DE Please return Heirloom Mag and Frost Skins

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

26 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

Of course… the same thing happened for Excalibur Prime… in fact, this is the exact same thing. So, if you believe the heirlooms should come back, obviously Excalibur Prime should come back too, right? If not, that’s just hypocrisy/selfishness on your part.

 

No, not necessarily. 

Context always matters, and for some specific context is significant. For example some will be more tolerant and accepting of a small company having being rejected from various different larger publishers for their game idea, deciding to take a big risk and pressing forward with their game without that level and size of assistance, and going for a more kick starter like route and asking for support from potential fans and a player base ahead of time, with a Founders/Supporters package, compared to a game that does have an active player base, 10 years of success, is made by a developer that is now much larger, backed by much larger companies, with a more secure financial stability and less risk as far as working on the game. 

Is such context not relevant or important to you? 

Sure for some people, they might want Excalibur Prime to also come back, but there will also be some that are more willing to let that slide or distinguish it as different, due to context or some other reason. Then also there might actually still be some people who just arbitrarily want one but not the other, potentially for hypocritical reasons. Not all those people are the same, or necessarily hypocrites though. 

Then false advertising aspect has already been addressed many many times, by various people. Would you stake your livelihood and well being on being absolutely correct on that being the case? Or is it more just your subjective opinion, based on notions you might have? Do you have relevant legal expertise? Or is it more the idea that others also don't either and the consequence for being wrong or inaccurate isn't much. To be clear, I am obviously not asking you to stake your livelihood or wellbeing on the case lol, its just what i personally do to myself sometimes as a rhetorical technique. Like I have actually studied a bit of the law, not enough that I would claim to be a lawyer, more so enough to know I don't know as much as I could, and enough to know not to pretend online like i can say for certain one way or another, so that informs my framing. I wouldn't bet my livelihood or well being on knowing one way or another if DE would run afoul of false advertising laws. My best current understanding which I would be happy to elaborate on, and have before, but would come with heavy disclaimers that I am not a lawyer, and don't know with absolute confidence, would be no, they wouldn't (depending on the country), but being an online anonymous random person on the forums? i have no accountability for such claims. Regardless, I value transparency and expertise over subjective personal beliefs and bad arguments, so I would still not claim authority over the matter and be willing to defer to those whose actual expertise and understanding around such laws would be. Especially if I got to ask them questions, so they could clarify a few points.

There was a user in one thread a while back who did mention they were a lawyer, but they were transparent enough to also explain it was complicated and out of their direct field of expertise, but to their best understanding DE would generally be fine over such matters (then explained why). Again though, its not like they gave their real name or details, so they could have been lying, but they seemed competent enough and they went off explaining their though process as opposed to just insisting and telling people what to think. For me personally thats one general way to distinguish people who think their opinion is self sufficient evidence, and those that actually know a bit more and are sincere and happy to inform in an objective manner. 

[ShogunGunshow]

The reason for Excal Prime existing in the first place was because DE was literally on the verge of going out of business, and desperately needed an influx of cash. The Founder's program was a hail mary to keep the game alive. People that bought in at the time had no idea if they were throwing their money down a hole or not. The context is completely different.

But, like I've said multiple times, a decade later, I would not give a single fig if Excal Prime were made available to the public. Most Founders I've talked to feel this way. But DE still feels like they must honor that promise, even if we Founders either don't care or want the opposite. It's frustrating, but it's also something that DE made clear over the years was a one-off, and not something they wanted to do again - which is part of why the fanbase collectively turned against them so hard and burned DE in effigy over the heirlooms being FOMO. Because we'd had a decade of the best, least exploitative live service model on the market, one that I feel should be a model for how others should treat their customers, and then we got hit with that on the anniversary out of nowhere.

"Let's celebrate ten years of the best customer-facing live service in the industry by combining some of the worst, most anti-consumer practices out there into one package" is, again, something I'm genuinely shocked made it out of the pitch room, along with that "hey let's not fix our quest system, let's have players pay to skip" debacle. It was so out of character that we wondered if this behavior was due to a Tencent mandate.

FOMO should not be something wielded against your customers in a digital space. The heirlooms being limited is stupid and was totally unnecessary. As a 10th anniversary, in fact, I think the heirlooms should have been free for the few weeks and then become a paid cosmetic afterward. Or, again, only have them available around TennoCon time each year, essentially as an Heirloom Resurgence.

DE had multiple options to avoid walking into rakes, but decided on this one:

Spoiler

 

[Aruquae]

Just now, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Is such context not relevant or important to you? 

Um… not really. When it comes to contracts I’m black and white (probably an obvious weakness ngl) So context doesn’t go down if that context wasn’t in said contract. I’m basically saying “If they said it’s not going to return, then it shouldn’t return,” for one, it’s always good to stay by your word. And for another, they uhhh decided to put those ties into  form of “legal bindings,” not official legal bindings, mind you… just in a way where it’ll look scummy if they do release it. People will ask for refunds, and frankly, they would deserve it. You doj’t mark something as “never returning,” and then have it return. 

 

4 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Sure for some people, they might want Excalibur Prime to also come back, but there will also be some that are more willing to let that slide or distinguish it as different, due to context or some other reason. Then also there might actually still be some people who just arbitrarily want one but not the other, potentially for hypocritical reasons. Not all those people are the same, or necessarily hypocrites though. 

True true, in most cases though, it can be considered hypocrisy. Of course, this is only because of my black and white perspectives on this. Both aren’t so different, in fact (contract wise) they are very similar. Context wise, they are so very different. I too would’ve liked them to return, but those are for my selfish reasons. They said they weren’t going to return, so they shouldn’t. As I’ve previously mentioned, your word is important. 

 

7 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Would you stake your livelihood and well being on being absolutely correct on that being the case? Or is it more just your subjective opinion, based on notions you might have?

Hmmm, correct, I would say both. I don’t claim to have full experience in this, but I have experience in it nonetheless. It is possible for DE to rerelease it, in fact, they can rerelease it, but should they? In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve talking about integrity in this post. Sure, they can release it, but wouldn’t that make DE the hypocrites, and liars? Yes, it without a doubt, would. You wouldn’t see this perspective if you were a part of it (not you specifically, I’m talking about a “you” as an example), but those who bought it would voice how scummy it was. It would be great for everyone to be able to buy the bundle, yes… but DE would lose some of their image. Rereleasing content they said wasn’t going to return, shows they are not ones to keep their promises. It’ll make some tenno not buy the next bundle (immediately) just because they believe the FOMO is not real. FOMO can only work if it truly is FOMO. You see this example a lot with companies like EA, one mistake of EA is severe FOMO, but not guaranteed. Both sides are triggered by it. 

 

19 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Do you have relevant legal expertise?

Uhhh I’ll answer yes in like… two years. Get back to me on that one 

 

20 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Or is it more the idea that others also don't either and the consequence for being wrong or inaccurate isn't much.

While I may not have certification for this, I do have relative experience through observation (as you need to intern in order to gain “experience”)

 

21 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

To be clear, I am obviously not asking you to stake your livelihood or wellbeing on the case lol, its just what i personally do to myself sometimes as a rhetorical technique

Ahhh, well this is awkward. I thought you were being serious. I’ll stake them either way 

 

23 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

I wouldn't bet my livelihood or well being on knowing one way or another if DE would run afoul of false advertising laws

Think of it less like “if they break it, they’re going to get sued,” and more like “if they break it, they open up a chance for someone to sue them.” Companies try to avoid chances of being sued at all costs (unless you’re EA, screw you EA), as they can (obviously) lose money

 

25 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

I wouldn't bet my livelihood or well being on knowing one way or another if DE would run afoul of false advertising laws. My best current understanding which I would be happy to elaborate on, and have before, but would come with heavy disclaimers that I am not a lawyer, and don't know with absolute confidence, would be no, they wouldn't (depending on the country), but being an online anonymous random person on the forums? i have no accountability for such claims. Regardless, I value transparency and expertise over subjective personal beliefs and bad arguments, so I would still not claim authority over the matter and be willing to defer to those whose actual expertise and understanding around such laws would be. Especially if I got to ask them questions, so they could clarify a few points.

I am so glad you pointed this out. I for one, also want to set a disclaimer stating I am not saying this as a lawyer, but as someone who has experience as a marketing psychologist, and forensic psychologist (not certified yet, like I said, give it two years). 

[xMarvin732]

10 hours ago, PollexMessier said:

You think warframe getting a mobile port wasn't timed suspiciously close to the Heirloom release? They knew this trash was going to do down like a sack of bricks and they prepped to bounce back from the hit by opening their game up to the biggest boot-licking demographics of gamers.

I dont know how to think about that.. Warframe for Mobile was already announced and shown back then in Tennocon 2021.

By the time it was released in February, you couldnt get the Heirloom anymore, only if you had planned to play it on PC or Console beforehand and got it on these platforms and even then, Cross Save wasnt fully available for everyone after 31st December 2023.

[Drachnyn]

Until DE brings back the heirlooms permanently all the talk about them learning from their mistakes rings kinda hollow. They pushed the envelope, apologized for it but didnt actually pull anything back. The envelope is still exactly where it was pushed to originally. The only thing that will be learned from this is how to do better damage control.

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

20 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

Idk about that, both are time limited and were considered exclusive. The reasoning behind it would be considered negligible if we’re just talking about what was set as their “marketing strat” which is to say… FOMO. 

Edit: Now that I think of it… wouldn’t this be considered justification? They are both time limited, but it seems one is fine being time limited while the other isn’t? Even when both were marked as time limited. It wouldn’t be fair for those who bought it because of FOMO. Yes… they can be considered selfish just because of that, but a contract is a contract nonetheless. It would be more despicable for DE to bring it back, showing us how their  FOMO strat was just an excuse get people to buy it, then rerelease it like a slap in the face for those who did buy it. 
All and all, if they mark something as limited time and “not returning,” they should stick to their word.

 

There have already been time limited in game items which have been changed and modified and altered to be more accessible or available beyond their original scope. Regardless limited time and exclusive are similarities they both have, but you can't just compare and think of similarities when looking at context, differences also can matter. Hulk and Kermit the Frog are both green, and have an unusual way of talking, to an extent that they can often be recognised by their speech. Doesn't mean that Kermit can lift mountains. I just listed their similarities, but not their differences. 

It wouldn't be fair for those that brought something because of FOMO, I totally agree with that, but its also not fair for people to be lured in by FOMO as well, in the first place. Or that FOMO exists in the first place, and that people brought stuff because of FOMO. Or fair to the people who didn't buy because of FOMO and would be happy to have others also get the cool items, and who are also against FOMO, but had competing reasons for buying (support or wanting the cool thing), but who get lumped in with others, as arguments as to why its "not fair". Anecdotally, but I have seen far more people who brought Heirlooms who have expressed that they would prefer and rather others could still get the Heirlooms, than I have seen people who want Heirlooms to stay exclusive. I have even seen more people who wish things were different but believe that DE is legally liable, than people who strictly want their exclusivity upheld. 

Which to be clear, isn't myself trying to invalidate or judge such people, I just don't see it very often. It would be interesting to know. 

Anyway there are a lot of levels of unfairness that exist regardless. Attributing ideas and evaluations like "what would be despicable" or not, without establishing a tight relatively objective criteria is thus always going to be a bit flawed. It doesn't even need to be considered a "FOMO strat", because people can know and understand this. Then be transparent about it. FOMO style tactics and strategy can be extremely lucrative, but their are pros and cons. Switching to a weekly subscription plan could also have pros and cons, and potentially be lucrative, but DE probably won't entertain that, because thats just... not their style or model. They aren't FF Online, and that model works well for that game, and its general fanbase. 

Like some of this is obviously complicated, when talking about businesses and continually finding ways to make more money, because there can be different ways, and some of the ways can be more lucrative, but some can be predatory and exploitive. Its a balancing act, in many different ways. Many people often over simplify such situations as well. They don't understand the internal structure of a company like DE. Or that they aren't a monolith. There are likely disagreements and clashes over pricing strategies, with compromises and bargaining. There are people even a CEO as to answer to/address. Which also probably means, there are people within DE who are fine with community backlash, if it helps them explain or justify or preemptively shoot down monetisation plans they think won't work with Warframe.

Like I myself was personally fine with a pay to skip option Reb floated, but broader community shut that down pretty hard. There was also that accidental Nightwave boost leak, that still hasn't actually shown up, maybe because it was considered a bad idea to monetise NW that way. 

My main point here is that sure, they should stick to their word... unless their wording was bad for consumers/fans, and changes would benefit us, which often also benefits them as well, long term. Lets say that Heirloom skins next bundle isn't limited time exclusive, and they explain it will eventually come back in a few years. Hypothetically it might not make as much money, because many who only buy because of FOMO might not, so... failure right? Well yes and no, because some long term benefits may end up outweighing the initial loss/difference. 

I totally understand it can be frustrating if a company/business doesn't stick to their word, but no one should be so inflexible as to accept a negative situation/scenario that negatively affects others, because of a stubborn adherence to conceptually sticking by such words. It removes the potential for things to improve and be refined by misguided notions. 

 

5 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

Um… not really. When it comes to contracts I’m black and white (probably an obvious weakness ngl) So context doesn’t go down if that context wasn’t in said contract. I’m basically saying “If they said it’s not going to return, then it shouldn’t return,” for one, it’s always good to stay by your word. And for another, they uhhh decided to put those ties into  form of “legal bindings,” not official legal bindings, mind you… just in a way where it’ll look scummy if they do release it. People will ask for refunds, and frankly, they would deserve it. You doj’t mark something as “never returning,” and then have it return. 

 

It is a bit of a weakness, because you were addressing peoples different attitudes and behaviour and hypocrisy, and not taking into account important distinctive differences. If you would rather talk specifically about contracts, thats fine too, but very different. 

It also looks scummy when they make such plans, You could say it would look scummy if they do rerelease them, but to many it looks scummy if they don't. The only real way to avoid looking scummy to some, is to avoid such practices in the first place. Except of course thats a risk involved with such ventures, and they are likely external pressures within DE's structure to look for ways to gain profit injections, especially in the context of video games as a whole. So its not necessarily a surprise such ventures happen, because sometimes the perception of seeming scummy is worth it, but other times... Also, when Supporter Packs were made available again, via Plat, anecdotal, but way more people seemed happy and fine with it. There were some individuals who were unhappy about it, and vocal. This forum had a few, but to my perception, most people on these Forums, most people on Reddit welcomed and celebrated the move. 

For all we know, that might have been a soft decision to gauge the fan reaction over such decisions to see how we might react if something like Heirlooms (specifically Frost and Mag) were made available again. Would you personally care if in 2 years, we have Mesa, Ember, Excalibur and Volt Heirloom skins, and we know changes are being made and Rebecca mentioned the future will be different, would you personally care if the future they decided it was weird that all other Heirlooms rotated and returned eventually and just decided to adjust their stance?

How many people who brought Prime Access 6 years ago, are upset that people can just buy Regal Aya for cheaper and get Prime Noggles through Resurgance, even though when they purchased PA, that was the only way to get Prime Noggles? 

 

17 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

I too would’ve liked them to return, but those are for my selfish reasons. They said they weren’t going to return, so they shouldn’t. As I’ve previously mentioned, your word is important. 

 

Doesn't necessarily have to be selfish. It cab also be okay to be selfish, but many others would also benefit, and iyts fine to advocate changes for yourself and them. If DE were an individual, or friend, i might agree and care about them and their word. DE is an organisation, business and game development team though, i much much prefer them being consumer friendly and conscious, and ethical in business and in regards to consumers, as much as possible under Capitalism and their countries laws. Laws which are also often refined, adjusted and improved. It can also often be a bit obvious when their word isn't intended to be taken as the final or ultimate high authority. Since they are a business, they often need to have a unified front. 

Internally they can be a mess and disagree over pricing policies or monetisation plans, but ultimately they needed to give a unified front for fans, consumers, investors, etc Company wide stances are probably written by multiple people with the assistance of multiple people, under direction by other people, who are the ones with more authority, but such stances need to be written in a PR friendly and more accessible "simple for players" way, with all that that entails. Which os also why, and many people don't understand this, we can't just have Megan randomly change DE's stance on something after a day of back lash. It also leads to scenarios like with Regal Aya, where they adjusted the value of the pricing but said they couldn't change or budge on other variables, because of "fairness to those already buying the packs" but then a little while after they did actually "go back on their word" and make changes, and ran a script to compensate people who already made purchases. 

So to some, you should always take their word with a grain of salt regardless, because they aren't an individual, they are a company and all that that entails. Which is also why this isn't a charity issue, because there can be pros and cons involved with such changes. A reasonable and knowledgable consumer wouldn't want DE to bankrupt themselves, so they can understand that some monetisation techniques are necessary. Like how you can't just have access to all Primed Warframes every day... There are rotations, and windows of availability. So there is a bit of light FOMO with that. Except its more check in routinely than worrying about never returning. Context and all. 

By default you/we all should be a bit weary when business is involved and many involved with business, chef aim is to make money. Just that there are different ways to do that. So instead of valuing that a business "keep to their word" some would rather that the business prioritise its consumers and fanbase as best they can.. even if that may occasionally conflict with their "word" because if those two ideas compete, one is better and one is worse for consumers. Which also arguably can become bad for the business itself (imagine if DE just implemented all predatory practices from all other video games, all at once? The backlash would probably sink the game over the course of a few weeks, with a massive negative stain it may not recover from, even if they course corrected a day later)

 

37 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

but DE would lose some of their image.

 

Do you think its possible that you could be too overly cautious about the negative feedback and backlash to DE's image if they did implement a way for Heirlooms to return? Like do you think its possible you could be overstating concern? 

Also for clarity and transparency, its entirely possible that I could be understating and underestimating how much could happen as well. 

I do personally think that DE would lose a little face, and that quite a few people would be negative over it, but I also think they would offset that much more with gaining face, gaining goodwill, and more people overall would be positive and welcome to such a change. 

Anecdotal, but there were so many nice and positive comments when the Supporter Packs were made available again. People enjoying the Universal Zobev and Caspian Pistol skin (may have misspelled those), people who could get some of the colour palettes, and the Infested Domestik Drone etc Lots of people surprised and happy, much more than people who were annoyed because they implied such items were limited time. 

 

43 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

shows they are not ones to keep their promises.

 

Could also show that they are capable of course correction, and reflecting on some of their decisions that resulted in feedback, listened and then make adjustments and changes for the future to try and do better by most of their fans overall. Some promises can be bad, and do more harm than good. Ideally bad promises shouldn't be made to start with, but thats sort of the point as well, and benefit and positive of course correction, for when mistakes/errors happen, having ways to fix and resolve them. 

 

46 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

It’ll make some tenno not buy the next bundle (immediately) just because they believe the FOMO is not real

 

Agreed, but I think that should be okay, and overall more consumer friendly and ethical. I think its a bad path to go down, when you have to rely on playing to consumers fears over FOMO to make money, because whilst short term, there can be obvious advantages, the longer term consequences may not be as fruitful. A lot of people often talk about how and why they support DE expressively because they seem better, more ethical, more consumer friendly than most other video games, game devs/producers. DE also knows this and has talked about it before. For an ongoing game, that uses a FTP model, having a small but loyal fanbase who will often just want to give you money, even though the game is "free" is a powerful and beneficial to business incentive. Which can be really hard to quantify and measure... Which often creates a lot of conflict and tension in video games, when it comes to people in the games industry who are involved because games, creativity, art, and story telling are their passion, as well as their career, and they play games themselves... and people who are in video games industry, because of business, making and earning profit, and generating wealth for themselves so they can retire early, and who don't really play video games, but they help with the business side, and its not like they need to play games to make money and... stuff... 

So there would likely be long term benefits for DE as well, even if there the short term gains aren't as steep. Again though, of course risk is implicit, and its way easier to talk about these things when I don't have to personally face repercussions or worry about my livelihood or career at stake. 

56 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

Uhhh I’ll answer yes in like… two years. Get back to me on that one 

 

56 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

While I may not have certification for this, I do have relative experience through observation (as you need to intern in order to gain “experience”)

 

Oh nice! Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but you are considering a career in law (or video games?). Very admirable. I did at one point as well, but not really my thing I think. Thats really cool though and I wish you well in that (if I interpreted that correctly). In our discussions you always came across as pretty fair, friendly and articulate. I am sure you would do great! 

 

59 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

I am so glad you pointed this out. I for one, also want to set a disclaimer stating I am not saying this as a lawyer, but as someone who has experience as a marketing psychologist, and forensic psychologist (not certified yet, like I said, give it two years). 

 

Oh my bad, I have a bad habit of addressing some points without reading the whole text. I still maintain what I said above though, just swap in forensic psychology heh. Which between you and me, and please don't tell any lawyers this, but I consider more interesting. I am sure you will nail it. 

Also I hope I didn't come across as too argumentative or aggressive. Like i have said in our earlier discussions in the past, I think you raise and make great points, and you also seem to separate ideas from ego, which makes you a pleasant person to engage in discussion, even if we might have different takes on matters. I also apologise about the length of my reply, but I pretty much covered most things i would want to, so if you do decide to reply to any points I made, I can at least say that any of my future replies won't be anyway as long. 

Good day to you (and good luck on your internship, that sounds super cool). 

 

[UnstarPrime]

14 hours ago, TARINunit9 said:

The other part is the jurors. Ordinary citizens like you and me. The lawyers bring up the wording, they spell out the precedent, but WE decide the verdict. WE say what the law SHOULD be

That...that is absolutely not how it works, at least not in the United States.  Jurors don't get to decide what the law should be; their task is to determine whether the evidence provided in the case adds up to a situation that falls within the bounds of the existing law or outside of it.

Do you have experience within the legal system that demonstrates an exception to this general rule?  I want to hear you in good faith, but your claims about lawsuits seem to meaningfully depart from the reality I'm accustomed to.

[ToastyGrimlock98]

15 hours ago, Hexerin said:

Your inability to keep your criticism in good faith is why you (and others like you) have been laughed out of the feedback discussions. I hope you can someday understand that.

DE lost any sense of good faith from me when they thought it was acceptable to throw a $90 price tag on cosmetics.

[Aruquae]

47 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

It wouldn't be fair for those that brought something because of FOMO, I totally agree with that, but its also not fair for people to be lured in by FOMO as well, in the first place. Or that FOMO exists in the first place, and that people brought stuff because of FOMO. Or fair to the people who didn't buy because of FOMO and would be happy to have others also get the cool items, and who are also against FOMO, but had competing reasons for buying (support or wanting the cool thing), but who get lumped in with others, as arguments as to why its "not fair". Anecdotally, but I have seen far more people who brought Heirlooms who have expressed that they would prefer and rather others could still get the Heirlooms, than I have seen people who want Heirlooms to stay exclusive. I have even seen more people who wish things were different but believe that DE is legally liable, than people who strictly want their exclusivity upheld. 

For some reason I never got a notification for this..? Good thing I was scrolling through it

I agree with all of this, if everyone were in mutual agreement that they should bring back heirlooms, then I’m sure DE wouldn’t mind. Unfortunately… if you look at all the posts around that time, a few people (not the majority, just a decent amount) wanted to keep it FOMO exclusive. Some even had the audacity to ask for a custom forum pin like founders… that goes to show one type of group. 
Again, less so on what’s “fair” or not. Fair is subjective. 

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Do you think its possible that you could be too overly cautious about the negative feedback and backlash to DE's image if they did implement a way for Heirlooms to return? Like do you think its possible you could be overstating concern? 

Oh 100%, but I feel like it makes sense. We’ve uhh… seen a lot of backlash when anything happens. DE faced a lot of backlash with Dante for example (no, I’m not salty about it, you’re salty :’/) Backlash is inevitable, but at least DE can help revert the backlash by buffing Dante. Can’t really do that with money cosmetics (well, you can, but it wouldn’t be as simple as buffing)

 

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Agreed, but I think that should be okay, and overall more consumer friendly and ethical. I think its a bad path to go down, when you have to rely on playing to consumers fears over FOMO to make money, because whilst short term, there can be obvious advantages, the longer term consequences may not be as fruitful. A lot of people often talk about how and why they support DE expressively because they seem better, more ethical, more consumer friendly than most other video games, game devs/producers. DE also knows this and has talked about it before. For an ongoing game, that uses a FTP model, having a small but loyal fanbase who will often just want to give you money, even though the game is "free" is a powerful and beneficial to business incentive. Which can be really hard to quantify and measure... Which often creates a lot of conflict and tension in video games, when it comes to people in the games industry who are involved because games, creativity, art, and story telling are their passion, as well as their career, and they play games themselves... and people who are in video games industry, because of business, making and earning profit, and generating wealth for themselves so they can retire early, and who don't really play video games, but they help with the business side, and its not like they need to play games to make money and... stuff... 

Hmmm, that is true. It’s definitely a gamble. Just a matter of whether or not DE wants to take that gamble. Sure you can make a quick buck with FOMO, but it’s not going to last. Returning FOMO also doesn’t help their case for making a long term investment. 

 

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Oh nice! Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but you are considering a career in law (or video games?). Very admirable. I did at one point as well, but not really my thing I think. Thats really cool though and I wish you well in that (if I interpreted that correctly). In our discussions you always came across as pretty fair, friendly and articulate. I am sure you would do great! 

Thanks! If only it were video games, but yea it’s law. That also makes sense, not everyone finds papers and law fun. In fact… yea no not sure law should be considered fun anyways. Law is supposed to be fair, but enough of my philosophy! 

 

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Oh my bad, I have a bad habit of addressing some points without reading the whole text. I still maintain what I said above though, just swap in forensic psychology heh. Which between you and me, and please don't tell any lawyers this, but I consider more interesting. I am sure you will nail it. 

Heh, technically you were right. Forensic psychologists work with criminals, victims, lawyers, attorneys, judges, etc.. Thankfully it isn’t all about the courtroom…

 

2 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Also I hope I didn't come across as too argumentative or aggressive. Like i have said in our earlier discussions in the past, I think you raise and make great points, and you also seem to separate ideas from ego, which makes you a pleasant person to engage in discussion, even if we might have different takes on matters. I also apologise about the length of my reply, but I pretty much covered most things i would want to, so if you do decide to reply to any points I made, I can at least say that any of my future replies won't be anyway as long. 

No no, you kept it fair. I’m sure I came off as argumentative… so if you did (which you certainly didn’t come across as), then it’s fine either way. Being argumentative can just go down as “passionate.” The length wasn’t bad either, considering you were just making a point to answer everything as clear as possible. 
Overall, I am on your side of the argument. I just also like seeing how others can interpret this situation, and what their solutions would be. Devil’s advocate gets people to think, argue yes, but thinking too. 
What a constructive argument… I miss these kinds of conversations…

[PublikDomain]

5 hours ago, Aruquae said:

Of course… the same thing happened for Excalibur Prime… in fact, this is the exact same thing. So, if you believe the heirlooms should come back, obviously Excalibur Prime should come back too, right? If not, that’s just hypocrisy/selfishness on your part.

I mean, it should. Let's be honest for a second: the only reason DE gets a pass on Founders having a permanently unobtainable 12,000 extra Mastery and 2 unique gameplay items for the rest of all time is because of the mythos DE has constructed around the Founders program. They "saved the company" and so on and the story has been repeated long enough that the community gives this one thing a pass. But in every single other case ever, all gameplay items return. Primed Chamber, Braton/Lato Vandal, Prime Access, Nightwave Augments, event rewards, Twitch weapons, etc. They always come back. And in many cases, even as recently as a few months ago, previously unobtainable cosmetics eventually return as well. This, despite DE originally advertising this content with the same kinds of "exclusive" "for a limited time" "get them before they’re gone" as Heirlooms. The Deimos Supporter packs being just one example, which used the same kind of language and is now permanently available on the ingame market. The only particular difference with Heirlooms is that DE had an additional FAQ where they spelled that exclusivity out.

Devil's Advocate has to contend with the fact that "exclusives" often aren't actually all that exclusive.

Edited April 22 by PublikDomain

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

24 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

For some reason I never got a notification for this..? Good thing I was scrolling through it

I agree with all of this, if everyone were in mutual agreement that they should bring back heirlooms, then I’m sure DE wouldn’t mind. Unfortunately… if you look at all the posts around that time, a few people (not the majority, just a decent amount) wanted to keep it FOMO exclusive. Some even had the audacity to ask for a custom forum pin like founders… that goes to show one type of group. 
Again, less so on what’s “fair” or not. Fair is subjective. 

 

That is odd. I am not sure what the reason could be. I did experience something slightly similar a few weeks ago, where I did get notifications, but they were for comments that I had already been notified for weeks prior. I'll try and tag your name at the end manually to alert you, just in case that helps. 

I don't think reality can ever be that neat or clean as far as mutual agreement about most things. Its often why in certain context they go off different percentages or majorities or certain majorities. Its also where evaluating such numbers and viewpoints also becomes important, and why I kept mentioning anecdote when talking about my perception on others reactions. Since I am all too aware that maybe my perception was mislead, warped by potential biases, liable to various conformity type biases, plus websites/forums can often have users with alt accounts/sock puppets. Maybe a lot of the positive sentiment were actually from less people than actual, who knows, but... since its in their best interest, its something I believe that DE can look into and get better objective data over in this regard. Better than either of our capacity to make conclusions over. To me, if their conclusion is that a larger majority would welcome and embrace such a decision, and a small enough minority would take issues, its something to seriously consider when making future plans. 

Fairness/fair can be both, it just depends on the context and criteria being applied. 

 

37 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

Oh 100%, but I feel like it makes sense. We’ve uhh… seen a lot of backlash when anything happens. DE faced a lot of backlash with Dante for example (no, I’m not salty about it, you’re salty :’/) Backlash is inevitable, but at least DE can help revert the backlash by buffing Dante. Can’t really do that with money cosmetics (well, you can, but it wouldn’t be as simple as buffing)

 

Hah, I was a little bit salty, but only in the sense, I felt the changes were too soon, or should have been implemented before release. A lot of people didn't even get a chance to play Dante pre-nerf, and you could argue, even if the changes were necessarily or even if they hypothetically buffed him again, a lot of people will feel a bit bitter because they never got to experience the Warframe when they were "OP". I also felt like he was fun, and a bit less fun. Still ultimately fun, and effective, but ehh... 

Also I think the consequences over Dante will be far reaching, even though they did readjust him post nerf. Why? Similar to above, sometimes perception and sense is as important. Lots of people won't know what Dante pre-nerf was like, so they can easily build up this idea that may not reflect reality. Then be preemptively disappointed by that. Even if they buff him later. Even though I personally have liked 9 out of 10 of the last Warframes released these past years, Qorvex and Dagath included, I thought it was nice, some of the more jaded, and skeptical "why should I play this new Warframe" types were actually hyped about a new Warframe release, and I was hype for them (even though I think a lot of those types under appreciate and sleep on Dagath, Kullervo, Citrine, etc). Its a type of resentment that may kill future hype for Jade and Warframes after, warranted or not. Which is a bit of a shame. 

I agree that dealing with real money and cosmetics would be inherently more tricky, but still worth it, depending on the context. Like I haven't seen too many people try to argue seriously about some of the console exclusive skins. Seen a few questions, but I think most people know, that sort of thing is out of DE's hand. 

 

47 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

Thanks! If only it were video games, but yea it’s law. That also makes sense, not everyone finds papers and law fun. In fact… yea no not sure law should be considered fun anyways. Law is supposed to be fair, but enough of my philosophy! 

 

Oh I still like law, and am fascinated by it from a studying perspective. Plus think its obviously important. I just think it would personally frustrate me too much, specifically the human element and trying to navigate the human element side. The papers side would be fun to me, but having to deal with power imbalances and how wealth can influence justice, and warp ideas of fairness... Phew, that would get to me. Anything where I can just indulge in the more neutral and sincere aspects of research I find more fun. That also being said, obviously important to have people trying to fight back against the waves of unfairness that can come with human nature, wealth imbalances, greed, corruption, manipulation, so on, hence I think its admirable for people such as yourself to potentially have to deal with that sort of thing (depending on what sort of specific career path you go down). Like there is a big difference between say bird law and memes and defending peoples lives or representing victims of assault etc. 

 

54 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

No no, you kept it fair. I’m sure I came off as argumentative… so if you did (which you certainly didn’t come across as), then it’s fine either way. Being argumentative can just go down as “passionate.” The length wasn’t bad either, considering you were just making a point to answer everything as clear as possible. 
Overall, I am on your side of the argument. I just also like seeing how others can interpret this situation, and what their solutions would be. Devil’s advocate gets people to think, argue yes, but thinking too. 
What a constructive argument… I miss these kinds of conversations…

 

Thanks. You didn't come across as argumentative either, but I am also pretty familiar of how you post, and your sense of humour, which I enjoy and appreciate, and I have a pretty high opinion of you. This topic actually tends to attract a few different people who I have a pretty high opinion of generally, and I think its to do with what you mention actually, as far as passion ha. 

What I know of empathy and behaviour, is that people are often more willing to engage with it, if they see it demonstrated often, so I find its really important in forums, that its not just people disagreeing with each other harshly or being passive aggressive or arguing in bad faith. Having some well intentioned constructive conversations can have a positive influence on the flow of a thread, especially around tense subjects, so I like to think we both did a decent enough job in that regard. Sure beats seeing a thread get locked due to hostility. 

Cheers! Oh and @Aruquae Just in case you don't get a notification.

[LordOfKenpo]

3 hours ago, UnstarPrime said:

That...that is absolutely not how it works, at least not in the United States.  Jurors don't get to decide what the law should be; their task is to determine whether the evidence provided in the case adds up to a situation that falls within the bounds of the existing law or outside of it.

Do you have experience within the legal system that demonstrates an exception to this general rule?  I want to hear you in good faith, but your claims about lawsuits seem to meaningfully depart from the reality I'm accustomed to.

Clearly you aren't aware of jury nullification then...

5 hours ago, ShogunGunshow said:

But, like I've said multiple times, a decade later, I would not give a single fig if Excal Prime were made available to the public. Most Founders I've talked to feel this way. But DE still feels like they must honor that promise, even if we Founders either don't care or want the opposite. It's frustrating, but it's also something that DE made clear over the years was a one-off, and not something they wanted to do again - which is part of why the fanbase collectively turned against them so hard and burned DE in effigy over the heirlooms being FOMO. Because we'd had a decade of the best, least exploitative live service model on the market, one that I feel should be a model for how others should treat their customers, and then we got hit with that on the anniversary out of nowhere.

The interesting thing about this was they felt like they needed a similar option when they release in China, so they got Excaliber Umbra Prime, however, anyone who played on console never got an equivalent so there should be an alternative made for console, but they can't track that now that cross save is a thing now

[Aruquae]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Devil's Advocate has to contend with the fact that "exclusives" often aren't actually all that exclusive.

You proposed a counter claim... yes. This makes sense... but... is there any other time gated option which costs money that ended up returning? Eugh, that sentence sounded janky

 

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

The only particular difference with Heirlooms is that DE had an additional FAQ where they spelled that exclusivity out.

And that would be considered the prime difference in the Heirlooms and the Deimos support pack, and the prime similarity between that and the Founders' pack. They never specified whether the Deimos pack was going to return, nor did they specify whether it was exclusive or not (or time limited). They specifically did this with the Heirlooms, when they could've easily thrown in the same strat they did with the support packs... it seems a bit odd. You would think if they wanted it to return in the future, they would've worded it like with the support packs. (Which is to say, not outright saying they're exclusive) 

 

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

That is odd. I am not sure what the reason could be. I did experience something slightly similar a few weeks ago, where I did get notifications, but they were for comments that I had already been notified for weeks prior. I'll try and tag your name at the end manually to alert you, just in case that helps. 

Good thing you tagged, I never would've got the notification otherwise. These forums are trying to beat the game when it comes to bugs

 

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Hah, I was a little bit salty, but only in the sense, I felt the changes were too soon, or should have been implemented before release. A lot of people didn't even get a chance to play Dante pre-nerf, and you could argue, even if the changes were necessarily or even if they hypothetically buffed him again, a lot of people will feel a bit bitter because they never got to experience the Warframe when they were "OP". I also felt like he was fun, and a bit less fun. Still ultimately fun, and effective, but ehh... 

True, I also feel like the mindset of "It's nerfed, must be bad" also came to play. One reason because he was nerfed in less than a week, so not everyone had him. My guess is half the people who were complaining about the nerfs didn't have him, I'm just guessing from their reasoning... Of course, this is just a speculation. I just feel like there were too many people complaining about a frame that just came out... especially when realizing they would have started crafting him on day one. 

 

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

I agree that dealing with real money and cosmetics would be inherently more tricky, but still worth it, depending on the context. Like I haven't seen too many people try to argue seriously about some of the console exclusive skins. Seen a few questions, but I think most people know, that sort of thing is out of DE's hand. 

Maybe some day the companies will put aside their differences... and finally let me use the stinkin Ivara Obsidian skin... I can dream...

 

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Thanks. You didn't come across as argumentative either, but I am also pretty familiar of how you post, and your sense of humour, which I enjoy and appreciate, and I have a pretty high opinion of you. This topic actually tends to attract a few different people who I have a pretty high opinion of generally, and I think its to do with what you mention actually, as far as passion ha. 

Oh thank goodness, this is nice to here

 

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

What I know of empathy and behaviour, is that people are often more willing to engage with it, if they see it demonstrated often, so I find its really important in forums, that its not just people disagreeing with each other harshly or being passive aggressive or arguing in bad faith. Having some well intentioned constructive conversations can have a positive influence on the flow of a thread, especially around tense subjects, so I like to think we both did a decent enough job in that regard. Sure beats seeing a thread get locked due to hostility. 

Completely agree. Now you're leaving me slightly confuzzled with how this conversation went, wasn't expecting it to turn out like an actual argument. Oh well, a good read nonetheless, even if I don't completely agree with some of your reasonings

_{And because people are going to be wondering what I mean about that, i'm saying that because there is a difference between arguing, and yelling your opinion with your finger in your ear. I just made someone mad, didn't I?}

[UnstarPrime]

34 minutes ago, LordOfKenpo said:

Clearly you aren't aware of jury nullification then...

Hmmm...I suppose that's technically a thing, though it's a whole can of worms to the point where I personally wouldn't anticipate it coming up in a trial about something as mundane as this.  Last I heard U.S. courts were generally not allowed to even tell jurors about the existence of jury nullification, and appeals courts have upheld instructing juries that they shouldn't be determining whether laws a just, only whether laws were broken.  Even knowing that jury nullification is a thing can get you removed from a jury.

Anyway, I won't pretend to be an expert on this specific corner of the law, so it's possible you've got information I don't there.  But what I do know about it suggests that it wouldn't be likely to come up in a trial about false marketing of exclusive digital goods.  If you disagree, I'd be curious to learn why that is.

[PublikDomain]

22 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

is there any other time gated option which costs money that ended up returning?

I mean yeah, Supporter packs have always been exclusive, time-gated, cash-only offerings. And DE just put three of them on the market permanently back in March.

Quote

In-Game Market Additions

Several previously available Supporter Packs are also coming to the in-game Market permanently this month! Pick up the New War Tribute Pack to receive a sleek Ravurex Gunblade Skin, Narmer Color Pallette, Archon Nira Glyph and Archon Nira Sigil. There'll also be an Zariman Tribute Pack and Deimos Tribute Pack for anyone looking to up their Fashion Frame game.

Until then they had never returned, ever. They were exclusive and available for a limited time and you had to get them before they were gone.

There are also for example the Avia Prime armor set and other Twitch Prime/Prime Gaming cosmetics which were

Quote

Available for a limited time only

Some were even "exclusive":

Quote

Free Prime with Twitch Prime is back!

Get Trinity Prime and an Exclusive Prime Syandana

Starting today, get Trinity Prime and the exclusive Spektaka Prime Syandana for free with your Twitch Prime membership.

Twitch Prime/Amazon Prime being paid-for (third party) services. And now anyone can buy them from Varzia at any time. So they're not exclusive anymore. I would imagine the most recent Verv set of cosmetics will go the same way despite being just as exclusive to Prime Gaming members:

Quote

Whether you’re a seasoned collector, a Fashion Framing master or a brand-new Tenno exploring the Origin System for the first time, you won’t want to miss out on the exclusive Prime Gaming Verv Collection.

Etc.

22 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

And that would be considered the prime difference in the Heirlooms and the Deimos support pack, and the prime similarity between that and the Founders' pack. They never specified whether the Deimos pack was going to return, nor did they specify whether it was exclusive or not (or time limited). They specifically did this with the Heirlooms, when they could've easily thrown in the same strat they did with the support packs... it seems a bit odd. You would think if they wanted it to return in the future, they would've worded it like with the support packs. (Which is to say, not outright saying they're exclusive) 

Supporter packs weren't worded to ever return either. They were marketed as "exclusive". Can they really be exclusive if they would later become permanent market additions (for plat no less)? If they were exclusive to cash-only buyers who bought during the original promotion then that exclusivity has certainly changed. And why do the ads say to get them "before they’re gone" if they're just gonna come back later? You'd think if they were going to return in the future, then yes like you say they would've worded it that way. But they didn't, not for Supporter packs which returned anyways nor for Heirlooms. They marked them the same as all of the other exclusives that have inevitably returned anyways.

Edited April 22 by PublikDomain

[PollexMessier]

6 hours ago, xMarvin732 said:

I dont know how to think about that.. Warframe for Mobile was already announced and shown back then in Tennocon 2021.

By the time it was released in February, you couldnt get the Heirloom anymore, only if you had planned to play it on PC or Console beforehand and got it on these platforms and even then, Cross Save wasnt fully available for everyone after 31st December 2023.

Decisions like the heirloom collection take time. What's more it was a 10th anniversary "celebration" so I'm sure they had it planned quite a significant ways in advance.

I'm also sure there's a multitude of other reasons they made the mobile port besides just to cover their rears when a large chunk of the community inevitably jumped ship from such a brazen middle finger to them. so it's not like I'm saying Heirloom is the only reason they made the mobile port. That's a hell of a lot of effort to cover for one anti-consumer decision.

But they certainly timed the release of the two quite close together didn't they? And the point I was making wasn't that the mobile gaming community was going to be more prone to buying it. It's that they're more accepting of that level of BS. So the existence of the Heirloom collection is less of a factor to their interest and enjoyment of the game than it is to other demographics.

It could have been backwards. They might have made the heirloom collection the way that they did cus they knew the mobile port they were already making would more than make up for the players they lost by doing it. Ether way I'm sure the two influenced eachother somehow.

I don't really see what crossave has to do with it.

[Aruquae]

25 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

I mean yeah, Supporter packs have always been exclusive, time-gated, cash-only offerings. And DE just put three of them on the market permanently back in March.

Until then they had never returned, ever. They were exclusive and available for a limited time and you had to get them before they were gone.

There are also for example the Avia Prime armor set and other Twitch Prime/Prime Gaming cosmetics which were

Some were even "exclusive":

Twitch Prime/Amazon Prime being paid-for (third party) services. And now anyone can buy them from Varzia at any time. So they're not exclusive anymore. I would imagine the most recent Verv set of cosmetics will go the same way despite being just as exclusive to Prime Gaming members:

Etc.

Supporter packs weren't worded to ever return either. They were marketed as "exclusive". Can they really be exclusive if they would later become permanent market additions (for plat no less)? If they were exclusive to cash-only buyers who bought during the original promotion then that exclusivity has certainly changed. And why do the ads say to get them "before they’re gone" if they're just gonna come back later? You'd think if they were going to return in the future, then yes like you say they would've worded it that way. But they didn't, not for Supporter packs which returned anyways nor for Heirlooms. They marked them the same as all of the other exclusives that have inevitably returned anyways.

This is true

Well played, you've won this round

[xMarvin732]

13 minutes ago, PollexMessier said:

Decisions like the heirloom collection take time. What's more it was a 10th anniversary "celebration" so I'm sure they had it planned quite a significant ways in advance.

I'm also sure there's a multitude of other reasons they made the mobile port besides just to cover their rears when a large chunk of the community inevitably jumped ship from such a brazen middle finger to them. so it's not like I'm saying Heirloom is the only reason they made the mobile port. That's a hell of a lot of effort to cover for one anti-consumer decision.

But they certainly timed the release of the two quite close together didn't they? And the point I was making wasn't that the mobile gaming community was going to be more prone to buying it. It's that they're more accepting of that level of BS. So the existence of the Heirloom collection is less of a factor to their interest and enjoyment of the game than it is to other demographics.

It could have been backwards. They might have made the heirloom collection the way that they did cus they knew the mobile port they were already making would more than make up for the players they lost by doing it. Ether way I'm sure the two influenced eachother somehow.

I don't really see what crossave has to do with it.

Only mentioned cross save because the you said "You think warframe getting a mobile port wasn't timed suspiciously close to the Heirloom release?"

Mobile port was announced about 2 years before heirloom was a thing and cross save (in order to have it on mobile) came in February but all good 😄 didnt mean to start a discussion

[RPColten]

I'd rather they don't return.

That way they exist as a clear indicator of people that I won't trade with.

I'll take any excuse to add to my list of arbitrary and petty reasons not to trade with someone.

They just look terrible, and I don't want to give any coins to people with such outlandishly bad cosmetic-choice such as that, like enabling a drug addict by giving him petty cash.

[Voltage]

6 hours ago, Aruquae said:

This is true

Well played, you've won this round

We're all losing as a collective whole though. This is why I really don't understand this thread, my thread about the Supporter Pack skins being reintroduced, the 100+ pages on Heirlooms, the Regal Aya feedback, or all these other examples over the years. The entire point here is that we're all on the same team, whether we agree or disagree on points of the topic. Reading the same moderator (who's very obviously pro-DE because otherwise they wouldn't hold their position) give a take that absolutely misses the mark on the nuances of this discussion is distasteful, especially towards players like @PublikDomain, myself, and many others. I've seen several names come up more than once throughout these topics with long, articulated, critical, and well-communicated comments that explain both the issue and its inherent treatment towards customers (whether you buy or don't buy into it).

From when I started in 2015 to 2021, I have been a huge supporter of DE's transparency with monetization, and even though I knew they've employed exclusionary items before, they were well communicated with an inherent honor to their language, even if sometimes it stung when you missed something. I've always been a massive supporter of both Founders, their risk, and how that same respect has been extended to future players. That is now sadly all gone. Good will a currency, and DE has cashed out now. Between Regal Aya, Supporter Packs, Prime Gaming, and even the small change in Gauss Prime Access language (to hint towards an exclusion that isn't actually any different than older Prime cosmetics), their actions have become hollow. I won't be surprised when Heirlooms and TennoCon cosmetics are next on the menu.

With all that said, I do feel that discussing this topic and how it relates to Founders is very important. Somehow DE is lucky with a healthy percentage of vocal players defending a level of respect only given to initial customers. Current customers are not respected, as seen by countless well-worded threads and comments by various players. DE has chosen on their own accord to make the very word they've leaned on for respecting their Founders as meaningless, hollow, and deceptive. Whether you want to accept that or not is up to how much Copium you want to inhale. That's just how it is. If this is how it is, I'd just like to buy the Founders gear, let everyone have access to everything (Heirlooms too), and put this era of deceptive vocabulary and disingenuous marketing behind us. Warframe would have had a much stronger 10th year anniversary if they re-released the Founders package with a commitment to ending the predatory and deceptive usage of the word "exclusive" to sell items, and given everyone the permanent ability to purchase all the previously "exclusive" bundles (including Heirlooms) with the 10 year supporter badge being given to anyone who's bought anything for real money from the game ever (which is a stat I know they track by the way). 

I'd like to stop this charade of "respecting" Founders with the current way customers are treated with the modern monetization of the game. Founders are not the people keeping the game going, it's the players like you and me who make purchases right now. I'm sorry, but the historical value of Founders is no longer significant if the current population of paying customers is treated in a worse fashion. Like I said, I've always supported keeping Founders gear exclusive, because in the past, I felt that they had set a historical precedence that was holding true with future purchases, and it made me feel like DE had a backbone to monetization transparency set by that initial backing. They've cashed out on the good will of that situation after years of pushing the envelope, so I've switched sides.

I much rather benefit the rest of the playerbase and upset a couple Founders, because DE has quite literally done it with no problem to everybody else.

DE is not respecting Founders as players just because they only respect the Founders program. Founders are just another player at the end of the day, and their treatment has become equal to everyone around them. Their one exception of a purchase is not protecting them from how DE would treat them right now with a similar purchase.

Edited April 23 by Voltage

[Aruquae]

8 hours ago, Voltage said:

We're all losing as a collective whole though.

Specifically why I brought up winning the round

You may have one the battle, but not the war

And the war isn’t with random people on forums… it’s against DE’s sketchy monetization strat

…Why on earth did strat get capitalized? 
Edit: Why did it also capitalize “may?”

Edited April 23 by Aruquae

[Aruquae]

8 hours ago, Voltage said:

Reading the same moderator

And who is that moderator exactly? 

 

8 hours ago, Voltage said:

I won't be surprised when Heirlooms and TennoCon cosmetics are next on the menu.

Unfortunately… I believe you’re right… the only thing that’s probably holding them back is the creator themselves needing to agree. 

 

8 hours ago, Voltage said:

I've always been a massive supporter of both Founders, their risk, and how that same respect has been extended to future players. That is now sadly all gone. Good will a currency, and DE has cashed out now. Between Regal Aya, Supporter Packs, Prime Gaming, and even the small change in Gauss Prime Access language (to hint towards an exclusion that isn't actually any different than older Prime cosmetics), their actions have become hollow. I won't be surprised when Heirlooms and TennoCon cosmetics are next on the menu.

Noticed this too, it seems to have ended when they released regal aya. At least, that’s where the major backlash started when it comes to pricing… then I remember it tumbling down with the heirlooms and Gauss Prime. 

 

8 hours ago, Voltage said:

With all that said, I do feel that discussing this topic and how it relates to Founders is very important.

Precisely why I brought it up… context aside… they are both quite similar. You can even flip around my previous question into “If heirlooms were to return, what about Founders?” Everything that has been used for founders has been trying to be used for heirlooms. It’s one of those all or nothing occurrences. 

 

8 hours ago, Voltage said:

Warframe would have had a much stronger 10th year anniversary if they re-released the Founders package with a commitment to ending the predatory and deceptive usage of the word "exclusive" to sell items, and given everyone the permanent ability to purchase all the previously "exclusive" bundles (including Heirlooms) with the 10 year supporter badge being given to anyone who's bought anything for real money from the game ever (which is a stat I know they track by the way). 

This would seem like the case right? But to quote someone (I wish I knew who said it) “It’s almost as if they were trying to make another founder’s pack.” What was the founders pack when it released? A cash grab, DE using it to make some quick money. Yes, they needed the quick money then unlike now, but they can both be considered short term investments. 

 

8 hours ago, Voltage said:

I'd like to stop this charade of "respecting" Founders with the current way customers are treated with the modern monetization of the game. Founders are not the people keeping the game going, it's the players like you and me who make purchases right now.

Indeed, they might’ve given DE a starting loan (ok, not a loan, but you know what I mean), but that doesn’t mean they did everything. Warframe wouldn’t have survived if only the “founders” kept on playing. The reason it survived is because the player base kept growing. Not to mention, a majority of founders have quit, so clearly they aren’t helping the game. 

 

9 hours ago, Voltage said:

I much rather benefit the rest of the playerbase and upset a couple Founders, because DE has quite literally done it with no problem to everybody else.

The funny thing is, I’ve seen quite a bit of people with the founder’s pack stating they’re fine with it. Some will complain, yes, but it’s not like those who buy it wouldn’t be spending the same amount of money on it…? The only difference is the time. Yes, there are people who only want it for the rare (I’m guilty of liking rare shiny), but if it does happen like you proposed… it wouldn’t be considered rare anymore. It’ll slowly dwindle into an optional purchase that doesn’t hold much wait besides “Exclusive Excalibur with some gold.” Once something is out for a while, initial sales will obviously decrease due to no FOMO, but the average sales would obviously increase. How? Quite simple… you’re making money from a product you haven’t made money with in 10 years… 

 

9 hours ago, Voltage said:

DE is not respecting Founders as players just because they only respect the Founders program. Founders are just another player at the end of the day, and their treatment has become equal to everyone around them

If some Founder’s truly cry about this proposal… then at most DE can give them all some special “tag” (kind of like the 10 year support tag on your account) showing you were there in the beginning. It does absolutely nothing… it’s just a “flex,” if you ever want to brag. Just… please don’t brag founders… it’s quite annoying. 

[AzureTerra]

Plenty of stuff everywhere is limited time for whatever reason and most of it you don't need ~ this game is no exception.

I don't know a thing about the heirloom skins but I do know that it cant have been all that important in a game where there is so many cosmetic options, between the amazing Tennogen and the highly variable DE content and then just the range of colours that can be applied to all of those, not to mention that Armours, Syandana and occasional attachments that can be added as-well.