Why are Supporter Pack skins being resold for Platinum?

[(XBOX)YoungGunn82]

Would DE have sold as many if we new that weren’t exclusive and they would come back around? Probably not. I know I would have waited and bought them for plat without spending any money. It does feel scummy. 

[Tiltskillet]

36 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Better question, why haven't they always been? FOMO is inherently predatory and the less of it the better. Supporter packs made permanently available for plat with discounts for paying in cash are the right way to go.

I think that DE should stick to whatever commitments they made in the past about exclusivity.  (I haven't followed the issue in this thread, so I'm not saying they made a commitment and broke it here.  I'm venturing no opinion on that.)

Going forward I agree with you, the less fomo the better.  But they should be transparent about it and take care not to imply exclusivity where there is none.  Because that's predatory too.

[Shodian87]

29 minutes ago, Tiltskillet said:

But they should be transparent about it and take care not to imply exclusivity where there is none. 

But they did though. it says * will be exclusive to this pack for a limited time

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

It has been my understanding that the only packs to never be resold are the initial Founder Packs. Everything else is open game, and will return in some form at some future time.

They learned the hard way not to make actual "exclusives" that never reappear, partly due to the continuing growth of the game, and new players who didn't exist at the release of certain packs and things.

This has been CLEAR from many dev interviews and statements in the past. What the advertising said and whatever FOMO they tried to drum up during the initial release and launch of these things must always be viewed in this light. "Exclusives" are only exclusive in the initial release bundle form, returning separately later, or bought in some other way later, perhaps even earnable in game through the Nightwave system.

[Drachnyn]

I simply assumed the supporter packs would stay real money only so this is a nice surprise for me.

[Ghastly-Ghoul]

I paid $90 for the Mag and Frost Heirlooms bundle. I would be fine if it was released a year later for a reduced price or for a large sum of platinum. I was able to spend a whole year with the skins instead of thinking of how nice it'd be if I had purchased it then even if it was guaranteed to be available again next year.

What should be exclusive is the accolade on our profiles. You'd then have to go out of your way to see that someone was a supporter.

Edited March 2 by Ghastly-Ghoul

[Voltage]

14 hours ago, Hexerin said:

"If those filthy free to play peasants can get my toys, I won't play with those toys anymore."

Platinum is pretty easy to acquire, and most of the value in those cosmetics was their exclusivity. They simply said there is no value to them in buying the packs if they just get released later. Your quotation was fabricated and misrepresents who you're quoting.

14 hours ago, Hexerin said:

What a toxic take, my guy.

Look in the mirror.

7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Better question, why haven't they always been? FOMO is inherently predatory and the less of it the better. Supporter packs made permanently available for plat with discounts for paying in cash are the right way to go.

Marketing something as FOMO to then rug-pull those they encouraged sales to is not a positive step in addressing the situation. I'm totally in your boat, and that's why I made this thread. I want people to understand that the marketing language was disrespectful and fleecing players who know the history of DE using and honoring the word "exclusive" in sales. I really don't understand how people still parade that DE respects Founders, but they continue to disrespect players in the same vein (either by driving FOMO campaigns or rug-pulling marketed exclusives).

If there is ever a future supporter pack with this kind of language, they should be held accountable for now setting the precedent that they are using ambiguous language to fleece a player for something they intend to not be exclusive the whole time.

This thread really shows me how people will act to justify the means of this behavior. Facetious comments from a Moderator who knows full well that the same "gotcha" loophole they defend this behavior with can be applied to the Founders and Heirlooms Packages really shows where we're at with this. If it's disrespectful to do it to Founders, it's disrespectful to do it to everyone else. Plain and simple.

I am not upset that the skins are sold for Platinum, I am upset that used FOMO to sell them originally, and as someone who wanted those exclusives, I feel betrayed by their previous precedent of always honoring that FOMO language because they understood that many people specifically made that purchase because it was worded in that way. I would have much rather spent Platinum on these specific cosmetics than hundreds of dollars over the years on Supporter Packs for specific updates that not only included items marketed as exclusive, but also reduced my gameplay with physical items I would have farmed for bundled in to drive up the price.

Those assuming my discontent is over the positive change of letting other players have what I have purchased aren't looking at the situation fairly. These skins should have never been marketed with vocabulary to indicate exclusivity for these specific major updates only if their intent was to sell them later. FOMO is dumb, and I can absolutely dislike it while still participating in it, because I like this game, and it's not like you have many options to dodge this behavior, so while it sucks, I do want to outline when it's wrong and should be corrected for transparency to give players a more educated buying experience. Unfortunately, you're not escaping this modern marketing on large games unless you're hopping around the fad titles.

If this behavior is the new precedent for the word "exclusive", then we should all come together in agreement and ask for this exploitation of vocabulary applied to the stuff that has not yet rereleased. Stop pretending like you honor or respect the sentiment of sales specifically derived from this marketing language. 

Edited March 2 by Voltage

[pwnSacrifice]

10 hours ago, Skoomaseller said:

God I need the Waverider support pack so bad. 

I forgot that was a supporter pack. 

For your sake, I hope it's put up soon. Definitely one of the coolest drones. I don't get why it wasn't included with the rest.

9 hours ago, Skoomaseller said:

JUSTICE FOR AMBASSADOR 

I really want to like it more, but you nailed it. They did the ambassador dirty, and both stahlta and aeolak preform far better. 

Skin is cool but I'd just rather have a real Tenet than a "We have Tenet at home" brand.

 

[NightmareT12]

I already explained this earlier, but as someone well versed in law (my primary study) it's been already explained earlier on this thread and also on reddit by various people, and very correctly I must add, why the packs can be brought back and what the context of the word exclusive is in this cases with the disclaimers added.

I must say that at this point I think the discussion is starting to take a turn towards bad faith, because outside Founder and Heirloom packs DE has very properly made clear what can return and what not -- and any Prime Access and the supporter packs do a properly good job at explaining the items remain exclusive to the packs for an undisclosed amount of time. Amount of time that this precedent sets between 2 to 4 years.

If I have to be honest I think this is a direct not planned response to Heirloom packs backlash last year, they've probably taken it to heart and took it to their legal team what can be brought back and under which terms.

[Voltage]

58 minutes ago, NightmareT12 said:

I already explained this earlier, but as someone well versed in law (my primary study) it's been already explained earlier on this thread and also on reddit by various people, and very correctly I must add, why the packs can be brought back and what the context of the word exclusive is in this cases with the disclaimers added.

I must say that at this point I think the discussion is starting to take a turn towards bad faith, because outside Founder and Heirloom packs DE has very properly made clear what can return and what not -- and any Prime Access and the supporter packs do a properly good job at explaining the items remain exclusive to the packs for an undisclosed amount of time. Amount of time that this precedent sets between 2 to 4 years.

If the items were to return later, why would they go out of their way to mark items with asterisks and use phrases with specific terms to indicate urgency on the purchase? Again, they are technically allowed to release them, but why is this a point of contention in the first place? I'm looking at this as a consumer, not a lawyer.

[KIREEK]

5 hours ago, Ghastly-Ghoul said:

I paid $90 for the Mag and Frost Heirlooms bundle. I would be fine if it was released a year later for a reduced price or for a large sum of platinum. I was able to spend a whole year with the skins instead of thinking of how nice it'd be if I had purchased it then even if it was guaranteed to be available again next year.

What should be exclusive is the accolade on our profiles. You'd then have to go out of your way to see that someone was a supporter.

Edited March 2 by KIREEK

[SneakyErvin]

If you read through all the info regarding those packs it would require quite the feat to misinterpret what they say. Both the linked sites regarding the The New War packs use the following line.

Quote

One per account. Items marked with * will be exclusive to this pack for a limited time.

There is no real way to interpret that in more than one way. The other longer note is more vague though since the 4 items. But since the above quote is also part of the info it is very hard to misinterpret even the longer note. 

[PublikDomain]

1 hour ago, Voltage said:

Marketing something as FOMO to then rug-pull those they encouraged sales to is not a positive step in addressing the situation. I'm totally in your boat, and that's why I made this thread. I want people to understand that the marketing language was disrespectful and fleecing players who know the history of DE using and honoring the word "exclusive" in sales. I really don't understand how people still parade that DE respects Founders, but they continue to disrespect players in the same vein (either by driving FOMO campaigns or rug-pulling marketed exclusives).

If there is ever a future supporter pack with this kind of language, they should be held accountable for now setting the precedent that they are using ambiguous language to fleece a player for something they intend to not be exclusive the whole time.

This thread really shows me how people will act to justify the means of this behavior. Facetious comments from a Moderator who knows full well that the same "gotcha" loophole they defend this behavior with can be applied to the Founders and Heirlooms Packages really shows where we're at with this. If it's disrespectful to do it to Founders, it's disrespectful to do it to everyone else. Plain and simple.

I am not upset that the skins are sold for Platinum, I am upset that used FOMO to sell them originally, and as someone who wanted those exclusives, I feel betrayed by their previous precedent of always honoring that FOMO language because they understood that many people specifically made that purchase because it was worded in that way. I would have much rather spent Platinum on these specific cosmetics than hundreds of dollars over the years on Supporter Packs for specific updates that not only included items marketed as exclusive, but also reduced my gameplay with physical items I would have farmed for bundled in to drive up the price.

Those assuming my discontent is over the positive change of letting other players have what I have purchased aren't looking at the situation fairly. These skins should have never been marketed with vocabulary to indicate exclusivity for these specific major updates only if their intent was to sell them later. FOMO is dumb, and I can absolutely dislike it while still participating in it, because I like this game, and it's not like you have many options to dodge this behavior, so while it sucks, I do want to outline when it's wrong and should be corrected for transparency to give players a more educated buying experience. Unfortunately, you're not escaping this modern marketing on large games unless you're hopping around the fad titles.

If this behavior is the new precedent for the word "exclusive", then we should all come together in agreement and ask for this exploitation of vocabulary applied to the stuff that has not yet rereleased. Stop pretending like you honor or respect the sentiment of sales specifically derived from this marketing language. 

It's absolutely a positive step in addressing this situation. What else would you have done? Leave the bad thing bad just to honor their bad word? They absolutely should remove this kind of marketing language, I agree. They should stop using it in the future as well. But even if they update their language and stop fleecing players with FOMO in the future, that wouldn't change the fact that they've already fleeced, disrespected, and excluded so many in the past. Addressing past wrongs is part of the process too. To leave past wrongs be is to give DE a pass for having done it.

And if you'd like to hold DE "accountable", please do! You've got rights, probably. Exercise them! I fully encourage you to seek whatever remedy you might have available so that DE can learn that even if they try to make things right later on, it's better to not have made things wrong in the first place.

[MrDugan]

22 hours ago, Voltage said:

"Items marked with * will be exclusive to this pack for a limited time."

They were exclusive to those packs.  For a limited time.  Now they are not exclusive anymore.  I can't get behind the mentality of exclusives.  On pretty much any level.  I didn't have any of the packs they brought back because they don't interest me, but if they ever bring back packs that I do have, I will not care in the slightest.  Any time I have spent money on the game, it was because I felt the game was in a place worth supporting, and I did so.  

It feels to me that you're upset about the fact that you spent money on things, and players now can spend plat on those things.  This should only be upsetting if you purchased those things because you wanted the cosmetics and gave in to FOMO, and not because you felt the game was worth supporting.  If the game was worth supporting at the time of purchase, then you helped keep it running, and it's still here going on 11 years.  Now those same things are available for plat, and that will keep the game running in a different way, with better engagement numbers and players getting access to things they might not have even been around for, or could not afford.

Players that are free to play out of necessity, be it because of finances as an adult, or just being a kid with no income, are just as important as the players dropping cash.  They keep the game from being empty, keep up the metrics that matter to the accountants that run these companies, and keep plat moving through the economy.  Ensuring that they have access to the same things as the players dropping cash is and should be an absolute pillar of a good F2P model.  I may have my reservations about some of DE's motivations, but we're still doing better than Destiny players.  Be glad that the packs came back and others have opportunities they might not otherwise get.

Edited March 2 by MrDugan

[PublikDomain]

8 hours ago, Tiltskillet said:

I think that DE should stick to whatever commitments they made in the past about exclusivity.  (I haven't followed the issue in this thread, so I'm not saying they made a commitment and broke it here.  I'm venturing no opinion on that.)

I completely disagree. Sticking to a bad commitment doesn't change that it's bad. I don't want DE to keep their word when their word in this case is predatory and exclusionary. I want DE to honor good promises and leave behind bad ones like these.

[MrDugan]

19 minutes ago, Voltage said:

f the items were to return later, why would they go out of their way to mark items with asterisks and use phrases with specific terms to indicate urgency on the purchase? Again, they are technically allowed to release them, but why is this a point of contention in the first place? I'm looking at this as a consumer, not a lawyer.

Because the F2P marketing, even good models, are often based around predatory amounts of FOMO.

[-Krism-]

Remember people, positivity isn't allowed on the forums

These items are back & you must be mad about it

[NightmareT12]

21 minutes ago, Voltage said:

If the items were to return later, why would they go out of their way to mark items with asterisks and use phrases with specific terms to indicate urgency on the purchase? Again, they are technically allowed to release them, but why is this a point of contention in the first place? I'm looking at this as a consumer, not a lawyer.

Because the pack becomes unavailable for an undisclosed amount of time, making it effectively your last certain chance to get them.

I understand the underlying question is really: "Why are big companies allowed to sell stuff in shady terms for the average person, when they are on effectively uneven positions?" and the answer is, for better or worse, because the terms are meant to catch your attention and afterwards they're obliged to give you the proper conditions under the assumption you're capacitated enough to read and understand them (the "fine print"). On this case it's clear there were people that read the whole pack descriptions, and were able to separate the case of these packs vs the original Founder packages given the wording is different. I'd dare say it's not necessarily a "wrong" moral type of situation, although we could discuss (and probably agree) that ultimately it's a FOMO based marketing tactic that we should reject as there are probably other effectiove ways to sell items.

Having said this, I agree that it's always better for us to have clear terms and conditions. I'd really like if DE stated that supporter, TennoCon digital or any future Heirloom packs, if they do more, have items that can come back, they explain then what's the minimum exclusivity window timing and in which form they can be acquired later (usually will be either the in game Platinum market or through Regal Aya). I don't necessarily think it'd hurt them, if anything quite the contrary given the good reputation DE has.

Edited March 2 by NightmareT12

[SneakyErvin]

6 minutes ago, -Krism- said:

Remember people, positivity isn't allowed on the forums

These items are back & you must be mad about it

Like say on big vodka bender "in Soviet Russia forums doom and gloom you". Just like world, bear roaming on streets eat baby yes, in soviet russia baby roaming woods eat bear.

[Ghastly-Ghoul]

31 minutes ago, KIREEK said:

I don't think you read my post correctly. I said "IF it was released a year later."

Edited March 2 by Ghastly-Ghoul

[Aldain]

1 hour ago, pwnSacrifice said:

I really want to like it more, but you nailed it. They did the ambassador dirty, and both stahlta and aeolak preform far better. 

Skin is cool but I'd just rather have a real Tenet than a "We have Tenet at home" brand.

I have 5 Forma in my Ambassador and I regret every single one of them.

Why does it have a 2.80x crit multiplier but only 14% base crit chance? Why does it have an almost 3 second reload time with 24 base damage? WHY DOES IT LOOK SO DAMN GOOD BUT HAVE STATS THAT ARE USELESS!?

...I wish the Ambassador was actually worth using, but as it stands even a MK1-Braton with an Incarnon is probably better than it.

[WERElektro]

Interesting.

‐----

I think I can relate to both sides...

IF I bought an item for real money, expecting it to stay exclusive for whatever reason, I might be dissapointed/ frustrated / angry if it was being made available again as well.

Then again it's also kinda weird to... find it satisfying to own an item in a videogame that other players of said videogame are unable to get. - but I assume that this isn't what the all the fuss is about.

[----Legacy----]

15 minutes ago, WERElektro said:

Interesting.

‐----

I think I can relate to both sides...

IF I bought an item for real money, expecting it to stay exclusive for whatever reason, I might be dissapointed/ frustrated / angry if it was being made available again as well.

Then again it's also kinda weird to... find it satisfying to own an item in a videogame that other players of said videogame are unable to get. - but I assume that this isn't what the all the fuss is about.

You're right, the fuss is all about how DE advertises stuff as exclusives to increase sales of real money only bundles; yet for some reason DE turns back on their word and some of these are eventually being brought back for platinum (much cheaper than their original price since trading allows to get it for free and PC players get up to 75% discounts) and hide behind an ambiguous wording while, for whatever reason, there's those few "true exclusives" that DE seems unlikely to ever bring back even if the uproar for those is muvh bigger than for the others.

I personally stopped supporting the devs because of this nonsense.

[----Legacy----]

6 hours ago, Ghastly-Ghoul said:

What should be exclusive is the accolade on our profiles. You'd then have to go out of your way to see that someone was a supporter

I think at least the accolade should have been given for free or at lest through an alert. It's a little thing that people won't notice unless getting out of their way to check someone's profile and making players who have been playing for years -founders (11 years ago) and closed beta players in many cases (both groups with accolades)-  not get this one just because of not buying an overpriced bundle with possibly unwanted stuff due to whatever reason while someone else could legit make an account in December 2023, buy the pack and have a "10 years supporter" accolade is straight up nonsense.

[WERElektro]

7 minutes ago, ----Legacy---- said:

You're right, the fuss is all about how DE advertises stuff as exclusives to increase sales of real money only bundles; yet for some reason DE turns back on their word and some of these are eventually being brought back for platinum (much cheaper than their original price since trading allows to get it for free and PC players get up to 75% discounts) and hide behind an ambiguous wording while, for whatever reason, there's those few "true exclusives" that DE seems unlikely to ever bring back even if the uproar for those is muvh bigger than for the others.

I personally stopped supporting the devs because of this nonsense.

Yes, I can understand this. :/

I guess one needs to look very closely at how the offers are being worded..