Yes or No, Will we ever have the chance at Mag and Frost Heirlooms?

[GovernmentSecrets.gov]

I bought Zenith, everyone should have the opportunity to also pick it up should they want to. If other purchasers are butt hurt over the idea of their permanent exclusivity ending so quickly after it was advertised then leave it exclusive for 2 - 3 years and then bring it back as is typical for event items. I don't lose anything by DE dropping the permanent exclusivity, so I cannot care less about DE opening the gates to allow others to enjoy what I have enjoyed. In fact I'd be happier and would prefer if they did so.

Here is the reality about permanent exclusivity I believe many fail to recognize. Sure, it's cool to own something special, but eventually there will come a day where you miss something and now you must be the one to put the shoe on the other foot, and YOU will be the one locked out which could very likely happen to no fault of your own. Maybe real life circumstances kept you too busy to catch a timed exclusive, maybe you were burnt out and were taking a break, maybe it was something else.

In my case, I have missed out on a lot by getting into gaming late, while everyone was playing online matchmaking games during the 360 era I was just introduced to PS2 gaming and was unaware you could play with people over the internet. Even when I had moved onto newer consoles I had not realized how important an internet connection was as all PS2 games were complete on disk as they shipped, and I still had no knowledge of online matchmaking, patches, DLC, etc for a very long time. A lot of modern games cannot be 100% completed anymore and this is because of permanent exclusivity. This is why I am strongly against permanent exclusivity in general alongside factors beyond our control impacting what we are allowed to enjoy in the future.

As for the "promise"/ legality argument, other games commonly say one thing and do another all the time. Halo Infinite promised couch co-op and we never got it. DarkTide advertised a Solo mode and we never got it, and there are many more examples just like it. I think people put too much stock in DE's hands being tied. While lying is clearly bad, I think a change of policy on how these things are handled would be a very positive change. Allowing 2 - 3 years on the Frost/ Mag Heirlooms will allow those items to lose their luster with the few who actually care about the exclusivity period and then change policy of permanent exclusivity afterwards i.e no more permanent exclusives introduced, and the eventual reintegration of other permanent exclusives by similar means of access. I think that would be a nice meeting in the middle for both sides.

Exclusivity isn't a bad thing, but it should only ever be temporary with no public dead line, and everything should eventually come back at some point. There's zero sense in locking people out of something they may also enjoy. It's a video game, those are supposed to be fun, so DE should let people have fun. I think they have recognized this regarding how the Heirloom program is now being handled which is really nice to see.

Edited Wednesday at 10:32 PM by GovernmentSecrets.gov
Typos fixed, correction on game title, and edit for clarification on what I meant.

[(XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA]

7 hours ago, trst said:

Short answer: No.

 

Longer answer: It's their strictest wording of "this will NEVER return" since the Founder's pack and DE has already made it clear they don't intend to go back on that. And if it ever did return then it'd certainty remain cash only and likely at/close to the same price they originally were. So your only shot, and it's a long one, at seeing them again is needing to drop near $90 USD at some point years down the line.

And it seems like a lot of people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this. 

"Limited time only" "get it before its gone" etc leave some ambiguity about if and when it's ever coming back. 

Mcdonalds uses similar marketing for the mcrib lol.

But they very clearly stated it was not coming back and then doubled down specifically in response to the fomo criticism.

3 hours ago, Circle_of_Psi said:

Correct.

Correct.

9 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Will we have a chance at Excalibur Prime? No.

Did we have a chance at Ignis Wraith? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Primed Chamber? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Primed cosmetics? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Lato Vandal? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Braton Vandal? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Twitch Prime cosmetics? Yes.

Did we have a chance at the Athodai? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Deimos, Zariman, and New War Supporter packs? Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Will we have a chance at every single other Heirloom in the future? Yes.

All of these were "no"s, right up until they became "yes". So far there's only ever been one hard "no".

So keep asking. Mag and Frost Heirloom can and should return. The only official reason DE has given for why they don't want to bring them back is that they don't think it would be "fair" to do so. That's it. They don't think it would be fair if you got to participate too. The rest is speculation that doesn't even hold up when you actually dig into it.

As Myself and others explained ad nauseum in the other thread, wording matters. 

Most if not all of those examples used different wording. 

It was *explicitly stated* that not only were these "going away" but that they would not come back ever. 

It was also stated after the fact that they did not think it would be fair to change the pricing, or availability, after the fact.

I know from experience you'd be perfectly happy to sit here and argue about this until the thermal heat death of the universe, but I think you're gonna be holding your breath over this for a long time if that's what you decide to do. 

***whether justified or not*** DE seems to think this is on par with the founders pack. Regardless of how strongly you think "but that's different".

[Quest]

Honestly I think they will do it eventually

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

1 hour ago, kuciol said:

In case of all those items they never stated they wont return right? Because thats the case with Mag and Frost skins. The only other instance when they stated such thing was the founders package as you pointed out. They did stick to their word so far. And yes its not about any legal nonsense or any other made up reason. Its only about keeping the promise, nothing else.

 

For transparency and clarity sake, this is not the first time such a discussion has been made.

Which I assume you probably already know and understand. You may have participated in some potentially too. 

Your question. Its a bit complex though for a few reasons. Let's say hypothetically DE brings back the Mag and Frost Heirlooms in 2 years time. Someone might say "but you said these items would never return" and then DE (probably preemptively addresses that) by stating somewhere, these once previously limited exclusive items, are now being offered again, and will be on rotation. Someone might ask in the Devstream "but I thought you guys said that" and someone might say "at the time they were, but we have introduced a few Heirlooms since then with a different model, and we felt like our first attempt missed the mark, and so a few years later we assessed the situation and decided it would be better for the fans and players to make them available again, since literally all the other Heirlooms are, and to be consistent". 

Then you will arguments on the forums, and someone, a player will say "but they said they would never return" and then someone else, another player can say "well they never said, they will never change their mind ever no matter what, no matter anything" or "they will never said, that never means definitely and absolutely never ever, which is a far more absolute and technically binding statement" so there. Which would technically be true. Except you know..., at that point, that starts getting a bit silly. Having sincere conversations and discussions with people who only stick to that sort of rhetoric is tiring. 

DE has often and frequently used terms and language like "limited time", "only available this way" and "get them now before they are gone" and many people have made purchases informed by such wording and language. Its a little bit disingenuous for people to try and downplay such language and terms, under the idea "well 'get them before its gone' doesn't mean that in 3 years DE won't offer them again (Supporter Packs), or maybe never as well (Tennocon Pack Items), because some people have complained and felt mislead by such language and terms like with several of PublicDomain's examples. Which to be clear, in case it needs to be said, I sympathise with and think its valid for people to feel mislead, pressured, induced or falsely advertised at, even if arguments about consumer friendly practices and correcting errors are also compelling points or arguments to make.

I am also not saying that its unreasonable to distinguish and put more stock in more explicit terms that sound relatively more conditional than others. Language and words can be complex and nuance that way. For some limited time might be more ambiguous, but ehh. Often, that term alludes to the idea of limited availability and only during a specific time window. Some might argue, well nothing about that suggests that such windows can't be repeated, extended or modified, but then you start getting into intent, criteria, fairness, parameters, consumer friendliness... Regardless, phrasing like "never returning" is relatively more explicit, but many of the same general principals generally apply still. Especially around consumer friendliness and practices. 

Cheers. 

 

[PublikDomain]

4 hours ago, kuciol said:

In case of all those items they never stated they wont return right? Because thats the case with Mag and Frost skins. The only other instance when they stated such thing was the founders package as you pointed out. They did stick to their word so far. And yes its not about any legal nonsense or any other made up reason. Its only about keeping the promise, nothing else.

Explicitly? No. Implicitly? Absolutely, they're all "exclusive", "time limited", "get it before it's gone", "this weekend only", "these players only", etc. They've broken these (crappy) promises over and over again. And that's good! Bad promises are bad and should be broken. "I promise you will never be allowed to enjoy this skin" is a pretty crappy thing to promise!

57 minutes ago, (XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA said:

wording matters. 

It doesn't. Wording doesn't justify being crappy.

Edited Thursday at 01:21 AM by PublikDomain

[kuciol]

1 minute ago, PublikDomain said:

Explicitly? No. Implicitly? Absolutely, they're all "exclusive", "time limited", "get it before it's gone", "this weekend only", "these players only", etc. They've broken these (crappy) promises over and over again. And that's good! Bad promises are bad and should be broken. "I promise you will never be allowed to enjoy this skin" is a pretty crappy thing to promise!

None of those statements mean they will never again be available.

[PublikDomain]

Just now, kuciol said:

None of those statements mean they will never again be available.

Only if you weasel around the wording and insert little "this times" and "for nows" that aren't actually there,

For example, the Deimos Supporter packs which had marketing like: Get exclusive Customizations before they’re gone

Does this actually say "Get temporarily exclusive Customizations before they’re gone this time"?

No.

[Quest]

14 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Explicitly? No. Implicitly? Absolutely, they're all "exclusive", "time limited", "get it before it's gone", "this weekend only", "these players only", etc. They've broken these (crappy) promises over and over again. And that's good! Bad promises are bad and should be broken. "I promise you will never be allowed to enjoy this skin" is a pretty crappy thing to promise!

^^^

What they said about it before is irrelevant to whether the position is good or not. It isn't. So they should change it.

Edited Thursday at 01:33 AM by Quest

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

58 minutes ago, (XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA said:

As Myself and others explained ad nauseum in the other thread, wording matters. 

Most if not all of those examples used different wording. 

It was *explicitly stated* that not only were these "going away" but that they would not come back ever. 

It was also stated after the fact that they did not think it would be fair to change the pricing, or availability, after the fact.

I know from experience you'd be perfectly happy to sit here and argue about this until the thermal heat death of the universe, but I think you're gonna be holding your breath over this for a long time if that's what you decide to do. 

***whether justified or not*** DE seems to think this is on par with the founders pack. Regardless of how strongly you think "but that's different".

 

Wording does matter.

As far as I am aware, this conversation usually goes pretty predictably, but it also often involves peoples assumptions. 

Lets say hypothetically that in 2 years time DE rereleases Mag and Frost Heirloom. Are you personally going to be outraged and try to sue them? Are you going to get angry and claim thats impossible, since they said they would never return, and surely that must mean it never will? 

Or will you go... "Huh interesting, I guess they changed their mind, I wonder what drama this might create. [Good or Bad] move i think". [Good or Bad] being reflective of what you may personally think. 

Personally? It wouldn't surprise me, if we never saw Mag or Frost Heirlooms again. Though it also wouldn't surprise me if we did. None of the arguments I make, are necessarily around the framing of "They should, and so I am going to hold my breathe until they do", its usually around establishing context and questioning certain ideas, rhetoric and arguments that some people make, which is fine as personal speculation, but not necessarily objective accurate. Like the hypothetical I ask, is just to illustrate or convey an idea to people. For years, people would occasionally ask about certain old items, from Supporters packs, and the most common and general replies from people about acquiring them were "You can't, that was a Supporter Item, and that was advertised as limited time only. Its from 4 years ago, they have never come back." and those, for the time, were pretty reasonable answers and thoughts, and beliefs, as well as being common... but then earlier this year, many of those items were made available again, and people can now acquire them. So technically all those replies throughout the years, were wrong/inaccurate... 

So its also about context as well as wording. 

Its also not a "strong opinion or feeling thing", but more of a generally understanding of how businesses, advertising, PR speak, consumer rights, (and a little, little bit on the legal side, but not enough I would claim to be an expert) can be around such issues. As well as the arguments people can make, for, against, in-between etc. Its not so personal. Like with Regal Aya, DE issued a statement explaining how they couldn't make certain changes, for the fairness of some players who already made purchases. Then a little bit later they made changes anyway... DE's sense of fairness is fluid and more about appeasing, and satisfying as many players as they can, especially in an optics sort of way, but to be super clear, thats not myself claiming they are insincere... Just that PR speak is a thing, and no matter what DE does, its in their best interest to frame their decisions as being "fair for the players", even if then, they change their mind several times, renege on what they said, do something else entirely, that also happens to still somehow be about being fair to the players (which in DE's case, I would generally say, is genuine), but like... again, PR speak and trying to communicate that. 

To put it another way, any and all decisions DE takes will generally be framed as fairness, or can be. Everything ultimately will generally be for the players but and also the sustainability of the business (which also means the players), which actually then means... well. Like if DE were to start struggling and parent businesses started to exert pressure that DE weren't necessarily happy with (hypothetically), would they frame any decisions as "well know this is unfair to you guys, but we are going to do it anyway" or will it be framed as "in order for Warframe to continue to exist and grow in the market, we have had to make changes to stay competitive in this market, including trying out new tactics and monetisation plans. This will ultimately keep the lights on, and allow our players to continue to enjoy the game they love". Corporations aren't our buddies. Its really nice when we have businesses with Creative Directors and CEO's that seem way more grounded, ethical, down to Earth, transparent, and as likeable and genuine as Steve and Reb come across, but even they have to answer to people, and its not like they get to address or communicate to another individual as an individual. They have to communicate to a massive player base, of different personalities, attitudes, ideals, preferences...

Oh and to also be clear, I know your reply was directed at Publik, and not myself, but a lot our points and sentiment overlap. Its not that I think you necessarily said anything disagreeable or unreasonable, like we definitely agree that words matter, but some might argue, how and why they matter exactly, should be given context and acknowledged. Plus i never got the impression that Publik was just holding their breath waiting for DE to rerelease those skins, they just like to call out arguments and points that seem to not take into consideration DE's history with limited time exclusivity, certain wording they used with advertisements, and general consumer friendly acts and attitudes, including possibly reneging on certain practices, not out of spite of fairness but for a better/superior type of fairness, as well as just generally avoiding them in the future. Which... given the vast improvements Ember Heirloom is... 

Cheers. 

 

[darklord122]

In terms of legality and advertising laws wording does matter when it comes down to the specifics.

If something says "Exclusive offer" Or "Limited time offer" Or "Exclusive items" It can definitely mean a product comes back as those terms have a fair amount of ambiguity and are used all the time, Coupons being a prime example.

But if said advertisement states it will only sell a limited amount, or that it will "Never come back" In specific terms that changes a few things law wise and DE could very much look at a law suit depending on the individual. Its precisely for that reason that the founder packs have never come back due to that specific wording and promise.

One can easily say a promise can be broken but law wise its not that easy and its something people have to accept. And for past things such as limited time offers and exclusive packs DE have had the legality behind them but here not so much.

Especially since DE specifically have gone on record to say that they will never come back. There is no ambiguity, no matter the reason they gave for it weather its fair for the people who bought it or not.

And while that is a shame there is nothing one can do about it.

Edited Thursday at 01:50 AM by darklord122

[kuciol]

28 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Only if you weasel around the wording and insert little "this times" and "for nows" that aren't actually there,

For example, the Deimos Supporter packs which had marketing like: Get exclusive Customizations before they’re gone

Does this actually say "Get temporarily exclusive Customizations before they’re gone this time"?

No.

It didnt say"before they are gone forever". Honestly nothing you say will change my mind on it and nothing i say will change yours. Im in a camp "they said no so that how it should remain" lets end this at that.

Edited Thursday at 01:59 AM by kuciol

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

26 minutes ago, kuciol said:

None of those statements mean they will never again be available.

 

Never coming back again ever, also doesn't mean that DE can't just go, eh 2 years is passed, actually our decision from 2 years ago, was actually really dumb, and the guy who proposed that idea was demoted anyway. Some fans will probably be annoyed, but %^%^ it, more people will probably be happy, so lets just bring them back and put them in rotation. Plus our business/finances people project we'll make some nice money off them, and we all need jacuzzis, so... 

Businesses mislead, change their mind, go back on stuff all the time. They can't do it with utter impunity, and utter disregard for consequences and penalties, and there can be certain other consequences to consider (consumer goodwill). Thats a longer and bigger conversation to have though. Like Reb also often says "never say never but", (though you know, its unlikely she personally wrote the store page for the older Heirlooms, and obviously talking off the cuff informally is different from an official page involving financial transactions, but its not like that is writing physical laws into the DNA of the Universe either.)

Also again though, not me saying there isn't a difference between "get it before its gone", "only way to get these", "limited time exclusive only" and "These will never return again", because there obviously is, but there is more to the scale.

Like they didn't say "These will definitely never ever return, pinky promise, cross my heart and hope to die stick a needle in my eye wait a moment, I spoke a lie I never really wanted to die. But if I may and if I might my heart is open for tonight though my lips are sealed and a promise is true I won't break my word my word to you."... like if they bust that out...

Then you know they are serious. Its only one step below. "These Heirlooms will never return, and if they do, Reb and Steve will be forced to eat the Pink Dev Shorts live on stage at Tennocon". Which is obviously the most guaranteed vow. 

[kuciol]

Bla bla bla. They said no, 3 times already. This is just a skin, inconsequential to gameplay. Die on that cross if you want, i dont care. If they do break that word they will lose in my eyes but im not important enough for that to have any meaning. It doesnt change the fact that in my opinion they shouldnt bring those skins back.

[RiddleMeNani]

1 minute ago, kuciol said:

Bla bla bla. They said no, 3 times already. This is just a skin, inconsequential to gameplay. Die on that cross if you want, i dont care. If they do break that word they will lose in my eyes but im not important enough for that to have any meaning. It doesnt change the fact that in my opinion they shouldnt bring those skins back.

I see someone's Wheaties got p***ed in this morning

Anyways...

[RiddleMeNani]

16 hours ago, Chewarette said:

It would be the only correct move to do, but they won't, because of a very vocal minority who paid for that exclusivity. Those few who didn't pay for the skins. Just for the exclusivity itself coming out of it.

Right, it just feels like a big 'Hawk Tuah' to those who didnt want to breaktheir banks fr 🙃

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

12 minutes ago, darklord122 said:

In specific terms that changes a few things law wise and DE could very much look at a law suit depending on the individual. Its precisely for that reason that the founder packs have never come back due to that specific wording and promise.

 

To my best current understanding, so feel free to educate me, if you have legal expertise, please (and I extend this to anyone), I am happy to take on more informed and educated views, arguably not if enough circumstances have changed, upon which the original offer was advertised, to distinguish between deliberate deception as far as intent, and a change in business plan or strategy, given a context of enough variables having been changed. For example, if a bike store deliberately prints misleading advertisements for goods, and this induces/pressures a consumer to buy a product/goods because of that advertisement... If the advertisement contradicts itself in some way, and does so repeatedly and it can be established that the business knowingly misleads people, including for the sake of pressuring/inducing people to buy a product they might not otherwise... (Which can be pretty easily established a few different ways), then thats the sort of situation where such laws can come into play. 

As far as I know, it gets more complicated around online digital goods and advertising laws, just because many countries laws/legislation are playing catch up, are in my humble opinion, actually falling behind as far as consumer friendliness, consumer rights and protections, but eh... So there might actually be a lot of wriggle room for DE as far as changes they might potentially make, especially in the future, especially if they enough ways to establish that there was no original intent to deceive, and could establish that such a movie is in the best interest for consumers overall, as well as necessarily as far as sustaining itself as a business, even if they did use wording like "never ever return" which sounds pretty final/definitive. 

Again though I am not legal expert (though I may possess more knowledge on the topic that your average layman). So if you know stuff I don't know... I would actually really enjoy an actual expert talking about the matter and taking questions. 

Also what is your source or belief that is the reason for Founders packs? I have searched, and as far as I know, they aren't coming back ever, but whether its a legal reason or not, hasn't been established by DE. (Though for transparency, I am not saying its not, just most of the time, I see this, its just players speculating, and assuming. Some DE people have spoke about it, like there is that pretty well known RED interview, but when I have seen such interviews, they never mention the legal aspects (probably because it might actually create more legal issues if they made claims about legal issues, if they weren't actual legal issues). 

Thanks and cheers. 

[RiddleMeNani]

15 hours ago, C11H22O1 said:

They should, people that bought it can have their 10 year badge to flex their dumb exclusivity if they want.

They won't though, the opportunity to do something about it without making some people pissed has already passed and they gave a terrible excuse for not doing anything.

Now instead of continuing to profit from that offer they got their money from it and no more, exclusivity for digital items is such a silly thing, at least the new heirlooms won't be bad like that one.

Literallly!
I dont mind just having the skin and little attachments that come with - i dont need the fun stuff that was purely meant for the 10 year anniversary.

it really is a shame, especially business wise going into the future, so im hoping later on down the line they'll bring them back like some others in this section have made points over.

[C11H22O1]

6 minutes ago, kuciol said:

Bla bla bla. They said no, 3 times already. This is just a skin, inconsequential to gameplay. Die on that cross if you want, i dont care. If they do break that word they will lose in my eyes but im not important enough for that to have any meaning. It doesnt change the fact that in my opinion they shouldnt bring those skins back.

You didn't even buy it why are you getting so pissy about it, people clearly like these skins, making them limited time was really stupid, literally money they could be getting for years to come.

Also you seriously underestimate how much a skin can make people play a game more, playing a character that you find visually pleasing can really enhance a game for a lot of people.

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

9 minutes ago, kuciol said:

Bla bla bla. They said no, 3 times already. This is just a skin, inconsequential to gameplay. Die on that cross if you want, i dont care. If they do break that word they will lose in my eyes but im not important enough for that to have any meaning. It doesnt change the fact that in my opinion they shouldnt bring those skins back.

 

Yadda yadda, I am not interested in a neutral conversation with people, so i will characterise people who disagree with me, as wanting to die on a cross, and say something like "if you think DE will kick puppies to the Moon, sure thats your prerogative, I don't care" and then say something cliche like at the end of the day, the sun still rises, and I have a strong opinion about this, and I don't like your points, since they don't agree with me, so like whatever its just your opinion man. 

Other people can employ such rhetoric as well. Arguably better too. 

No one is saying that DE haven't said no or made their position clear, people can and will critique "bad" rhetoric and arguments. Also when I say "bad", I don't mean bad as in unreasonable and crazy to believe or think, I just mean relatively lacking in comparison to points and context that go more in-depth and offer superior context and explanative power. 

People are entitled to their opinion, thats totally fine, and not everything needs to devolve into petty online squabbling. 

Just more bla bla bla though right?

[kuciol]

2 minutes ago, C11H22O1 said:

You didn't even buy it why are you getting so pissy about it, people clearly like these skins, making them limited time was really stupid, literally money they could be getting for years to come.

Also you seriously underestimate how much a skin can make people play a game more, playing a character that you find visually pleasing can really enhance a game for a lot of people.

Im not pissy at all. Just those pompous speeches are pointless. There is no need to write essey when somebody doesnt agree with you, you know. It would do me personaly no harm if they came back, hell i might even buy them but the point still stands. I would prefer if they did what they promised, thats all.

[RiddleMeNani]

14 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

I read what you wrote, and sympathise, and have made many critical posts about this topic, and I agree and understand your frustration. 

That being said, despite what I just said, your, or our best bet, if I had to speculate, would be to try and temporarily put the issue aside for now. 

Framing the question around yes or no, will likely only just get a No from DE. If they were to commit to such an answer. The focus seems much more on upcoming updates, Tennocon, which is usually something pretty big, 1997, and even just as far as Heirlooms go, Ember. Whilst in some ways, it might seem relevant to therefore bring up Frost and Mag, the issue... is its so much of a discussed, beaten to death topic... Not only that, replies will often be easy to predict. Some will sympathise, some will agree, some will disagree, some will cite legal or contractual reasons, without necessarily having the legal expertise or skill to make such a claim... Which often ironically starts more people spreading such an idea based on hear say, others statements (have actually had a person claim it was a fact, because they saw someone else claim it with certainty).... Its not like DE is going to go in depth on whether its a legal issue or not (I'd love to be proven wrong if they did, that would be great to know). 

Consumer wise, and if you do want some way of having options for a Mag or Frost Heirloom, and again, just my speculation... Probably be smart to just support future Heirlooms, and when given opportunity, voice your reason for supporting them, being the improvements DE made to them, as being an influential reason why. Then in the future, when its established that new Heirlooms are what DE should have started with, when we have multiple Heirlooms that are on rotation... except for Mag and Frost... Then maybe revisiting those two skins specifically and making enquiries about whether DE might want to reconsider its stance as it has time to time. 

Even more newer players will be around, even more people who missed out for various reasons will be around, the issue won't be so beaten a dead horse topic that pops up so frequently, DE may have better internal data to justify such decisions (going to rotation than being strictly time limited), and maybe those that might have an issue with the exclusivity, may soften their stance when they see that other Heirloom skins are on rotation and why that is a good thing for fans in general. 

Again though thats just my speculation. I just think its something DE would rather ignore for a while to focus more on Ember Heirloom, and fans and players (some) can be fickle, and strongly opinionated. You bring up certain issues a lot and some will double down and start to take joy in the idea that some people missed out, spread speculation as fact (and to be clear, I am not saying they are necessarily wrong, just such things can be complicated and no one here really actually knows the internal stance DE holds over such things, and legally, well its complex), etc. 

Lastly though and once again, I am sorry you missed out. I am sorry a lot of people missed out. Future could be different though. Other time limited exclusive supporter items ave come back, never say never. 

For starters, I applaud and appreciate you especially for making this post reply. I genuinely did not expect nayone to actually have an educated opinion and/or answer even if it is speculation and opinion.

I do genuinely hope you are right though, speculation or not, I want future players to be able to enjoy the game and its amazing content, not just for myself, and not be stopped by those who want to have this weird flex of 'Ohhh I have this thing and you dont, hurr hurr hurr', its honestly pretty cringe in my opinion to see people want to die on that hill so badly 😓

like, I do get it to a degree, especially for that kind of money. 

but at the end of the day, it feeds into toxic behaviors that already exist in other game platforms. 

I do feel sort of selfish for phrasing the original post/discussion as 'Me, me, and only me' with the ordeal, as you mentioned, about DE being primarily focused at this point in time about tennocon and such. I cant even imagine how difficult it must be juggling everything DE does whenever they have a fire at their heels about something like this. 

it does put things into perspective.

i still feel really frustrated, for semi good reason, but it does make it easier to swallow and take a step back for a moment. so thank you for that. 

im sorry if this doesnt make ANY sense at all (i will admit im pretty tired atm lmao)

[RiddleMeNani]

14 hours ago, Aerikx said:

I get the random urge to desire the heirlooms.

But they are more of a mark of shame for both DE and those who purchased them. 

As for DE it was a rare time when they went full predatory on their playerbase.

For the buyers, it's their shame as they rewarded the predatory practice and now have a glorious skin to display that they are OK with such practices and behaviors and will support such practices. 

Be proud that you don't have Heirlooms of shame in your inventory.

Pretty well said, i applaud those that willingly skipped out even if it meant not being able to enjoy amazing cosmetics.

hopefully, in the near-ish future, once DE gets through their workload (tennocon, 1999, etc) theyll have a moment to actually think and connect that 'hm, maybe that wasnt the best idea actually' 🙃

never say never

but then again, all we can do is cross our fingers 

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

3 minutes ago, kuciol said:

Im not pissy at all. Just those pompous speeches are pointless. There is no need to write essey when somebody doesnt agree with you, you know. It would do me personaly no harm if they came back, hell i might even buy them but the point still stands. I would prefer if they did what they promised, thats all.

 

Who cares if some people want to write an essay because they have knowledge on the subject matter. Are you the Opinion Police where only Twitter sized opinions you agree with are allowed? 

What you are doing seems pretty transparent and why some might think you are pissy (I personally wouldn't claim that though), because you seem like you are taking an antagonistic Us vs Them strategy. When they argue, its pompous, and bla bla, when you do it, well thats different right? Yet you don't even seem to pick up that some people aren't necessary disagreeing with you, or invalidating your personal stance, just pointing out that some of your points and arguments aren't that strong. They don't need to be as far as opinions go, but some people actually care more about context in regards to how business and corporations interact with consumers and consumer rights, and the complications that can arise. 

Not that hostile or heated or tense or the sort of things that require sides. All of us posting are consumers, just some of us also happen to have different preferences, and thats also fair. 

[RiddleMeNani]

11 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Will we have a chance at Excalibur Prime? No.

Did we have a chance at Ignis Wraith? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Primed Chamber? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Primed cosmetics? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Lato Vandal? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Braton Vandal? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Twitch Prime cosmetics? Yes.

Did we have a chance at the Athodai? Yes.

Did we have a chance at Deimos, Zariman, and New War Supporter packs? Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Will we have a chance at every single other Heirloom in the future? Yes.

All of these were "no"s, right up until they became "yes". So far there's only ever been one hard "no".

So keep asking. Mag and Frost Heirloom can and should return. The only official reason DE has given for why they don't want to bring them back is that they don't think it would be "fair" to do so. That's it. They don't think it would be fair if you got to participate too. The rest is speculation that doesn't even hold up when you actually dig into it.

Very true, DE does have a pretty big streak of going 'Erm, Actually- I lied about that...' 😂

it does give me a little bit of hope, just takes the time to wait and see is the hard part.

[darklord122]

22 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

 

To my best current understanding, so feel free to educate me, if you have legal expertise, please (and I extend this to anyone), I am happy to take on more informed and educated views, arguably not if enough circumstances have changed, upon which the original offer was advertised, to distinguish between deliberate deception as far as intent, and a change in business plan or strategy, given a context of enough variables having been changed. For example, if a bike store deliberately prints misleading advertisements for goods, and this induces/pressures a consumer to buy a product/goods because of that advertisement... If the advertisement contradicts itself in some way, and does so repeatedly and it can be established that the business knowingly misleads people, including for the sake of pressuring/inducing people to buy a product they might not otherwise... (Which can be pretty easily established a few different ways), then thats the sort of situation where such laws can come into play. 

As far as I know, it gets more complicated around online digital goods and advertising laws, just because many countries laws/legislation are playing catch up, are in my humble opinion, actually falling behind as far as consumer friendliness, consumer rights and protections, but eh... So there might actually be a lot of wriggle room for DE as far as changes they might potentially make, especially in the future, especially if they enough ways to establish that there was no original intent to deceive, and could establish that such a movie is in the best interest for consumers overall, as well as necessarily as far as sustaining itself as a business, even if they did use wording like "never ever return" which sounds pretty final/definitive. 

Again though I am not legal expert (though I may possess more knowledge on the topic that your average layman). So if you know stuff I don't know... I would actually really enjoy an actual expert talking about the matter and taking questions. 

Also what is your source or belief that is the reason for Founders packs? I have searched, and as far as I know, they aren't coming back ever, but whether its a legal reason or not, hasn't been established by DE. (Though for transparency, I am not saying its not, just most of the time, I see this, its just players speculating, and assuming. Some DE people have spoke about it, like there is that pretty well known RED interview, but when I have seen such interviews, they never mention the legal aspects (probably because it might actually create more legal issues if they made claims about legal issues, if they weren't actual legal issues). 

Thanks and cheers. 

Digital goods or not a product is still a product so the legal jargon does not really change unless stated otherwise from what I know and, While I'm not an expert when it comes to it I know a bit to the very least.

For advertisements conflicting I'm not sure what you mean as, While DE has had repeated events of returning things that are exclusive, they have never returned something they explicitly have stated to never come back.

Necessity for sustaining themselves as a business does not really matter in terms of legality, It was a decision they made and while it wont be a continuous revenue source it did bring in money, If that was the point or not who can say but there is not much legal room for them.

The founder program itself had a bunch of advertisements towards its limited access and exclusivity in its items even when it was extended and then finally had gone through its run.
Thus they can not return and I believe have been stated not to.

For legality in terms of law suits, Not only do they have to think about the possible thousands of players out of the millions we have, They also have to consider the advertising laws. As DE could be investigated by government or the FTC. So even if not a single individual would actually sue DE they can still get in very hot water with a single report and get slapped with fines that are very hefty. It can also lead to more legal actions I believe but I'm not entirely sure.


They don't mention the legality of it because they do not really need to in reality, And they have probably their own reasons for it I really can't say.


But even if we disregard most of this, They have already stated on stream that it wont come back. Several times now. There is no ambiguity in their message of not re-releasing it. It would also probably drag out more problems for them, Such as founder packs. Because if they break one promise of a never returning item then what stops them from doing it with the founder packs? Its just another promise after all.

But its not so simple in reality. And its not a pot that DE wishes to stir.

And just because those heirlooms wont come back that does not mean they wont make new ones for Mag and Frost. Just that they can not bring back the old ones.

For those who own it and wants people to be able to have it that's great. But the ones who don't want it are also valid in that opinion no matter the FOMO.

Some things people have to accept when it comes down to it. FOMO is S#&$ but it happened and we gotta move on from that. They already changed the future of the heirloom program at-least so the possibilities are endless.

Edited Thursday at 02:40 AM by darklord122