PSA PSA: Heirloom Collection Platinum Changes & Lessons

[PublikDomain]

1 hour ago, [DE]Danielle said:

our next Heirloom Collection and what’s changing this time around

[(PSN)FrDiabloFr]

8 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Lol fr, i felt a cold rush run my spine when i spied that specific sentence.

[(XBOX)RaeOvSunshyn]

20 minutes ago, (PSN)FrDiabloFr said:

Lol fr, i felt a cold rush run my spine when i spied that specific sentence.

I felt the same thing when I heard Rebb mention it on the Devshort. 😂 Is this what the young'uns call "triggered" these days?

[(PSN)FrDiabloFr]

42 minutes ago, (XBOX)RaeOvSunshyn said:

I felt the same thing when I heard Rebb mention it on the Devshort. 😂 Is this what the young'uns call "triggered" these days?

Haha i chuckled at this bro ty.

[Famecans]

On 2023-08-30 at 4:14 PM, Raijinmeister said:

Meh, make the skins available out of the pack for plat. 
Make 2 separate bundles if I don't want one of the skins. 
Your Tencent is showing too much lately. Step back. 

Thought:

All players say that the increase in platinum in the Heirloom package does not justify the expensive value of the package because platinum has no value. so we can pre-assume that making the Heirloom pack purchasable for platinum will devalue it completely.

[LittleLeoniePrime]

Lets not pre-overreact here and see what they actually learned from the first time yea..? @PublikDomain @(PSN)FrDiabloFr @(XBOX)RaeOvSunshyn

[(PSN)FrDiabloFr]

23 minutes ago, LittleLeoniePrime said:

Lets not pre-overreact here and see what they actually learned from the first time yea..? @PublikDomain @(PSN)FrDiabloFr @(XBOX)RaeOvSunshyn

No overreacting at all it was just a harmless joke lol.

Edited May 15 by (PSN)FrDiabloFr

[Joylesstuna]

3 hours ago, LittleLeoniePrime said:

Lets not pre-overreact here and see what they actually learned from the first time yea..? @PublikDomain @(PSN)FrDiabloFr @(XBOX)RaeOvSunshyn

Learning a lesson<making money. 

[PublikDomain]

7 hours ago, LittleLeoniePrime said:

Lets not pre-overreact here and see what they actually learned from the first time yea..? @PublikDomain @(PSN)FrDiabloFr @(XBOX)RaeOvSunshyn

If the new Heirlooms have a bloat-free tier, aren't FOMO, and Mag and Frost are brought back to be fair to all the people who missed out last year of no fault of their own then great! But I have my doubts.

I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong!

[(PSN)FrDiabloFr]

2 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

If the new Heirlooms have a bloat-free tier, aren't FOMO, and Mag and Frost are brought back to be fair to all the people who missed out last year of no fault of their own then great! But I have my doubts.

I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong!

This has been discussed a whole lot, the fact DE said that mag and frost heirloom skins would never come back could cause some issues if they did bring them back, it would leave a lingering smell in the air.

[LittleLeoniePrime]

if heirlooms are to be somewhat like founder packs (judging by the fact they also got their own profile acolade and all) no, frost and mag will not return.

[ABlindGuyPlays]

On 2023-08-30 at 2:08 PM, [DE]Megan said:

our number one priority is addressing the community’

And yet you keep making this same mistake over... and over.. and OVER again only to act surprised and then 'apologetic' when the community calls shennanagins.

This happened with Prime Resurgence. You claimed you couldn't do anything 'til nexxt time' then offered a pidly po-dunk nothingburger for compensation. Then when your wallet was threatened because even the white knights couldn't get behind or excuse what was going on suddenly and miraculously changes happened in a damnedh urry all while you trotted someone out lip pooched out arms crossed huffing 'we're not doing this because of you!'

So I don't think for one moment you've actually learned anything other than getting another data point on where the line is between community infighting doing your work for you so you can claim success and fingerwag at the whole lot of us, and actually having to do something.

TL;DR:
Don't Lie To Us and claim you are So Sorry and have Learned Valuable Lessons.

 

[PublikDomain]

7 minutes ago, (PSN)FrDiabloFr said:

This has been discussed a whole lot, the fact DE said that mag and frost heirloom skins would never come back could cause some issues if they did bring them back, it would leave a lingering smell in the air.

Hasn't stopped them before.

They use the same kind of "exclusive" "limited time only" "get them before they're gone" language all over the place and repeatedly bring that content back anyways, as they're allowed to do outlined in the EULA we've all agreed to.

As for the lingering smell in the air that might occur if DE decided to be fair to the newbies and the poor who missed out last time, well, we can guess what type of people that smell would be coming from. Not exactly the kind I'd expect to be catered to in a game where "we all lift together".

[(PSN)FrDiabloFr]

1 minute ago, PublikDomain said:

Hasn't stopped them before.

They use the same kind of "exclusive" "limited time only" "get them before they're gone" language all over the place and repeatedly bring that content back anyways, as they're allowed to do outlined in the EULA we've all agreed to.

As for the lingering smell in the air that might occur if DE decided to be fair to the newbies and the poor who missed out last time, well, we can guess what type of people that smell would be coming from. Not exactly the kind I'd expect to be catered to in a game where "we all lift together".

Hey it’s all about “profit taking” see what i did there 😂😂

[Jivy]

3 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Hasn't stopped them before.

They use the same kind of "exclusive" "limited time only" "get them before they're gone" language all over the place and repeatedly bring that content back anyways, as they're allowed to do outlined in the EULA we've all agreed to.

As for the lingering smell in the air that might occur if DE decided to be fair to the newbies and the poor who missed out last time, well, we can guess what type of people that smell would be coming from. Not exactly the kind I'd expect to be catered to in a game where "we all lift together".

This isn't the same though

The Heirloom pack has legal standing and legally cannot come back since it is basically a founders 2.0 pack

[PublikDomain]

Just now, Jivy said:

This isn't the same though

The Heirloom pack has legal standing and legally cannot come back since it is basically a founders 2.0 pack

A speculative claim which has so far never been substantiated. What law are you referencing and in what jurisdiction is this the case? And why do those laws not apply to any of the other multitude examples given, like the Deimos Supporter Packs which were also cash-only, exclusive, time-limited offerings? And if DE is legally bound to not bring the packs back, why is there no mention of this in the OP?

On 2023-08-30 at 12:08 PM, [DE]Megan said:

This decision was made to address the feedback and maintain the expectations we had set for players upon the release of the Heirlooms (time exclusivity and Pack contents). In doing so, we are able to increase the value of pack contents in a way that does not remove any value for Tenno who have bought them. We do not feel it would be fair to those who purchased an Heirloom Collection already with the understanding that they were time-limited to now remove that element. Those who have purchased simply get more, and ultimately they are now a good Platinum deal with exclusive Cosmetics.

Why is the only reason given that DE feels it wouldn't be """fair"""? Surely if they were legally bound it would be easy to simply say so in their explanation, yes?

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

Unless you have a good legal understanding of the specifics involved, are a lawyer who specialises in such matters, you should probably just generally avoid telling people what is or isn't legally possible so broadly. Also even then, importantly, you should be able to explain how and why about the circumstances of your assertions. Like the specifics, details about certain wording/phrasing and context that would make them legally liable, and explanations and context to possible exemptions, circumvention, and why they wouldn't apply specifically. 

Hearing about it on Reddit or just assuming just because or because of common sense or falling back on ideas "well its obvious" aren't legal understanding or expertise. 

I for example, aren't a lawyer. I probably do know a little about certain legal matters, more than your average random person who hasn't studied the law, but my knowledge  doesn't really so specific to DE's situation, but also I know enough to also know to not go around insisting legal matters, without being open to just explaining what I do know and being open to being corrected with better information/context (especially from those that are actual experts and can explain more specifics on the matter, versus just insisting). I don't pretend to know with certainty one way or another. I have no idea why such topics tend to attract people who are so quick to claim legal knowledge and understanding to justify stances without actually being able to demonstrate sincere understanding and willingness to just explain versus relying on people just randomly believing them. 

If you read what I wrote, you are now legally obligated to send me stuff on my Warframe wish list. Just trust me bro. Its International Law 12.B. 

 

18 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

A speculative claim which has so far never been substantiated. What law are you referencing and in what jurisdiction is this the case? And why do those laws not apply to any of the other multitude examples given, like the Deimos Supporter Packs which were also cash-only, exclusive, time-limited offerings? And if DE is legally bound to not bring the packs back, why is there no mention of this in the OP?

 

Yes, exactly and to the rest of your posts on this topic in general. Well explained as always.

If people want to speculate or guess, thats obviously fine, but if they don't know, they don't know, and no one should pretend to know. I like to think back on the various times Rebecca has addressed such questions. Her wording is usually pretty considered. To my knowledge she has never explained limited time items as being a legal matter, or preventing their actions. Her framing is always more like "We have no plans", "thats how it has to be, as its retired and we have no plans, and "as far as I know, until someone tells me otherwise". 

It would be far more convenient and better for DE optics, if they were legally bound, to just state as much, if they just asserted that they were legally bound in certain ways. Except, ironically, unless they were actually legally bound, they probably shouldn't make such claims, if they weren't/aren't, because then that may actually create potential issues. Which is probably why they don't make that claim, but random anonymous people online can, and potentially be very wrong. Again though, I am not a telepath or DE lawyer who knows what, why and how DE Rebecca has had to answer and address such issues in the past, it could be possible they are legally bound, but instructed Rebecca to expressly never mention that they are, the point is at this level its just a lot of speculation and guessing with no hard factual basis or demonstration/persuasive evidence (as far as leading to one conclusion that is). 

 

[PublikDomain]

23 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Also even then, importantly, you should be able to explain how and why about the circumstances of your assertions.

Mostly this, yes. Like - if someone actually has the case law to point to where we can go and read it, please do provide. I have spent time looking at various laws in the EU and Australia and have not found anything that prohibits DE from changing an offer after advertising it. Instead what I've found are things like this:

Quote

False use of limited offers

When sellers tell you that a particular offer will only be available for a very limited time, they might be trying to pressure you to buy before taking the time to make an informed choice. It is unfair to claim that an offer is limited in time when that is not in fact the case.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-commercial-practices/index_en.htm

Which you might consider applying to for example the Deimos Supporter Packs. They claimed they were available for a limited time, this was not actually true and they were returned permanently at a later date.

Is DE breaking the law here? Either A) DE has regularly engaged in business practices considered unfair or blacklisted in the EU, or B) they're not actually doing anything wrong and wouldn't be doing anything wrong with Heirlooms.

Edited May 15 by PublikDomain

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

27 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Mostly this, yes. Like - if someone actually has the case law to point to where we can go and read it, please do provide. I have spent time looking at various laws in the EU and Australia and have not found anything that prohibits DE from changing an offer after advertising it. Instead what I've found are things like this:

 

27 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Which you might consider applying to for example the Deimos Supporter Packs. They claimed they were available for a limited time, this was not actually true and they were returned permanently at a later date.

Is DE breaking the law here? Either A) DE has regularly engaged in business practices considered unfair or blacklisted in the EU, or B) they're not actually doing anything wrong and wouldn't be doing anything wrong with Heirlooms.

 

Same. I wouldn't consider myself an expert or anything, but I have studied a little law, but my actual career ended up elsewhere. That and I am big on consumer rights/consumer rights advocacy, and then just a common fascination with interesting legal cases that became news worthy for some reason or the other (I remember as a kid, some adults around me, would sometimes reference the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, aka the McDonalds Hot Coffee case, but they were quite mocking and disparaging of the woman involved, talking about how "Sue Happy" the USA was, and how no one had "common sense" anymore. Then I remember growing up and learning that McD's did a smear campaign on her, and that the actual specifics of the incident reflected very poorly on them.

Crazy that a billion dollar company would somehow try to use money to warp peoples perception of that situation though to make themselves look better? 

Anyway, I was naive and uninformed, and ended up unintentionally buying into a billion dollar companies narrative, mocking a victim, all because I learned from people around me, that it was just "common sense", that "coffee should be hot."

Based on what I know, the more technical you try to get with consumers rights, the more you see language in law, thats crafted in such a way, because things can be complicated depending on the variables. Advantages those with power, money, resources etc have, is that they can often get the best experts relevant as far as interpreting and navigating such laws, for the sake of preemptively covering and protecting their interests. Like depending on the situation and variables, well there can be a lot to it, as far as establishing intent, like the intent to deceive or pressure. Like there is a reason why Consumer Rights websites, have to be careful and considerate with how they convey and explain such information. Its more there for people like me, and most of us, than actual legal professionals. Its why many such websites often encourage people with issues to contact them, so they can actually talk to someone who can sort out more of the specifics, and to interpret them more accurately, or consider other potential hurdles. 

Its why sometimes I find all this to be a bit funny and silly, because sometimes a random anonymous person online (myself included) will read something basic on advertising laws or false advertising and think that they interpret and understand the implications and consequences on the same level of finesses, understanding and skill someone with a decade of experience and knowledge on that particular topic can. There is a reason why legalese became a term used, language in law is its own beast. 

Again though, I would be happy to have an actual expert on the topic weight and educate us a bit more, and to be clear, I would absolutely prefer that laws and regulations be more refined, around such practices to avoid such sales techniques and tactics and framing and wording that can be used by businesses to "encourage" people spending, but thats a broader and more generalised idea. If such regulations were more consumer friendly, we'd also likely see less FOMO marketing tactics in certain games, (like Warframe probably, than them being rigidly bound by laws because of their marketing tactics, if they are then counter productive. 

[Jivy]

6 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

A speculative claim which has so far never been substantiated. What law are you referencing and in what jurisdiction is this the case?

the law that doesn't allow the founders program to come back

[PublikDomain]

35 minutes ago, Jivy said:

the law that doesn't allow the founders program to come back

Oh! Duh! That one, how could I have been so forgetful?

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

18 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Oh! Duh! That one, how could I have been so forgetful?

 

Do you think its Forest or Martial Law or perhaps one of their relatives? 

I still don't quite see why either of them would be motivated. Maybe if this was Kazuya or Heihachi, but the Laws? Don't buy it at all. 

[PublikDomain]

8 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Do you think its Forest or Martial Law or perhaps one of their relatives? 

I still don't quite see why either of them would be motivated. Maybe if this was Kazuya or Heihachi, but the Laws? Don't buy it at all. 

Don't #*!% with tree law 😂

[vixenpixel]

On 2024-05-15 at 7:25 PM, PublikDomain said:

If the new Heirlooms have a bloat-free tier, aren't FOMO, and Mag and Frost are brought back to be fair to all the people who missed out last year of no fault of their own then great! But I have my doubts.

I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong!

There's no way they bring it back. Hell, the fact that it was specifically said to be a one-time offer is probably a factor of why 50% of the people bought it. Missing out on the founder's pack has laid the groundwork for a business model that propels exclusive offers to the 'must-have' list of most warframe players.

Lately, we've seen the inclusion of regal aya as an alternative way of spending real money. I personally think that they should fill such an expensive heirloom pack with rewards so as to erase any doubt to the veracity of their honest intentions. I don't think 800p is enough to excuse an exclusive item pack riding on the back of the founder's pack's exclusivity. The regal aya should be increased as well since that's an actually exciting resource for all players even interested in the heirloom pack in the first place. If it's all about fashion, then focus on the fashion. Platinum, while nice, feels cheap comparatively. I buy alot of fashion items and the last thing I want to feel after I spend my money is "oof, this was not worth it" and I doubt DE wants their playerbase brimming with regret for their online purchases. I love this game and under all other circumstances I think Digital Extremes are an amazing developer studio that respects the community that love their game. I'm not a rich woman and between running a household and working half time, you can't expect me to be able to pay these ghastly sums without it actually hurting my wallet. I very much want to support DE. I've made so many friends on here and I play this game religiously in anticipation of the next story injection or frame/weapon. But when that september or november comes when DE releases their heirloom pack, I'm gonna be eating noodles to afford it. And it WILL leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Edited May 16 by vixenpixel

[Katinka]

11 hours ago, Jivy said:

the law that doesn't allow the founders program to come back

Pretty sure there is no such law and the actual reason given for not bringing Founders items back is that it was thought to be disrespectful to people who took a chance on the game in it's early days when money was tight for the company.  It's down to company policy and consumer trust rather than anything legal.  As someone with some Founders gear and the Heirloom pack, I am in favour of both returning and always have been.  Exclusives for the sake of being exclusive should always be avoided and after the Founders stuff they said they wouldn't do it again as exclusives were a mistake driven by a different time, when they didn't expect to have a successful game going for over a decade.  At this point using exclusivity as a marketing tool feels bad to me.