PSA PSA: Heirloom Collection Platinum Changes & Lessons

[vixenpixel]

50 minutes ago, Katinka said:

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.

I welcome them returning an exclusive i already own so I don't have to spend anything tbh. But if they do it in addition to an expensive other heirloom pack id feel cheated. 

[Jivy]

7 hours ago, Katinka said:

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.

then why do so many people say its a law then?

[PublikDomain]

22 minutes ago, Jivy said:

then why do so many people say its a law then?

Because they're parroting what they hear others say, and because it does make some sense - until you stop to think what it would actually mean. DE regularly violates the same """laws""" in other cases with no consequence, their EULA says they can do whatever they want, and besides vague remarks every once in a while on DevStreams the only reason they give for why Founders won't come back is the same reason they say Heirlooms won't come back and the same reason they gave for keeping plat out of Resurgence: because they don't want to.

Edited May 17 by PublikDomain

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

14 minutes ago, Jivy said:

then why do so many people say its a law then?

 

There are a few reasons why they could make that claim, but none of them are necessary accurate, correct or valid. 

One reason, is because they see other people claim it is, and they just go off that person. Like a lot of people in this thread claim its for legal reasons. People will often act on good faith when interpreting others points. They night think, well I don't know the reason, but that person claims its for legal reasons, so maybe they know and understand the situation better than I do, so I guess thats the reason. Its a bit like how Elvis was born with 5 nipples, its why no shirtless photos exists of him are common. If a hundred people read my comment, some of them will probably just shrug and believe what I said is true. Why would someone like about how many nipples Elvis has? Some younger people might not even know who Elvis is anyway, so its just some weird fact they might remember and regurgitate some time later. Some other people may think.. wait that doesn't sound right, then ask questions and question whether thats actually true or not, and try to research the claim to see how accurate that might be. Most people myself included read a lot of claims all the time, so many we also usually don't have time to fact check them. This is why context is important, I personally never just believe anything others say with 100% certainty, just like I also don't apply 100% skepticism. You can sort of operate in middle grounds, until you might find out more info to go one way or the other.

Its good for assessing say news stories, and political bias. 

Second reason, is in lieu of evidence, knowledge or actual truth or factual answers, people as a whole, are generally predisposed to trying to think up or guess answers/solutions to questions or problems. Like not many people are satisfied or content with the sense or feeling of "I don't know", unless they have been conditioned or taught that, that can have benefits and advantages. Its to do with some fun stuff around human behaviour, peer pressure, intuition, evolutionary adaptation, so on. In many situations, a wrong guess is better than just standing around being clueless and thinking about how ignorant you might be. Like in the wilds surrounded by wild predatory animals. However in say a class room or science lab... Learning to be okay with not actually knowing with certainty. 

So a lot of people's thought processes will go as follows. "DE once released an exclusive they haven't brought back, many people have asked and pleaded for it to come back. DE is a business who likes making money, many people are willing to give them money for a thing, this would probably make them a lot of money... Therefore why don't they release the thing again and make a lot of money, given they are a business? Ah, well thats easy to answer, they are legally bound, because they said something, and even though I don't know much about the law, obviously that would be false advertising, and since I can't think of any other reason or explanation, this has to be the right answer to this question. I am smart and reasonable, and reasoned the answer... Therefore the answer must be right". Or similar. 

Its a really common trap a lot of our brains tend to fall into, and why critical thinking and neutrality as well as like, evidence, vigorous testing, is important in say science as far as getting the best and most accurate results. You can't just rely on thinking you are intelligent and reasoning, in many cases, you actually still need to do testing, reflection, examination, and get actual evidence to follow up on hypothesis, predictions, etc. 

Thirdly. Lack of responsibility and accountability. People on the internet, will say wrong stuff all the time, and many will exaggerate, use hyperbole, joke, mislead for humour or some other effect, some people will even, just... lie to other people. I personally use to work at Americas most biggest and wealthiest, law firm, Pac, Bigg and Goldsmith. I was their top lawyer, I know what I am talking about, I'm the best expert, everyone should just listen to me all the time.

I obviously just made that up right now, but what are the consequences? Will I be disbarred? Will I be fined? Will I lost my actual job for pretending to be a lawyer? When you see a person make a claim about the law, is your response to think "Okay maybe, but how certain are you?" because many many people, even if they are certain, their certainty is often just because they feel or believe really really strongly about something. Sometimes those people also get defensive when you question them, because to them, their strong belief and feeling should be enough, to them, and they feel attacked when questioned. 

Some people... Some other people, don't take it personally at all, because their level of certainty is based on information and understanding that they are happy to share. They can explain their understanding. Like hypothetically speaking "I think its a legal issue, because I remember Devstream 160, the Devs said it was a legal issue, here is the Youtube link, and time stamp. I might be wrong though, because I am not a lawyer and maybe the Devs aren't lawyers either, maybe they are wrong too, but this is my current understanding."

When I personally approach legal issues, especially in regards to consumer rights, I take it super seriously. Even though in the grand scheme of things, digital exclusives aren't that important, there are many many legal issues, and consumer rights issues and just ethical and moral reasons to take understanding of such matters seriously. This is why I personally never like to claim anything with certainty if its a legal matter, because I am not a lawyer and I don't have the knowledge to answer with certainty and even if I did, I would make sure to explain myself and give references. Also, for the best understanding? Actually contact someones whose reputation is verifiable and matters. An actual lawyer with a name and face, who has a reputation, will usually give a far more considerate answer than a random anonymous 12 year old with strong feelings and opinions. For one, its a throw away comment with zero consequences, for the other, they will need to take it way more seriously, because if they are wrong, it may negatively affect their livelihood. Mind you, there is obviously more nuance and range to such things, usually you can pick up context clues in interactions with others about how sincere, serious, good faith etc they are. As far as who you may trust, who explains stuff and who just insists, who uses arguments from authority versus expertise and understanding, and so on. 

If someone ever says something is a law, and you don't personally know. It can be good to ask them to explain their assertion a bit more, ask them if they are a legal expert or what knowledge and evidence they do have, ask them for sources and references for their claims, find out how serious they are about the issue. How certain they are, then also look at the people who are questioning that, and asking how the first person deals with those questions. I mean if you care about an accurate understanding of the matter. For many people, they don't care, and thats okay too. 

(Also a bonus 4th meta reason, I just wrote a thorough nuanced explanation about why people who might make claims can be wrong, how many people will actually want to spend time reading everything I wrote? It could be the best explanation ever but its a wall of text. Another person can just write one line and say "They are legally bound" and far more people can read and digest that, and believe that. They see a sentence, they read it, they see multi paragraph walls of text and they... peace out. Except the other issue is if you just say "Nuh it it isn't" well, thats not really actually explaining anything. Thats just two people disagreeing and people will often just go with any inclination or belief they already had). Oh that being said, Nuh uh, it isn't, in this context might be more accurate, and in no way am I criticising people who give very short and concise answers, replies or posts. Sometimes those are far more valuable depending on context. 

[SpicyDinosaur]

5 hours ago, Jivy said:

then why do so many people say its a law then?

I have yet to hear anyone say this. Only that they will never be brought back out of respect to founders, who saved the game.

[Hexerin]

Quote

§52. Dissemination of false advertisements

(a) Unlawfulness

It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation to disseminate, or cause to be disseminated, any false advertisement-

(1) By United States mails, or in or having an effect upon commerce, by any means, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly the purchase of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics; or

(2) By any means, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase in or having an effect upon commerce, of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics.

Source, official from the US gov't. This is just the US's law on the matter. Most developed countries have their own versions of such laws, varying from stronger to weaker.

EDIT: Even better, a quick search resulted in Canada's own law on the matter: Link

Edited May 19 by Hexerin

[PublikDomain]

3 hours ago, Hexerin said:

Source, official from the US gov't. This is just the US's law on the matter. Most developed countries have their own versions of such laws, varying from stronger to weaker.

EDIT: Even better, a quick search resulted in Canada's own law on the matter: Link

Then we're left with one of two options:

1. DE has been regularly engaging in unfair and deceptive advertising, like with the oft-advertised "exclusivity" and "get it before they're gone" for things like Supporter packs, Twitch Prime, Prime Gaming, and Prime Access - all of which later materially changed.
2. DE has not been regularly engaging in unfair and deceptive advertising, because the law doesn't say that a product or service can never change from what is originally advertised.

A good, common-sense example is the Saita Prime Operator suit. It originally had one appearance, which DE advertised. They later changed the appearance to something different. This is a material change, and goes against one of the "don'ts" outlined in the Canadian link:

Quote

Don't use illustrations that are different from the product being sold.

Was the original ad now false advertising?

[Hexerin]

6 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

1. DE has been regularly engaging in unfair and deceptive advertising, like with the oft-advertised "exclusivity" and "get it before they're gone" for things like Supporter packs, Twitch Prime, Prime Gaming, and Prime Access - all of which later materially changed.

I've already explained how you're wrong on this, so your continued insistence on not educating yourself is on you. Have fun being willfully ignorant, I guess?

Edited May 20 by Hexerin

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

This is a great example of singular interpretation and insistence/vehemence, versus explanation, and breaking down variables to be considered, for the express purpose of determining whether a situation warrants legal repercussions/breaches legality. 

I'll explain with an example I am familiar with. Lets say I have a friend called Joe Example, and he hears about the McDonalds Coffee lawsuit, and he decides that he wants some easy money, and it would be pretty easy to spill some hot coffee over himself and then demand money from McDonalds. Some other lady had that happen, so clearly and obviously it should also work for him right? Well no, Joe's interpretation is inaccurate here, the actual specifics are more complex and nuance. Its not like the original famous lawsuit situation was over any random hot coffee, it was found that the specific restaurant she got her coffee from, was operating the machines much hotter than other McDonalds and general establishments that sell hot coffee. I mean, they used actual numbers, but I am not so familiar with the case I can recall the exact differences in temperature of the top of my head. Either way, there was a substantial difference. Then McDonalds defence, was multiple, but one was the idea that they made coffee that hot, was because they believed their customers using drive throughs, planned to drink the coffee later, so it was actually in benefit of the customer that such coffees should be that hot... Until it was also brought to light that McDonalds also had internal research that ran counter to their argument. Which you know, isn't a good look. 

My main point is that you can't just look at a law in a vacuum, and think your own personal interpretation means much without having to consider more nuanced and complicated variables. There were a lot of people after the above case that thought they knew better than they actually did, who had some pretty strong but uninformed and wrong beliefs about the details and validity of the lawsuit, so much so that the case became a bit of a mocking point against the victim, and seen as a poster child for frivolous litigation. Of course it didn't help that McDonalds ran a smear campaign, was already familiar with such lawsuits, but attempted to downplay them, settle frequently, but ultimately be more interested in their brand value overall. 

I also apologise I can't bring up a more relevant or related lawsuit, because full transparency, I don't know any lawsuits involving video games, advertising and false advertising, and the details and context of what occurred, and what that might mean as far as other cases and situations. Lets take this though, thank you for bringing this up Hexerin. 

 

11 hours ago, Hexerin said:

§52. Dissemination of false advertisements

(a) Unlawfulness

It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation to disseminate, or cause to be disseminated, any false advertisement-

(1) By United States mails, or in or having an effect upon commerce, by any means, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly the purchase of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics; or

(2) By any means, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase in or having an effect upon commerce, of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics.

 

What would actually classify as false advertising in this context. What does induce and likely to induce mean in this context? Why is the wording, not just does induce? Why does the wording introduce relativity, a qualifier like likely? This is where the crux of the issue lays, because some people might say its obvious, but some people may be wrong. 

Like DE could already be liable and in breach of such laws, but... No one has actually pressed the matter legally. There might not many similar cases where a precedent has already been established, so it might be a headache of a legal issue to press, unless you have someone with the resources, time, and will to pursue it. Video games are also relatively new, and video game digital transactions even newer, and if we look at such laws around false advertising, many are old, and whilst they are amended and updated... some of these "new updates"... still occurred prior to Pac-Man, let alone QuizQuiz, Second Life. The Elder Scrolls IV, etc.(Though it is also cool how Covid made them actually refine some of it as well). 

DE could already be liable, because there have already been times, when their official text read as "you can only get this item this way, or this is limited time only, only available this way" only for a few years later, to actually rerelease an item, rerelease the item, in a way you can get it through alternative means, and or available through another means. So you can ask the question, is that false advertising? Which is where things can get more complicated, because let me introduce two different scenarios. 

Scenario 1. Those responsible for the marketing, were fully aware that the claim was insincere, and they only used such terminology to induce consumers into buying the product, even though they knew they would offer the items again later. (if this could be established or argued, then this is pretty straight forward). 

Scenario 2. Some people draw up a financial model for their business. They make decisions around how that might best work. They create a user agreement to sort of preemptively protect themselves against certain possible risks. For example, Warframe, frequently updates. Its an online game, thats ongoing. Its not a physical bike that you sell once. It makes sense you'll want to have a user agreement that sort of addresses such ideas, like say someone who brought a Prime Access 7 years ago, because they liked how that Warframe played, 5 years later, that Warframe gets reworked... but they don't like that. Is Warframe liable? Or, could it be argued that the nature of the game, requires users be aware that such changes happen regularly and to apply discretion? Anyway, DE has a lot of different people, hypothetically you have people who deal with finances and ideas for monetisation, and then those who have to do marketing and advertising, and people who will actually write out things, and then you also have legal people. There could be intent (sincere), that a new monetisation model, will follow through as intended. Then, based on how customers and consumers react and respond to such a strategy... Later on, they might reflect and decide that they have a superior monetisation plan, thats different and superior and in their best interests, and decide to make some items available another way. Then pass that on to the advertising and marketing team. So effectively their intent and sincerity can actually change, and may have good reason to. Something similar can apply in many situations, around supply and demand, external factors that excuse the intent and design of a business (variables that they can't control or be expected to control, within reason).

It could be argued that at the time of the original offer, there was no intent to deceive or mislead. In multiple ways. Its not unheard of for businesses, to look for loopholes, and ways to defend themselves, or to try and exploit possible legal issues. Sometimes its a legal arms race, with new ways to exploit gaining traction and then new regulations/laws to reduce that. This is also why what I mentioned earlier is also relevant because in my experience, many actual legal experts who understand both video games and the law, tend to generally talk about how the law can struggle with being relevant when keeping up toe pace of games monetisation models, loot boxes so on. Not to mention, businesses who are more ethically minded, or consumer friendly, making changes that may reflect new approaches/ideas, so nit actually being premeditated deceit or intent to induce formerly. Its complicated. Law school isn't a few years of study and learning just because, when any random can just Google the law. 

Also to once again be crystal clear, I am not saying that above scenarios are reflective or actual, or that either or neither could actually stand up legally. Some of the hypotheticals may not mean anything. Like the legal interaction between law and EULAs is complicated when you discuss what can or could be enforceable and what might not. There is a lot of discussion around that, between actual experts and laymen who happen to be interested/invested. Especially in regards to different countries laws, different potential EULA's (like to be clear, when I mentioned EULA in scenario 2, thats not to say that it could cover DE legally, since its more complicated than that, but it could potentially be used to argue a finer point around say... customers being aware of the nature of live service games, that constantly update and what that could mean for rights around purchasing an item, that may invariably change, due to the nature of the game. Arguing that within reason, such games couldn't actually continue, if no changes could occur based on the perception of belief that a customer making a purchase would have that item remain exactly the same given the model. Which then touches on the idea of inducing/pressuring.). 

Also again to be crystal clear, personally? I do think that games and products like Warframe, should be way way more careful, transparent and deliberate with their wording, and advertising, especially with long term plans and understanding. Nothing they should be doing, should be pressuring or inducing people to pay for a product, but especially if understand, that in the future, they might change their minds, and be legally covered if they do, because of how their legal teams can interpret and understand the law and their potential liability and tells them its an acceptable risk and fine, and this way a workable monetisation plan, that can be improved at a later date if new data shows them that a better monetisation approach can exist as well. I personally think that is shady and exploitive, even if the law may be inadequate to press the issue right now... 

TL;DR You can't necessarily look at words when dealing with legal issues and take things for granted, when it may just be legalese and require expert knowledge and understanding to potentially explain all the other necessary details that may be relevant. I am not a legal expert, so I don't say too much with certainty, but I know enough to know, that it can be complicated and there are points of contention that can be argued around defining intent, what counts as inducing, where exceptions may apply and for what reasons, what is or isn't enforceable, matters of precedent, so on. 

[Hexerin]

7 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

What would actually classify as false advertising in this context.

Explicitly stating that the items in question will never be available again (as was done for both Founders and Heirloom), but then releasing them again in the future. This would entitle all those who bought them to the right to seek prosecution on DE (theoretically via the FTC, although I'm not intimately familiar with the exact minutiae of how these things go down because I frankly just don't care). Since DE isn't based in the US, however, the most DE would likely suffer is hefty fine(s) etc.

I'm not Canadian, so I dunno how Canada would handle their own law on the matter. Since Canada parrots the US on a lot of things, I wouldn't be surprised if the overall process was ultimately similar, however.

[PublikDomain]

5 hours ago, Hexerin said:

Explicitly stating that the items in question will never be available again (as was done for both Founders and Heirloom), but then releasing them again in the future. This would entitle all those who bought them to the right to seek prosecution on DE (theoretically via the FTC, although I'm not intimately familiar with the exact minutiae of how these things go down because I frankly just don't care). Since DE isn't based in the US, however, the most DE would likely suffer is hefty fine(s) etc.

I'm not Canadian, so I dunno how Canada would handle their own law on the matter. Since Canada parrots the US on a lot of things, I wouldn't be surprised if the overall process was ultimately similar, however.

Did explicitly showing what the items in question looked like (as was done for the Saita Prime Operator suit), but then changing it in the future entitle all those who bought it the right to seek prosecution of DE?

Did explicitly stating that the items in question were exclusive (as was done for the Deimos, Zariman, and New War Supporter Packs), but then releasing them again in the future to everyone else entitle all those who bought it the right to seek prosecution of DE?

Did explicitly stating that the items in question were exclusive to the Prime Access program (as was done for the earliest Prime Access cosmetics), but then releasing them again in the future as part of the Prime Vault program entitle all those who bought it the right to seek prosecution of DE?

Does what you're saying work when applied to other things?

Edited May 20 by PublikDomain

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

7 minutes ago, Hexerin said:

Explicitly stating that the items in question will never be available again (as was done for both Founders and Heirloom), but then releasing them again in the future. This would entitle all those who bought them to the right to seek prosecution on DE (theoretically via the FTC, although I'm not intimately familiar with the exact minutiae of how these things go down because I frankly just don't care). Since DE isn't based in the US, however, the most DE would likely suffer is hefty fine(s) etc.

I'm not Canadian, so I dunno how Canada would handle their own law on the matter. Since Canada parrots the US on a lot of things, I wouldn't be surprised if the overall process was ultimately similar, however.

 

Sure, I think thats a fair enough opinion.

However I do care, and I am intimately familiar with some of the minutia of how some of these things can go down, enough to always remind others explicitly that I am not a lawyer or legal expert, and that a legal expert or lawyers reading and understanding of such matters would be important as far as interpreting meaning and establishing context for and around claims and counter claims. I think people should be weary of making claims about the legality of a subject just because they have the ability to use Google and have a spare 5 minutes. It may and usually is more complicated. 

Enough to also say that Heirlooms and Founders have enough differences to be be considered separate issues, with their own discretionary perspectives, regardless of ones personal takes, and that they also have similarities with a few other items DE have advertised. Also that DE could be liable, already and with possible future actions, but could entitle and will entitle are different. An important distinction. Also that as far as rhetoric, repetition is no substitute for explanation. The point I just made, makes sense, because I said it. Since it does, and since it makes sense, my point is made. Meaning, I have read far more in-depth analysis of various countries, including US's and Canadas laws around false advertising, as weird as it might seem to some, even a business stating so explicitly something would never return, isn't necessarily that liable or a breach in legalities, potentially, based on certain other variables, which arguably shouldn't be a thing on one hand, then again, variables and context often matters. Regardless, more in-depth knowledge doesn't necessarily mean proficiency in understanding how such issues play out in practice in either USA's or Canadian legal systems, assuming it even gets that far.

Which is also another reason I personally aren't making hard claims for or against, because its a bit meaningless on a random internet forum. I might as well insist that the Universe will end in 7 billion years exactly and not a billion years sooner or later. What are the chances and likelihood someone would get into a position to take it that far? People have already threatened legal action DE many many times, including as recently as over Dante nerfs, and the Supporter packs being made available. Most of the time its just people with a naive understanding of legal processes. There was even a Youtuber who tried to make a big deal about DE's EULA and how they were going to make a big video pointing out how flawed it was, only to have to backtrack and back down hard after their points were mocked and criticised. 

[PublikDomain]

Some big good changes for Heirlooms! A higher tier of extra-premium Deluxes with temporary cash packs plus permanent plat packs and a la carte purchasing. Huge win!

Unless you like Mag and Frost.

[Waeleto]

Huge W on the heirloom rework

[PR1D3]

1 minute ago, PublikDomain said:

Some big good changes for Heirlooms! A higher tier of extra-premium Deluxes with temporary cash packs plus permanent plat packs and a la carte purchasing. Huge win!

Unless you like Mag and Frost.

Lmao I was waiting for this post!

[PublikDomain]

2 minutes ago, PR1D3 said:

Lmao I was waiting for this post!

Victory is bittersweet.

Good thing I don't really like Mag and Frost. Sucks for all of you that do, but did you try just not being poor? 🤔

[Binket_]

AND HERE WE GO AGAIN.
HEIRLOOM 2: HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF EDITION.

No Mag, no Frost-- but don't worry guys! "Ember will save the day!"
Welp, only reinforcing my "Don't buy anything from Warframe" verdict.
I don't care how many coupons you give, I'm not buying your Platinum.

I'm ESPECIALLY not paying an insane sum of cash for an overly-hyped Deluxe skin.
That's what I have Tennogen for, which is a practice I can get behind.

 

Welp, time to sift through the trodden debris once it crash lands into the game.
Looking... "forward" to it, truuuuuly...

[(XBOX)Shodian]

2 minutes ago, Binket_ said:

AND HERE WE GO AGAIN.
HEIRLOOM 2: HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF EDITION.

No Mag, no Frost-- but don't worry guys! "Ember will save the day!"
Welp, only reinforcing my "Don't buy anything from Warframe" verdict.
I don't care how many coupons you give, I'm not buying your Platinum.

I'm ESPECIALLY not paying an insane sum of cash for an overly-hyped Deluxe skin.
That's what I have Tennogen for, which is a practice I can get behind.

 

Welp, time to sift through the trodden debris once it crash lands into the game.
Looking... "forward" to it, truuuuuly...

Ok

[Waeleto]

6 minutes ago, Binket_ said:

AND HERE WE GO AGAIN.
HEIRLOOM 2: HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF EDITION.

No Mag, no Frost-- but don't worry guys! "Ember will save the day!"
Welp, only reinforcing my "Don't buy anything from Warframe" verdict.
I don't care how many coupons you give, I'm not buying your Platinum.

I'm ESPECIALLY not paying an insane sum of cash for an overly-hyped Deluxe skin.
That's what I have Tennogen for, which is a practice I can get behind.

 

Welp, time to sift through the trodden debris once it crash lands into the game.
Looking... "forward" to it, truuuuuly...

We already knew frost and mag CAN'T and WON'T come back, we knew that since day 1

Everything they said today about heirloom was a good change and i'm excited to see more heirloom skins in a healthy way 

[Binket_]

Just now, Waeleto said:

We already knew frost and mag CAN'T and WON'T come back, we knew that since day 1

Yes, it was stupid and it's still stupid now.
I know it won't, so I bop them over the head with that memory until it registers "Maybe we shouldn't do that".

.... y'know, for good that is.

1 minute ago, Waeleto said:

Everything they said today about heirloom was a good change

I firmly believe there is going to be AT LEAST two distinct "clauses" that are going to rear their ugly head the moment it launches.
DE is good at making things sound like they're good before they release, I'll say that much. _{Just look at Duviri and Railjack.}

In fact, it's precisely BECAUSE they're known for that is why I'm looking at their with the gaze (and judgement) of a gargoyle.

[Prjkt_Shiro]

34 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Some big good changes for Heirlooms! A higher tier of extra-premium Deluxes with temporary cash packs plus permanent plat packs and a la carte purchasing. Huge win!

Unless you like Mag and Frost.

I'm back to say that I am pleased with their changes.

 

Now only if they'd bring back Frost and Mag and wash away the bad thoughts that still swirl around Heirloom packs as a whole.

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

As someone that was and still is pretty critical of the original Heirloom situation. Thank you. I generally like and appreciate the changes that are being made. Much better, and much more consumer friendly. 

That they will always be available, be available for Platinum as well paid currency, the bundle being cheaper and more focused on the actual items and not necessarily other items that could be brought separately (Regal Aya). Its nice. 

Part of me wants to speculate on some certain other things, like certain former packs, availability but eh. Time is a thing. Mostly, thank you for listening to feedback. 

[PR1D3]

34 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Victory is bittersweet.

Good thing I don't really like Mag and Frost. Sucks for all of you that do, but did you try just not being poor? 🤔

Unfortunate yeah, but hey, its a victory nonetheless. At least going forward everyone has an option.  Thanks to the gaming industry being dog S#&$, resulting me not really buying anything that year, I did get the pack given that I do love Mag and Frost.

Spoiler

I'm definitely getting this lewd as hell Ember Skin pack. God only knows what MrWarframeGuy and SpaceWaifuArt is going to do with that skin design.

 

[Katinka]

Sounded like good changes, shame they couldn't have done that the first time round.  Mag and Frost can join Excalibur with their bad idea limited promo items for no good reason.

I might start buying Pt again when offered discounts if this turns out as good as it sounds.  I use to buy a little bit here and there just to throw some cash at the game and have some Pt to spend on cosmetics, but I funded my purchase of Mag & Frost Heirloom by instead keeping a tally of how much I would have spent and instead getting the bundle in the last days.  If this Ember set turns out as good as it sounds then I'll spend Pt on it and go back to periodically buying Pt.

[Nervous_Nonbinary]

Last year I had major health issues throughout the year and couldn't purchase the 10th anniversary pack because of it. Glad I'm doing better now so I can maybe purchase Ember's, but still feels bad to have played since beta and continually see time gating become less and less warranted and more about pressuring impulse purchases. Especially when players can farm plat in game but aren't allowed to use it for these items, which I would have gladly done.