure they adequately address the range of uncertainties and variables involved when making claims about the future.

 

What a business should do

Businesses should:

• give current and correct information
• use easy to understand language
• check that the overall general impression is accurate
• be specific with claims to avoid misunderstandings
• back up claims with facts and evidence
• note important limitations or exemptions
• keep consumers updated if things change. For example, if the business will no longer be able to supply a product within the timeframe provided to the consumer.
• correct any misunderstandings
• be prepared to prove claims.

False or misleading claims

• Businesses shouldn't try to gain an unfair advantage by making misleading claims about their products or services.
• Claims should be true, accurate and based on reasonable grounds.
• A business must be able to prove any claim they advertise.

 

There is nothing on these pages that explicitly exempts cases just because of detailing the change, simply that detailing changes is recommended and that not doing so can be a breach/doing so isn't necessarily a breach, but it does not mean it is inherently the case. As well as some explicit requirements, which don't necessarily exempt the case.

 

 

Okay, maybe the samsung situation wasn't a great example in that regard. But, I honestly think you're seriously stretching really far with your arguments and I'm looking for anything I can to show how vague and broad these laws are and why, while you are far too definitive and in my opinion seriously wrong about a lot of stuff.

They ARE a lie if they ever return because whether or not the statement is true or not relies entirely on whether they choose to commit to that statement or not. If they choose not to commit to that statement, they did not need to make that statement and it was in fact false. Changing their statement doesn't mean the original statement never happened. 

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

1 hour ago, NecroPed said:

Though given the current situation I think it's possible it will upset players unless more problems are addressed first. 

 

I think thats reasonable stance, the only issue with such explanations though, is lacks exclusivity. The potential for upsetting players is a constant. DE could do nothing, and it will upset players, DE could address the situation in 10 different ways, and different groups of people will be upset, depending on which way. It can be a hard task to preemptively gauge such things, and, even post issue deliberations. For example, an argument could be made that more people were pacified from the post Regal Aya adjustments than the post Heirloom adjustments. There are still a few people who think Regal Aya is a rip off, overpriced and horrible and very critical, and so on, but a small minority. There are probably also a small minority of people who were upset that more Platinum was added to Heirloom packs. Why? "Entitled player base who always asks for more, like greedy kids" and they would rather DE spite such fans, some people are just wired that way. 

Also from DE's perspective? They often have to engage in a bit of double speak, like all business do, except maybe the Wendy's Twitter (but then ironically, even now, they have certain expectations). When they talk about not being able to change something for "fairness", in some sense that could be true, and sincere, unless of course, the alternative secured more money, more value, with less effort, less risk. To make another absurd unrealistic example, for the sake of a point, if a magic omnipotent genie, told DE they would get 1 Billion dollars, the cure to 90 percent of Earths diseases and illnesses and that breathing oxygen would make people a little bit more inclined to looking for peace rather than war, but only if they made Heirlooms make a return now and then... would the fairness of fans really stand in their way? To put it another way, its almost more important that DE portrays the image, that they value their players and customers, so much, that they value and try to be transparent, fair, communicative and upfront with us. I am not saying that is fake, its just they are business with hundreds of workers and jobs, its... theirs only so much transparency they can offer. Also, to be clear, I don't envy the person, whose job it is, at DE, to try and communicate such ideas to us. Its literally their job, to take info that may be unpopular, and reword it, to soften the blow.

Emphasising fairness is a pretty decent way, its only when you consider "would DE ever do anything that thus, therefore wasn't motivated by fairness towards players?" well no, not on purpose right? Though, you could make changes, and to some extent be sincere about all of them, as well, as being sincere prior to all of them. So it sort of becomes wishy washy language that can end up sounding more like PR speak. "The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes", a lot of us still remember that right? Again, I personally have sympathy for the person that needs to communicate such ideas to us, because its my belief based on work experience, that they do not have as much of a hand in the decision making process, but.... ultimately, it means, that its a pretty hollow explanation and justification for not making more changes (not implying there can't actually be better reasons as to not). 

 

1 hour ago, NecroPed said:

I am confident

 

I am curious to the basis of your confidence? Like what is motivating it, in this regard? 

 

1 hour ago, NecroPed said:

it would be a breach if they had advertised that they had no plans to discount it, but secretly did plan to, in order to try and mislead people into purchasing without waiting for a sale thinking that it wasn't coming or at least in the foreseeable future (the closer to release the worse it could be too, putting it on sale 2 days after the release could be a stronger case than in the final week, since it's not consistent with how sales are generally managed, and has more reason to being put on sale towards the end) when they could have waited for a sale had they known or weren't mislead into believing it wouldn't be happening. 

 

There is quite a lot of loaded language here, so to try and untangle it... Advertising a lack of plans, isn't the same as as not explaining future plans. I know its not necessarily the same, so not intended to be a perfect parallel, but for example, how do you feel about Prime Access? Specifically the old system of Prime Unvaulting Access packs? Which were often cheaper by design. When Grendel Prime goes on sale tomorrow, do all pages/links that cover that info, need to have disclaimers explaining how eventually he will be cheaper to get with money? Also why would their plans have to be in secret? Thats inserting a level of devious and dishonest action, that doesn't necessarily have to exist. Anyone who does a bit of research will be more informed, and I think I asked a similar question in my last post too. (That wasn't meant to be rhetorical). 

I know you cover some of this later, but this is where language and context gets important, because ideas around what constitutes as "misleading" asks for a lot of nuance and consideration. Do you think people who purchase Prime Access, can make the argument that they were mislead? (for clarity I think they could at least make the argument, just it wouldn't really go anyway ultimately) If we have 5 to 6 examples of exclusively timed, limited time only supporter packs, getting discounts before retiring?  Should a person who brought the Heirlooms, be upset, for not realising such things have a precedent and happened before with supporter packs? (again for clarity, I can sympathise with being upset, but yet... ). 

 

1 hour ago, NecroPed said:

Referencing claims about the future, predictions and silence in regards to false and misleading advertisement (copied some bits from ACCC and similar websites into the spoiler below), in this hypothetical it suggests to me that it would be a breach in that regard, due to keeping silent about planning a discount while suggesting that there isn't one coming, knowing it was an untrue statement at the time, did not care whether it was true or not and had no reasonable grounds to make the claim, and while I think that the statement about the future adequately addresses the range of uncertainty it would need to be something they didn't have planned at the time of that advertisement. So as long as they are adequately addressing variables and not making explicit statements about it not ever being discounted then it's fine as far as I can tell. 

 

1 hour ago, NecroPed said:

The only times that I'm aware of/think off the top of my head that they have used this kind of "never" language is in regards to founders packs (I can't remember specific language and can't be bothered looking for it right now) and the heirlooms in regards to never returning, or unique paid items never being available in-game. Though I think this example of "never being discounted" is good in that it highlights the same reasoning behind the potential breach, and is a lot more straightforward and can be directly applied to things that aren't games, while translating quite well. 

 

So again, for clarity, not a lawyer or legal expert, however, I have studied linguistics and am generally quite a fan of language and communication in general. When it comes to legalese, well, there can be a lot to it. Like certain words in general, are often used to be quite particular. For example? I tend to use quite a lot of qualifiers when I communicate. The intention is to hopefully give more context, but there can be pros and cons. One disadvantage is I can write a lot, and an argument could be made, that I am providing too much unnecessary context. Sort of like what I am doing now. How is a discussion about Heirlooms, ending up about linguistics? Why did I say I tend to write, as opposed to just saying I do write? Well, because I don't always, and so a word like tend, is just what enters my mind when typing. 

I am also that way with other wording from other sources, because depending on the context, it can be important. Like in your quotes above, how you frame situations, can implicitly lead to certain conclusions, that may not be accurate, without that particular framing. (Framing like "keeping silent" as opposed to not disclosing info deemed unnecessary, "suggesting that one isn't coming", as opposed to not suggesting anything, "knowing it was untrue", so on. 

In contrast, the parts you copy//present in larger text, also has very particular and careful wording, that inherently leaves a lot open to context. Its the way they use qualifiers and terms like "can", "may", terms like "adequately" and "reasonably". 

Do you get what I mean? 

DE knowing they will or may eventually put items in sale, isn't necessarily making a claim about the future. Could it be argued that they are being misleading? Arguably, yes, but that on its own, doesn't mean too much, but arguably one could potentially lean on the idea, that they didn't adequately address the potential of going on sale in the future, clear enough. Absence of a claim, is not the same as a claim though, and arguably a misleading claim, may be more incriminating, than absence of a disclaimer or adequate levels of information and transparency. So... that would have to be explored, because of all the potential and possible examples that could be applied, well many may differ in context. So many other variables, generalised statement like these, aren't adequate and would require experts and precedents to go forward. 

Thats before we even explore ideas about reasonable acts/adequate addressing. Which hypothetically, is probably why say, Prime Access isn't likely liable for the charge of false advertising, because they probably do adequately address such potential issues, as well as continue a precedence, consumers can be aware of and informed over. 

Its okay, I wouldn't want either of us to feel like we are doing homework, I trust you, lol, and yeah, I agree with you take on language usage from DE. Though, maybe some of the past Supporter packs have had such wording as well, about not returning, and maybe in the past, based on evidence others have compiled in this thread, there have been some past items that have returned, that initially seemed unlikely. I wouldn't necessarily consider them breaches though, because I don't think its actually been established, it would be a breach, its only been supposed and suggested. To myself, it hasn't been established that DE is legally liable in such situations, or whether they are motivated or adhering to some other variable, thats more internal and of their own control. If and when it could be established, even if via some other game precedent, then I think conversation could be had, but I would probably tap out, not being a lawyer, but I would probably follow out of interest and curiosity. 

 

2 hours ago, NecroPed said:

I am in a similar boat to you in regards to who's decision it was, I'm more inclined to believe that they are secondary in regards to that, not that they necessarily have no role in it at all, but also aren't the only people responsible and possibly even not the originator of the idea. But, until and if they're able to make the distinction then I think generalizing them to DE as a group is fine, though being specific towards particular people with no proof of who was involved is definitely a bit silly. 

 

Yeah, and I think anyone who has ever worked in a job where they didn't agree with coworkers or bosses, can relate a little. Maybe I am also biased because I am inclined towards artistic and creative ideas, and am familiar of the negative aspects that businesses, money, greed, can have on those, even if say, business can be important and make art and creativity accessible, fostered, grown, shared etc as well as important for other reasons. Clashes and conflict can happen. 

Though it also makes sense. Jobs and cooperation, camaraderie is important. In forums, players and consumers can argue relentlessly and never agree with each other over something, and block each other. Can't do that in a professional setting, or at least its not ideal. 

[(XBOX)sinamanthediva]

2 hours ago, NecroPed said:

*snip

That's a lot of information but nothing is mentioned about having a TOS that explicitly states that DE has the right to change anything at anytime for any reason and we agree to these terms by playing Warframe.  It's NOT fraud if they tell us upfront that they can change their mind at anytime.  They have already made a change to their original advertised product and now have the updated bundle Ad with the additional Plat listed.  It DOES NOT matter if it's additional Plat, it is still a change that they made.  Nothing I have read in your gigantic wall of text mentions anything about our particular situation with regards to having a TOS contract that is agreed upon by us.  All of what you have shown us is for consumers who have no agreed upon contract prior to any purchase of products from a business.  If you sign an agreement that says its ok if the company makes changes to their products, then that is not fraud because you agreed to those terms.  Exclusivity more than likely would not be considered in the value of the product offered unless it was like an autograph or something so unique to place a value upon it.  All they are saying is that it won't be sold again but does that make the product MORE VALUABLE or just MORE DESIRABLE due to FOMO?  The skins value are not dependent upon the limited time frame that they will be sold, so it would not be fraud, if they were to offer them for sale in the future because they changed their mind, which we already agreed upon by the TOS.  It would be fraud if we paid for skins and got nothing.    You are beholden to this magical Anti-Fraud Law but I don't think it applies to this situation because of the TOS that we agreed upon already.  That's my interpretation but like you, I'm not a legal expert on Law in the US and most definitely not for Australia or any other country, so I could be wrong.  Not trying to be mean or confrontational with you or anyone else and am just expressing my opinion in this discussion.

Have a pleasant tomorrow!

[Circle_of_Psi]

49 minutes ago, (XBOX)sinamanthediva said:

That's a lot of information but nothing is mentioned about having a TOS

Yeah, I'm sure the person pointed out that no matter the TOS, they still have to obey the law, it just makes it "Harder" for people to sue. If someone REALLY wanted to do it, they would've but no one has the money or balls to do it.

But still, Laws, TOS or not, having your Rep turned into a dogpile should be good enough for most people. This isn't gonna go away, people have a strong memory and will talk about this for years to come. 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Circle_of_Psi

[NecroPed]

57 minutes ago, (XBOX)sinamanthediva said:

That's a lot of information but nothing is mentioned about having a TOS that explicitly states that DE has the right to change anything at anytime for any reason and we agree to these terms by playing Warframe.  It's NOT fraud if they tell us upfront that they can change their mind at anytime.  They have already made a change to their original advertised product and now have the updated bundle Ad with the additional Plat listed.  It DOES NOT matter if it's additional Plat, it is still a change that they made.  Nothing I have read in your gigantic wall of text mentions anything about our particular situation with regards to having a TOS contract that is agreed upon by us.  All of what you have shown us is for consumers who have no agreed upon contract prior to any purchase of products from a business.  If you sign an agreement that says its ok if the company makes changes to their products, then that is not fraud because you agreed to those terms.  Exclusivity more than likely would not be considered in the value of the product offered unless it was like an autograph or something so unique to place a value upon it.  All they are saying is that it won't be sold again but does that make the product MORE VALUABLE or just MORE DESIRABLE due to FOMO?  The skins value are not dependent upon the limited time frame that they will be sold, so it would not be fraud, if they were to offer them for sale in the future because they changed their mind, which we already agreed upon by the TOS.  It would be fraud if we paid for skins and got nothing.    You are beholden to this magical Anti-Fraud Law but I don't think it applies to this situation because of the TOS that we agreed upon already.  That's my interpretation but like you, I'm not a legal expert on Law in the US and most definitely not for Australia or any other country, so I could be wrong.  Not trying to be mean or confrontational with you or anyone else and am just expressing my opinion in this discussion.

Have a pleasant tomorrow!

The EULA also explicitly states "except as otherwise prohibited by law" just before it says that. I'm well aware of them saying this but that does not mean they can do anything they want with no consequence. And I'm not talking about fraud. That's different. 

What matters here is that its an explicit statement about how they are choosing to handle it in the future, explicitly stating that it is never returning. This statement is only true as long as they commit to it, otherwise it was misleading people into thinking it wasn't returning, which can absolutely be argued as misleading.

And no agreeing to the contract does not override the law, even if the EULA didn't already say "except when prohibited by law".

I've already explained how the addition of plat is not the same as making a change to an explicit statement about the future so that it no longer needs to be committed to. Ad far as I can tell, adding plat is not in any way a breach because it does not need to be advertised, they do not have to advertise a bonus. Its a completely different thing when they advertise that it explicitly wont be returning.

[PublikDomain]

On 2023-10-17 at 8:51 PM, NecroPed said:

Yes, and when that is an explicit statement about the future that is entirely their choice, they need to commit to it for it to have been true at the time, an explicit statement about the future cannot even be proven true at the time, it can only be proven not to have been true at the time it becomes false, in the future.

And the ACCC literally says that it's not necessarily a problem these statements about the future end up not being true. They outline the few ways where it would be a problem, none of which apply unless DE knew at the time that their offering here was a lie. Committing to something and informing consumers about those commitments doesn't mean those commitments cannot still change in the future. For example:

Quote

The Founders program began on December 19, 2012, and was supposed to end on March 16, 2013, before the game transitioned to Open Beta. However, it was extended partly to allow new users brought in by the game's Steam release to be able to purchase it, but also to give the developers more time to refine the Prime Access program. The Founders Program officially ended on November 1, 2013.

This is completely fine. Even if their original ads set an explicit end date, this explicit end date changed and nothing bad happened.

On 2023-10-17 at 8:51 PM, NecroPed said:

Businesses don't necessarily need to hold themselves to original advertisements and they can go against original advertisements, but if their advertisement EXPLICITLY DETAILS THAT IT WONT RETURN then they do need to hold themselves to that original advertisement for it to be considered true.

Can you please point me to the law that covers this last part? Believe me I have looked and I cannot find it! I have found no qualifier that says that the details contained in an advertisement must never change, explicit detail or otherwise. Whether it's pricing, or availability, or access, or contents, or features, or terms, the only thing I have been able to find is that if the details change then consumers must be informed and the ads must be updated. The original ad that was true but is now false goes away, because it's not true anymore and is now misleading and/or deceptive, and it gets replaced with the new ad which true and not misleading or deceptive. Even in what you quote there is guidance for what to do when things change, because things are allowed to change.

There's more to be said about actual changes to services beyond just the advertisements, which the ACCC also covers, but the rough summary of what I've read there is "if a service changes in a minor way you're likely not owed anything, and if it changes in a major way you're maybe owed a refund". Big shrug.

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by PublikDomain

[NecroPed]

7 hours ago, ConDucktorWhirl said:

In order for something to "return" it must first leave. If you can't grasp how adding a 4th proper pack without that premium currency bullS#&$ would go against nothing and no one by now, then there's nothing else that can be said to you.

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

[Circle_of_Psi]

On 2023-10-19 at 10:38 AM, NecroPed said:

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

With you trying to explain the legal side of things (while I am very interested) it does on paper make you look like a WK, but as you pointed out people don't read everything only key parts, I have that myself sometimes.

[Sean]

They really seem adamant in not wanting to talk about this or have an outcome that isn't sleazy.

Almost two months on and all they've done is say they will "do better in the future" just like they say each and every time something happens, but nothing ever changes because they'll "do better in the future".

[(XBOX)Shodian]

16 minutes ago, Sean said:

They really seem adamant in not wanting to talk about this or have an outcome that isn't sleazy.

Almost two months on and all they've done is say they will "do better in the future" just like they say each and every time something happens, but nothing ever changes because they'll "do better in the future".

Thats because they've already said their part twice. I don't think they are going to make any changes at this point. 

[Sean]

37 minutes ago, (XBOX)Shodian said:

Thats because they've already said their part twice. I don't think they are going to make any changes at this point. 

 

They said boiler-plate PR stuff that didn't even get remotely near the problem.

Sure, expecting more from them is a lost cause, but still doesn't make it less disappointing.

 

Of course they'll do something similar again and the cycle will repeat.

...again.

[Circle_of_Psi]

3 hours ago, Sean said:

They said boiler-plate PR stuff that didn't even get remotely near the problem.

Of course they'll do something similar again and the cycle will repeat.

...again.

You know it

And who we blame for this?

[Sean]

15 minutes ago, Circle_of_Psi said:

You know it

And who we blame for this?

 

A good portion of blame can be placed on those that keep buying things like that.
DE definitely still gets the most of it, it is in their game. Even if they have a mandate from their owners to make more money, the way it was packaged and prepared would be on DE.

 

But... companies will keep pushing the line of what is acceptable as long as there are people willing to shell out money for it.

 

Battle Passes, loot boxes (or in DE's case, the absurd levels of RNG in rivens), weaponized FOMO, $10 (and growing) skins... all of that wouldn't really happen if people wouldn't buy it. People seem to love throwing money at worsening microtransactions. Quite a few in this very topic that keep saying of how awful it is still decided to buy it, those people probably get under my skin the most.

[(XBOX)sinamanthediva]

1 hour ago, Sean said:

Quite a few in this very topic that keep saying of how awful it is still decided to buy it, those people probably get under my skin the most.

True that! They give new meaning to the term "Hypocrite."  The power of FOMO has besieged their very Soul!  Even the most vocal Tenno declaring the perils of FOMO can succumb to it's temptation to acquire a new "shiny" before it's gone FOREVER! (or at least until DE decides to change their mind, which they can (See TOS) and most likely will do because why? The Power that Money can offer can corrupt even the most "Indy" of Developers to turn to the Dark Side and plunge their game into the Cesspool of Chaos known as FOMO!  Is it "The End of Days" I ask?  Maybe not, but it still sucks!

Have a pleasant tomorrow!

[Stafelund]

13 hours ago, Circle_of_Psi said:

With you trying to explain the legal side of things (while I am very interested) it does on paper make you look like a WK, but as you pointed out people don't read everything only key parts, I have that myself sometimes.

I don't think they are a white knight since I remember seeing them voicing their opinions against the Heirloom pack. The ones that staunchly defend this are easily recognizable if you ask me.

Edited October 20, 2023 by Stafelund

[(XBOX)Mastermitchel89]

Just to interject a point

The Dagoth update will not, no matter how good or grand, will not make this a forgotten topic of issue

 

A Bundle that is 100$ Does Not Affect Gameplay in any way other than how one feels about 2 character's Looks or colours for the rest

Except the Regal Aya that can buy only the two Frames or 1 and 1/2 prime packs (which definitely affects gameplay),  The same Regal Aya that inflated the price by how much? 60$, 40$.

Why couldn't the Regal aya be a (Free) Bonus, a Thank you for 10 years,  a Gift for those that want to join for 10 more.                                                                                (a solid reason to now make it limited then change it for later releases)

Even my negative monotone has limits and exceptions but a celebration Celebrates

 

To provide honest feedback,  When i see the heirlooms in game i feel sick to the stomach seeing it,  even just the signas cause an amount of revoltion

Edited October 21, 2023 by (XBOX)Mastermitchel89