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

[kuciol]

1 minute ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

 

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. 

That essey was targeted at me. So yes, i can have an opinion about such replays.

[RiddleMeNani]

11 hours ago, Circle_of_Psi said:

this made me giggle some

Respect for it

[RiddleMeNani]

10 hours ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

With respect, you literally titled your post:

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

Someone replied:

No

Your title asked for something specific, and someone provided it.  If that's not actually what you wanted, I'd recommend being more cautious with your phrasing in the future.  If you want someone to read a short essay (which is a valid desire), it's probably not the best idea to invite them into the thread under the pretense that you just want to ask a simple yes-or-no question.

Listen man, shamed as I am to admit it- 

I'm used to reddit when it comes to posting these sorts of discussions.

 

I agree, with this community, I should have known better- However, I was meaning to make that reply seem a bit more like a joke or something. to make myself and others maybe go 'haha funny' but reading it out loud I can see why you made this reply 😓

it does sound really monotone and kinda snobby ngl. Not my intention at all sot hats my bad.

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

5 minutes ago, RiddleMeNani said:

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)

 

All good, and no worries. 

A lot of people missed out in the skins, either because of financial issues, or they were on a break from the game, or lots of reasons, that in theory wouldn't be an issue if like pretty much most other things in Warframe, like Prime Cosmetics, Prime Resurgeance, certain Seasonal items, all eventually return in some manner or form. 

Don't feel selfish though, you are just being sincere and thats good. It also echoes a lot of other peoples frustrations too. 

I also just have discussed this topic a lot, and well it can get a bit heated, even though I don't think it has to. Then I think there is good reason to be optimistic, since the new Ember Heirlooms, and future Heirlooms are very very different and much more consumer friendly than Mag and Frost were. DE acknowledged the misstep, implemented vast improvements, its a generally good thing overall. It is a little ironic because as far as "fairness" as an idea... we now have a situation, where the people who argued and criticised the Mag and Frost Heirloom, whose feedback was listened to, now means that every other Warframe potentially in the game, will potentially get a Heirloom skin, that will be available for Plat, will never be permanently made unavailable and will be on a rotation, and also generally much cheaper... except Frost and Mag... so if you like or main those Warframes... So fans of every other Warframe get the benefits... 

Regardless, even if DE did actually want to bring them back and looked into ways to make that possible, doing that now, probably wouldn't be that great, because they will want people to focus on Ember Heirloom, and the other new Heirloom they will announce at Tennocon. You still have people like some in this thread that want those skins to be exclusive, and annoying them so close to Tennocon and causing that sort of drama, about whether they will keep their word... drama over "but you guys promised...you said never return. Ever!" Its... even if I disagree, such player dissatisfaction would be valid. I do also happen to think more people would prefer them eventually returned, but even if its a single person who feels mislead and manipulated by false advertising... I think thats still something and valid. 

The sort of thing that time can soften though, especially if they continue to release Heirloom skins year after year and especially when they start to return into the rotation, because thats when the glaring exclusion of Frost and Mag will start to bother more and more people. 

You also made sense, so all good, and take care, 

 

 

[RiddleMeNani]

9 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 honestly?
i'd be okay with that.

I agree that it was really sh*t tha those who DID pay the original prices had to do so because DE made a really bad market price.

So if it meant they came back, as long as it was everything that originally was in the bundles respectively, I would not mind paying the hard dollar.

 

my personal best case scenario, or preference even, is to bring them back just the skins and signas/attachments that came with at a more affordable and reasonable price. that way those who paid the big bucks still have their bragging rights, but new players or players who missed out/didnt want to reward that predatory action can still have that chance.

but this isnt a perfect world though...

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

12 minutes ago, kuciol said:

That essey was targeted at me. So yes, i can have an opinion about such replays.

 

I agree. Most of my posts have literally included and asserted that you should and can have opinions. 

See isn't it nice to actually agree about some things, whilst understanding and acknowledging its also okay to disagree about some things (nature of opinions). Then pointing out that not all expressions or types of communication are opinions. Like trying to dictate other peoples method of expression opinions.

Also what do you mean by targeted? If people disagree with you, they are attacking you personally?

[kuciol]

2 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

 

I agree. Most of my posts have literally included and asserted that you should and can have opinions. 

See isn't it nice to actually agree about some things, whilst understanding and acknowledging its also okay to disagree about some things (nature of opinions). Then pointing out that not all expressions or types of communication are opinions. Like trying to dictate other peoples method of expression opinions.

Also what do you mean by targeted? If people disagree with you, they are attacking you personally?

Well if you just read my first post in this topic you would know. I stated simple opinion and somebody felt offended by it, like come on.

Edited Thursday at 02:57 AM by kuciol

[RiddleMeNani]

4 hours ago, GovernmentSecrets.gov said:

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.

Very well said, it might as well be Poetry.

I would absolutely LOVE to see something like this happen, not just in warframe, but other games too. 

[PublikDomain]

3 hours ago, darklord122 said:

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

If you want to go down the legality rabbit hole, well, kind of but not entirely. The context of the ad and what the wording conveys matters. From the FTC:

Quote

A typical inquiry follows these steps:

• The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures - to determine what it conveys to consumers.
• The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims. An express claim is literally made in the ad. For example, "ABC Mouthwash prevents colds" is an express claim that the product will prevent colds. An implied claim is one made indirectly or by inference. "ABC Mouthwash kills the germs that cause colds" contains an implied claim that the product will prevent colds. Although the ad doesn't literally say that the product prevents colds, it would be reasonable for a consumer to conclude from the statement "kills the germs that cause colds" that the product will prevent colds. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.
• The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product. For example, if a company advertised a collection of books, the ad would be deceptive if it did not disclose that consumers actually would receive abridged versions of the books.

So it doesn't matter if a claim is explicit ("these Collections will never return") or implicit ("get them before they're gone" but we didn't explicitly spell out what "gone" means). A claim is a claim. If DE were to be put in legal peril by changing their express claims about Heirloom availability then they would also be in the exact same legal peril for changing the implied claims about Supporter pack exclusivity. The same threat of fines, the same thread of lawsuits, the same everything.

But nothing has actually happened. Maybe that's because people aren't so rabidly litigious? Or because lawyers are kind of expensive, or because DE's EULA insulates themselves from these consequences, or because it's such a non-issue that regulators don't care that some digital items in a video game got changed? It could be any or all of those things, but I don't think it particularly matters. At the end of the day, the Supporter Packs are quite a similar situation and yet nothing bad has actually happened.

And even if you hand-waive the EULA where you've agreed that everything you pay DE for is just a license and it has no monetary value and they can change it or take it away without any notice to you and you won't take them to court over it and if you do you'll settle in arbitration and all these other ways DE has legally insulated themselves to let them do this thing they've done over and over and over again without consequence... Even if none of that existed, what the law actually ends up saying in most places is "if something changes you should offer a refund if someone asks for one". That's kinda it. In the US obviously you can go pound sand, but take Australia for example:

Quote

Consumers are entitled to a solution of a repair, replacement or refund if a product or service they buy doesn’t meet one of the basic rights. These basic rights are known as consumer guarantees.

The solutions are collectively referred to as remedies. What remedy the consumer is entitled to generally depends on:

• what was bought (whether the problem is with a product or a service)
• the seriousness of the problem (whether the problem is major or minor).

...

What makes a product problem major

A major problem means the product:

• is unsafe
• is very different from the description or sample
• has either one serious problem or several smaller problems that would stop someone buying the product if they knew about them beforehand
• can’t be used for its normal purpose, or another purpose the consumer told the seller about before they bought it, and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time.

...

Available solutions

When a business sells a product with a major problem, or a product that later develops a major problem, it must give the consumer the choice of a:

• refund, or
• replacement of the same type of product.

So if this were actually a "major problem" you'd just get a refund if you asked for one. That's it. Which is the exact same situation for stuff like the Deimos Supporter Packs and all these other cases where DE has gone back on their original claims where nothing bad happened afterwards.

Just to give a little TL;DR:

• If changing the terms on Heirloom Packs is bad
• Then so is changing the terms on Supporter Packs
• In the US both express and implied claims are both considered by the FTC after all
• But they've changed the terms on Supporter Packs
• And nothing has happened: no fines, no retractions, no apologies, no lawsuits
• So maybe DE changing the terms on Heirloom Packs wouldn't actually be as bad as is so commonly portrayed?

Edited Thursday at 05:03 AM by PublikDomain

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

Just now, kuciol said:

Well if you just read my first post in this topic you would know. I stated simple opinion and somebody felt offended by it, like come on.

 

You know how you had to tell that other user that you weren't pissy? Why would you then turn around and use that same sort of rhetoric to suggest someone else is offended? Come on? Where have I been passive aggressive to you, by dismissing what you said as "bla bla", or gone off the topic to instead focus on how little or much you write? Those are your actions and behaviour. How often have I taken the time, to say you should feel free to have an opinion, how its fair, and valid. Generally been neutral amicable, with the only real potential for "hostility" been explaining that some of your points or arguments aren't necessarily strong before explaining why? I don't know, I think I am have been relatively fair. 

If you need more clarity, I am not offended, and once again, I think your opinion is fine and fair. You do, and I could be wrong, but you do come across as someone who can't find it easy to agree to disagree, with others, without getting passive aggressive, and instead of addressing their points, start to take shots at "how much they write", or its just blah blah, and telling them they won't ever change their mind. Which are usually what frustrated offended people do, and I am not saying you are. Since you know, text doesn't convey tone especially well. For all I know, you might be the most chill, laid back, easy going person on the planet... But your claims and actions are two different things entirely. 

I am fine with simply agreeing to disagree though too, if thats your preference. If misunderstandings happen more than actual productive conversation, eh whats the point right?

[kuciol]

And again a whole essey, why do you feel the need to write them? Its really not a situation we need one. This "bla bla bla" was more of a way to show i dont care about pompous speeches. Nothing else. Stating a fact that we both wont change mind comes of as being pissy these days?

[PublikDomain]

1 hour ago, kuciol said:

It didnt say"before they are gone forever".

And with the packs in question the sales page and FAQ only said the Collections were one-time-only. All the sales page and FAQ say about the items inside the Collections is that they are "exclusive", that they "won't remain for long", that it's your "only chance to get these exclusive new Customizations", and that they will only be available bundled if that matters. None of which seems to matter to you in any of these other cases. So to quote a scholar, none of those statements mean they will never again be available. Right? If you wanna weasel the words around I'm happy to weasel with you!

Edited Thursday at 03:16 AM by PublikDomain

[EchoesOfRain]

Perhaps some day they could pull some sort of Excalibur Prime/Umbra situation. Yeah, what they originally released is exclusive and no longer available, but perhaps they can rectify the past problems by making some sort of modified/alternate version of the skins and signas that can stay around

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

16 minutes ago, darklord122 said:

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.

 

From what you know? What sort of qualifier would you add to what you know? For example, what I know is that it can and does, depending on the context, like say country to country, and the particular wording such laws employ, and revisions that frequently or infrequently occur depending on such variables. For example Covid had impact on some countries false advertising laws, to attempt to counter and address certain issues that arose around products credibility/claims of effectiveness. Certain laws, have existed since before digital goods even really existed as ideas, so have been updated and revised since, but again, depending on the variables, trying to be comprehensive about all the new types of considerations, interactions, potential issues around and with digital goods, and the nature of them (like if you include ideas around scarcity, where physical goods and digital goods an differ), well some laws are woefully inadequate, or create potential loopholes. Thats before we even get to establishing precedent and case examples, and importance/priority. 

Also do you mean advertisements contradicting? I am not sure where I used the phrasing of advertisements conflicting, so i am not sure which part lost you, but as far as advertisements contradicting, that was to do with my hypothetical bike example of where someone may be liable for false advertising under the law. I actually borrowed it from a Consumer Rights page around false advertising. Can't remember if it was Australia, UK, or Canada. For example, if Bills Bikes advertises that they have a one of a kind manufactured Special Red Bike, and that only 2 were ever made, and that Bills Bikes would be selling one of them, that week only for $100 (and all this was generally conveyed in an advertisement). Sally sees that advertisement, and she doesn't really need a new bike, she has two already... but then she thinks about it, and I mean, only 2 Special Red Bikes exist, and well $100 is steep (well arguably its cheap, but this is just an illustrative example), so she goes in and buys it... Then next week she sees the same advertisement... and its a bit strange, so she goes into Bills Bikes and asks about it. Well Ben (owner of Bills Bikes, and the guy who does the advertising too) he explains, this is the other Special Red Bike. After all two were made... Well okay, but then Sally keeps seeing this advertisement every week, for a few months, and then she discovers that there are like 100's of these Special Red Bikes... so the advertising contradicted reality. More so though if Bill willingly mislead, and was deceptive about the nature of the bikes, the time period, etc. However... There are some potential defences on offer for Ben. For example, if he doesn't actually manufacture those bikes, and he purchases them from a company and then he sells them. If like a year later, the Special Red Bike Company starts making more Special Red Bikes, Ben may be exempt from liability. Since at the time of the creation of the advertisement and deal, he wasn't being deceptive or misleading or unfairly pressuring/inducing Sally or others. Well in a liable sense. Something being limited in nature can add pressure or induce a purchase, but an important variable is whether its intentional and deceptive, and used to generate sales through deceit. 

I am not really making any claims about what DE hasn't or has yet to do, rather explaining what I understand about general current laws (keeping in mind, again, country to country and even with some larger countries, it can get more complicated...) and how thats relevant for what DE has already done, and what they could do, and why it could matter, but also may not matter. Some businesses sustainability can be a factor for some interactions that involve the law and interactions with the Government, unless you are misunderstanding the general point i was making? 

When you say you believe, whilst I am extending good faith to you, and I aren't incredulous to your claims or anything, but like do you have a source or external reason behind your belief? For example, I made a reference to e Reb interview on the Founders pack for example. I can, if prompted find it and link it. Her wording is pretty deliberate, and she never brings up the law. To my interpretation its the sort of thing, that may be an internal policy point, and expressly viewed in that lens, as opposed to a legal restriction or issue. Since if it were, then they could potentially just say to people who keep asking "Unfortunately we are legally bound to not rerelease those items, even if we hypothetically wanted to". 

To my understanding, that would only need to think of that many possible thousands of players if, and if, they were legally liable and potentially in breach of such laws, where as I am expressly stating, that I am personally unsure based on what I know. Which again, is admittedly not enough, for myself to consider or tout as expertise, but enough, to make the sorts of points I am making, with the ideal being that someone who is an actual legal expert, especially in this specific field, could actually give some input and answer questions. Explain rather than guess or speculate like so many in threads of this nature. So DE considering the false advertising laws, should probably be your first point no? Since if they know they are legally covered, then the thousands they have to consider, is less a legal issue and more of a potential goodwill issue. Still important, but still not as risky. 

Also isn't that what we are doing now? Considering those advertising laws? Thats what all my points above are in reference to? Exploring and considering them and where DE may or may not be liable, what such laws actually say specifically, actual liability, possible exceptions, loopholes. Then we'd still have to talk about enforcement as well, as as mentioned earlier, precedents, comparable examples that could give us insight on how such matters could potentially proceed if taken that far (to my understanding there aren't actually make examples of video games being taken to caught over false advertising, in this manner anyway. Hello Games, did end up facing false advertising charges, in the UK over No Man's Sky a few years back, but they were cleared of those charges. The context is generally a bit different too. If you aren't familiar I can go into more detail if you would like? There are also a few Mobile Games that people often talk about in regards to false advertising and "blatantly" so, but to my understanding, even if many of them are blatant in that regard, in regards to the FTC, many not really have the interest or manpower to prioritise them over say.. like Covid health stuff. but this is one of those areas, I will openly state I am more relying on hear say from other people and the relative trust I may place in them and their supposed expertise, and I have tried searching for more examples of false advertising lawsuits or legal cases in and around games, but... 

So you know when you say or make some claims, and also, clarify you might not be certain? Is it possible you are just relatively intelligent and knowledgable person, who can reason relatively well and you look at a situation, and reason your way to certain conclusions and beliefs, with combination of deductive and inductive reasoning, based on how things might or should be? Maybe including some knowledge as well? Many of us, myself included, can do that, but then the actual reality and specifics of a situation, especially when you get more involved in specific fields, or disciplines, and you start to realise the fun, dumb, goofy things, that layman don't really know or understand, and you start to see some things are messier and less effective than they should be. Sometimes I feel that way about the law, in general, but here as well. Do you get what I am saying? I also say this because a lot of the points you make, are often just circular reasoning. They depend on each other, but you use them to justify each other. 

I mean of course they don't need to mention the legal aspects, especially if they don't want to, but like you say, you can't really say, and there are reasons that are theres, that can be of benefit, by being selective about such information. Also, including potential negative consequences, if they ironically lied about the reasons. If you have players telling players that DE are really ethical and great at understanding fans, and they don't do that Destiny stuff and rely on FOMO like some games companies... and then certain items get brought up and players are like "ah, well legally they probably can't bring that back, but thats a very rare exception", what good would it do DE for one of them to step in and say "Thats not true, legally we could, but we just don't want to," when it could be more convenient to let random anonymous players speculate. Which they will and do. 

So its not really about disregarding all that, as I just demonstrated by addressing all that, and expanding on it. Statements on streams are not legally binding contracts, and I am not saying that, to imply "therefore the skins will definitely return", I am just speaking of content. Ambiguity of message is more of a relative and contextual issue. Can you remember the meme about what Rebecca said on a Dev Short about Dante and then the aftermath of the changes they made? Its not something I know well, but something a few other posters with better memories than me have pointed out in past threads, (I might have to tag them if you want the specifics), but DE and I think Reb have at times past, spoke about how DE wouldn't do anything like the Founders again, as far as that specific type of exclusivity. Granted, there are many ways to interpret that, did she specifically just mean a Warframe with mastery being locked away? Regardless, if we were to go off things said in Interviews and Streams and DE sticking to them... Which to be clear, I don't think thats an inherently bad thing. It can be a strength to have a Dev team, who will realise that they can make mistakes, and get it wrong, and make adjustments and go back on promises, if they think the promise was actually counter productive and bad for players. Like they did with Regal Aya, and even now Heirlooms. Remember they were actually advertised as Support Packs at Tennocon, and they were a 10 year Celebration thing (yet we are getting more)... and some players were like... well it has to be that price, because of the Platinum, and Regal Aya, and it can't be sold for Plat... and yet... The actual consumer ethics side though isn't really my main point though, in this post, its more the potential legal aspects, to be clear. 

Also what stops them from doing something similar to the Founders pack. That ones super easy and simple, their discretion. Its pretty reasonable, to argue and point out that DE and Warframe, in the months prior to its launch, and months after, were taking risks. We have documentaries about this time period for them, and the risks involved. Not just risks for them, but the Founders and people who played the game and supported it back then (including many who supported but weren't necessarily those that purchased the various tiers of Founders). Having a bundle package then that would be for early investors only, in the times when Kickstarter, etc were going strong and those sorts of initiatives, for crowdfunding projects and offering incentivises for those taking the risks... Warframe could have died a few months or years in... Those players took a risk, and some sort of incentive to encourage them to take a risk, makes sense. Heirlooms, in the context of DE at that time, is an incredibly different landscape and frame all together, given its consistent success, parent businesses/companies, and year to year growth/success. You also don't have the weight of over a decade, the general video game landscape has also changed. DE generally brands itself as being more ethical and consumer friendly and "not like other game devs" who might be more predatory... Thats why, in many ways, running back, apologising and implementing a change for one, doesn't necessarily have to mean, they will or also need to go back and release Excalibur Prime again, just because. 

I agree with that, the idea they might make new ones for Frost and Mag too. I have brought that up a few times, as a potential solution, albeit one that not all will necessarily like, but an interesting possibility, to try and accomodate Mag and Frost players who feel negative about the whole situation. Great minds think alike eh eh?

I mean, I think people should feel free to accept and not accept what they want. Just basic consumer rights. Doesn't say anything about what they think will or won't happen. Obviously its good to not pointlessly shout at the cloud at the sky, but as long as people are relatively good at understanding their criticism as criticism, and how reality may not conform to or around it, eh. I think most Warframe fans suggestions and ideas.... aren't good, but they should still exist, in the Forums, most of the type, because regardless of feasibility, often its still sincere feedback, that DE can look at, and interpret in a better way, if they so chose. Even though on a more personal level, what you describe, I do tend to agree with and practice all the same. 

Thanks for your reply, and I hope I didn't come across as antagonistic. I am really interested on your thoughts and understanding of the legal aspects we have both brought up. Cheers. 

 

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

1 hour ago, kuciol said:

And again a whole essey, why do you feel the need to write them? Its really not a situation we need one. This "bla bla bla" was more of a way to show i dont care about pompous speeches. Nothing else. Stating a fact that we both wont change mind comes of as being pissy these days?

 

I don't feel the need. 

I find the topic really interesting, and then enjoy writing down what I understand and know, and I enjoy hearing what other people have to say, and think as well. Did you see what Darklord wrote? I really enjoy and appreciated their reply. It was great. It was long, but it covered important context. We are sharing ideas, knowledge and opinions with each other. Pretty neutrally and respectfully so far, even if we may not agree on every little detail or point. 

In short I am having fun talking to another Warframe player about Warframe and potential legal issues DE may face hypothetically. Its enjoyable to me. Its almost like this is a forum for peoples views and opinions about a game they play and hopefully enjoy. See I am being a little sarcastic there, but sincerely no hostility is intended, I just joke around a lot. 

I change my mind all the time, based on others arguments and evidence. I personally don't attach my ego to being right or wrong or what I might believe. That being said, being willing to change my mind, and changing it often, doesn't mean I just change it on a whim. I like good, persuasive evidence, compelling framing, sincerity, neutrality, etc. 

Hope that answers your question, and I apologise if it seemed like I was hounding you earlier, hope you have a great week and weekend. Cheers. 

[(XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA]

2 hours 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!

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

Explicitly=/= implicitly. 

Businesses of all kinds from mcdonalds to Walmart to steam etc use phrasing like "limited time only" "get it before its gone" "limited time offer" on a regular basis.

That doesnt mean that the nacho fries are NEVER EVER COMING BACK!1! Or the TV will never be on sale again or even be for a lower price in the future. 

But they, Explicitly stated, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, NOT. COMING. BACK. 

No level of "but mug feelings" is gonna change that's different. 

That's more like the founders pack than idk, say, Ignis Wraith. 

"But I think it's crappy. I don't like it". 

 

I don't care. And even if I did, more importantly *they* don't care. 

If that wasn't enough they even came back after the fact specifically in response to criticism and basically said too bad our minds are made up.

"But-what-about-ism" doesnt change any of that.

Being salty about it doesn't change any of that. Having Feely feels doesn't change any of that. And it's one thing to feel a certain kinda way about it but it's another thing to be dishonest about it.

And pretending that the wording doesn't matter or that they weren't VERY. CLEAR. about this from the get go or that this isn't at all like the founders packs but it's actually more like (insert time limited item that returned here) that was never marketed the same way is just that. Dishonest. 

 

[(XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA]

3 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

 

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. 

 

You should see the other thread where I spent about way too much time before I realized that it was pointless. 

Moving on. 

Am I gonna sue DE over it? Bruh that's almost laughable. Of course not. 

I would be mildly annoyed. 

 

I would be mildly annoyed because all I "really" wanted were the skins by themselves but I had to buy this extra stuff with it that bloated the price. 

There was no option to buy the skins themselves and there was of course no plat option. Cash only. 

If I had known, that if I had waited X amount of time I could just buy the skins themselves for a pittance of plat (like ember) I would have happily waited. 

But even so, I'd live and this whole thing isn't about that for me. 

It's not so much that I feel strongly that they "shouldnt" it's that I feel pretty certain they *wont*. 

Hey, maybe they will and a year from now or 3 years from now or 6 months from now you can reply to this and tell me im wrong but I doubt it.

And when I see people throwing a hissy fit about it I don't feel an abundance of sympathy for them.

I also don't feel particularly sympathetic, when people use intellectually dishonest or straight up bs arguments for it. 

Like the other guy said. It was the strictest, most unambiguous "never coming back" since the Founder's packs. 

It isn't like they introduced some random thing, and then said random thing is going away after X amount of time, and simply never said anything whatsoever about if l, when, or how said thing would return.

Mcdonalds saying oh hey, we have spicy chicken nuggets now for a limited time only get them before they're gone is very different than if l, just for the sake of argument, Ford came out and said okay this is the last year we're gonna make a V8 mustang coupe after this year its all gonna be EV's and explicitly stated they weren't gonna back down from this, then responded to feedback doubling down on this, then next year decided you know what sike.

So when I see someone write an essay about how DE has "lied to us these other times" so they should be "allowed" to lie to us about this, that doesn't hold water with me. 

"Limited time" =/= "only available for a specific amount of time **and then it's not coming back ever**.

[PublikDomain]

12 minutes ago, (XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA said:

Explicitly=/= implicitly. 

So?

Quote

The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims.

Seems to me that according to you guys DE's a walking lawsuit.

And yet nothing has happened.

🤷‍♀️

16 minutes ago, (XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA said:

But they, Explicitly stated, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, NOT. COMING. BACK. 

I don't care. Defend crappy business practices all you want. Defend it till you're blue in the face. But people will continue to (rightly) call out DE when they behave badly and there's nothing you can do about it.

[MobyTheDuck]

Won't happen, as DE showed that the meaning of "exclusivity" changes depending of the context, and they decided that this case it meant "never going to happen again", unlike the other times that meant "maybe in 1-2 years"

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

8 minutes ago, (XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA said:

You should see the other thread where I spent about way too much time before I realized that it was pointless. Moving on. 

Am I gonna sue DE over it? Bruh that's almost laughable. Of course not. I would be mildly annoyed. I would be mildly annoyed because all I "really" wanted were the skins by themselves but I had to buy this extra stuff with it that bloated the price. 

There was no option to buy the skins themselves and there was of course no plat option. Cash only. If I had known, that if I had waited X amount of time I could just buy the skins themselves for a pittance of plat (like ember) I would have happily waited. But even so, I'd live and this whole thing isn't about that for me. It's not so much that I feel strongly that they "shouldnt" it's that I feel pretty certain they *wont*. Hey, maybe they will and a year from now or 3 years from now or 6 months from now you can reply to this and tell me im wrong but I doubt it.

And when I see people throwing a hissy fit about it I don't feel an abundance of sympathy for them. I also don't feel particularly sympathetic, when people use intellectually dishonest or straight up bs arguments for it. 

Like the other guy said. It was the strictest, most unambiguous "never coming back" since the Founder's packs. It isn't like they introduced some random thing, and then said random thing is going away after X amount of time, and simply never said anything whatsoever about if l, when, or how said thing would return.

Mcdonalds saying oh hey, we have spicy chicken nuggets now for a limited time only get them before they're gone is very different than if l, just for the sake of argument, Ford came out and said okay this is the last year we're gonna make a V8 mustang coupe after this year its all gonna be EV's and explicitly stated they weren't gonna back down from this, then responded to feedback doubling down on this, then next year decided you know what sike.

So when I see someone write an essay about how DE has "lied to us these other times" so they should be "allowed" to lie to us about this, that doesn't hold water with me. "Limited time" =/= "only available for a specific amount of time **and then it's not coming back ever**.

 

I mean, I can sympathise, but also depends on what your motivation for discussion is. Trying to convince other people or end the conversation once and for all... yeah thats like rolling infinity up a slope for sure, There can be other motivating forces though, that are more easy going Like I generally believe that the overall literacy of consumers when it comes to consumers rights, will generally benefit all, eventually, and even just refined rhetorical skills, plus it can be fun just spitballing and hearing fellow Warframes opinions, takes, good, bad, controversial can be interesting. 

Oh, I agree, about it being laughable, that was partially my intent, because you don't strike me as someone that takes it that seriously or personally. You generally seem more chill, and I think your mild annoyance is very fair, and makes sense in context. Like I think its very reasonable, and I would speculate more common than say... people who would be annoyed because they want something exclusive that others don't own. Just speculation though. 

The other reason was because some peoples argument is more of a should/shouldn't, some peoples is more they will/won't, some peoples are, they can/can't, but for every version of all those, I think some people forget that each of those has other variables, like "I don't know for certain, but". Its fine to not know, and to potentially concede that you don't know for certain. So many users and people in general, often have the habit of thinking that excess confidence is interpreted as competent or expertise or knowledge over a matter. In many cases, its the opposite. The more someone insists something, the more people can suspect that what they think they know, isn't actually that credible or objective. See your willingness to concede that you may potentially be wrong, in my opinion, is a good and healthy sign. Feeling pretty certain is fine too, I have a similar stance, myself, but I also concede that I don't know... because... I don't know. I don't work at DE, I don't know what their internal structure is like, how plans are formed and executed. DE has a lot of employees and we don't see most on camera, most are behind the scenes. 

I wouldn't be that petty, plus my point or argument isn't that they will eventually rerelease the skins, but what if they did. Like a few months ago, when the Arcane limitations were first talked about for Belly of the Beast, a few threads popped some interpreted that the limitation was counting and across all Arcanes, like max 42 (or whatever the exact number), but some, myself included interpreted it as just for that Arcane specifically. As a person? I try to avoid terms like "clearly" and "obviously" when I can. For a few reasons, but one, I have always had relatively exceptional pattern recognition and problem solving skills, so a lot of things were "obvious" and "clear" to me, when I was young, even if they weren't obvious or clear to others including adults. Except, no one likes the person who thinks they are the smartest person in the room, or the person who brags about "getting things faster", then two. Its kind of a blow to ones ego, when you claim something is really obvious, and really clear, and you end up demonstrably wrong or proven incorrect. Plus Rebecca saying something off the cuff in a 10 minute Dev Short... like... its not a lot to go by, so I think in context, it would be fine, to say, our interpretations are different, lets just wait a few weeks, and see what happens. As it turns out my interpretation was correct, but I wouldn't go back to such threads and gloat, because I still maintain that I understand why the other person had their interpretation too. Its more that they were unwilling to consider other peoples interpretation. 

So thats a bit of a weird tangent I know, but I mention it because it can also apply here a little. Like I also said, in pretty similar wording that it was a very strict and unambiguous "never coming back" framing, but then I also when on to explain why that doesn't necessarily actually amount to much, for a variety of reasons and contexts (though legally its more complicated and i am not an expert). Like, and this ties into your example you know that McDonalds has McRib "Farewell tours right?" Like they had a press release and everything, permanent removal from their menu, they really committed to the bit. The first was in 2005!! Except... that was a lie/ruse, and not only that, they have several "Farewell Tours" since. Also yes, I do think your Ford example is illustrated well.

Again though, and I know you already sort of answered this, but Tennocon is soon, and a few Youtubers and Twitch people are going. Lets say that someone asks a different Ford (Reb) if its possible that Heirlooms (Mag and Frost), could potentially be considered for rerelease somewhere down the line. Lets say she says, no current plans, definitely not anytime soon, but never say never, and that its something that they would have to really consider carefully, if they were to revisit that topic" do you think the people that insist its never coming back ever, because they said its never coming back, should stick to that exact wording, or just quote or paraphrase Reb in saying "well DE says no plans, but I guess technically its not impossible, here is what Reb said", because the other thing is, when someone says something like "limited time", what you mean, what 5 other random people in this thread means, what Reb means, what the people who put together DE's advertising pages etc means... there is some natural overlap, but there is also often deviation and discrepancy too, sometimes just the nature of words, meanings, and communication. Also not just limited time, but all things, including and "never coming back". Like people are also aware of multiple meanings and context too. Reb in Dev Shorts also switches context on the fly and sometimes goes off the record and in "don't quote me on this", to this is more offical sounding and reassuring to hey that thing I said, okay we sort of goofed up and upset some people, but we are listening and looking to implement feedback okay... 

At its most basic though, and in some ways, I could have just left it near the beginning, its about how people interpret what "DE says" and how that can be different to how other people interpret it. We both don't think the skins are likely to come back, neither of us would be trying to sue DE if we happened to be wrong, neither of us, presumably take it that personally or seriously as if it would be a blow to our egos and our ability to predict the future. The bits where we might differ, is that my understanding of the law, and how businesses and corporations act, and the laws that attempt to curb certain manipulative behaviours, aren't actually adequate to actually let them exploit certain loopholes, if they want to bypass them or ignore them. I bet there is probably a lot of things, they could advertise and get away with, including literally saying that something will "never ever return, but for real" but then actually be fine over bringing back (and arguably in some contexts and scenarios, that may actually be the more ethical or consumer friendly act, as weird as that might sound). 

So in that respect we do actually generally agree and align more over most of that, and you may also not necessarily disagree on the view of corporations/businesses as having ways to try and get through loopholes, and you may just think DE backed themselves into a corner with their wording as something else, and I think thats fair enough too, just that for some, their interpretation leads them elsewhere (and ultimately no one has like... 100% absolute certainty over such issues, so we should all generally be willing to concede that we may potentially be wrong and proven wrong with time). I also say that as someone that occasionally told people that certain Supporter items, to my best understanding weren't returning, because some of them were 4 years and those types of Supporter packs specifically, were advertised certain ways, and had yet to return, (had a few Clan mates who wanted the Deimos Shotgun and Pistol skin) but this year, I was proven wrong (also I am not trying to rehash the idea that the two packs are similar, this is just my example of a time I thought one thing, but was wrong, but how being wrong didn't ruin my ego or anything, and why more people should be fine with the possibility of being wrong, instead of pretending they will always be 100% right over stuff thats out of their control). 

Thanks and Good Day! 

[stormy505]

3 hours ago, (XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA said:

So when I see someone write an essay about how DE has "lied to us these other times" so they should be "allowed" to lie to us about this, that doesn't hold water with me. 

It's showing a history of behavior 9/10 times exclusivity just doesn't hold when looking at previous instances in warframe. And the 1 time that it did has wildly different circumstances and community sentiment surrounding the discussion. I think there were legitimately more people saying it should stay exclusive than not, cause there was an understanding that the founders pack was a huge risk on the buyers side. way more expensive on a much worse and much more risky game that wasn't looking too great to survive in the long term, it is something that allowed players of today to play warframe cause to be frank at the time DE was going under. Compared to the circumstances surrounding the heirloom pack today... where DE is anything but dying and got too greedy so players called them out for it.

It'll probably take 2-3 years for it to come around. Probably in some heirloom bundle. But DE tends to bend to community sentiment when it's justified. I think the unlikely scenario is an excal umbra situation where they release something very similar but slightly different. More likely is just a re-release.

[darklord122]

6 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

If you want to go down the legality rabbit hole, well, kind of but not entirely. The context of the ad and what the wording conveys matters. From the FTC:

So it doesn't matter if a claim is explicit ("these Collections will never return") or implicit ("get them before they're gone" but we didn't explicitly spell out what "gone" means). A claim is a claim. If DE were to be put in legal peril by changing their express claims about Heirloom availability then they would also be in the exact same legal peril for changing the implied claims about Supporter pack exclusivity. The same threat of fines, the same thread of lawsuits, the same everything.

And even if you hand-waive the EULA where you've agreed that everything you pay DE for is just a license and it has no monetary value and they can change it or take it away without any notice to you and you won't take them to court over it and if you do you'll settle in arbitration and all these other ways DE has legally insulated themselves to let them do this thing they've done over and over and over again without consequence... Even if none of that existed, what the law actually ends up saying in most places is "if something changes you should offer a refund if someone asks for one". That's kinda it. In the US obviously you can go pound sand, but take Australia for example:

So if this were actually a "major problem" you'd just get a refund if you asked for one. That's it. Which is the exact same situation for stuff like the Deimos Supporter Packs and all these other cases where DE has gone back on their original claims where nothing bad happened afterwards.

Just to give a little TL;DR:

• If changing the terms on Heirloom Packs is bad
• Then so is changing the terms on Supporter Packs
• In the US both express and implied claims are both considered by the FTC after all
• But they've changed the terms on Supporter Packs
• And nothing has happened: no fines, no retractions, no apologies, no lawsuits
• So maybe DE changing the terms on Heirloom Packs wouldn't actually be as bad as is so commonly portrayed?

You have legitimately put forth the actual legality the FTC represents and still try to claim that it would not be false advertising with the implication of never returning products as that is a claim that is advertised for the consumer directly, As its plain language for the consumer.

You have however only put forth the general terms of the FTC and not the actual laws that DE will fall under which are a bit different, So let me show you, In Canada where DE does reside false advertising if proven to be as such can put forth penalties such as:

"The Competition Act contains provisions addressing false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices in promoting the supply or use of a product or any business interest. All representations, in any form whatever, that are false or misleading in a material respect are subject to the Act. If a representation could influence a consumer to buy or use the product or service advertised, it is material. To determine whether a representation is false or misleading, the courts consider the "general impression" it conveys, as well as its literal meaning. "

"Under the criminal regime, certain practices are brought before the criminal courts, requiring proof of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. On summary conviction, the person is liable to a fine of up to $200,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year. If convicted on indictment, the person is liable to a fine at the discretion of the court and/or imprisonment for up to 14 years. "

"Under the civil regime, certain practices may be brought before the Competition Tribunal, the Federal Court or the superior court of a province and require that each element of the conduct be proven on a balance of probabilities. The court may order a person to cease the activity, publish a notice and/or pay an administrative monetary penalty. On first occurrence, individuals are liable to penalties of up to $750,000 and corporations are liable to penalties of up to $10,000,000."

The people and or persons representing DE would be the ones to fall under this and their corporation itself, and can at any point be brought up to a court of law by a single person if change's where to be made to an already existing agreement. And even on the Canadian's deceptive marketing practices page they specifically have a page for what not to do. Such as: "Don't make any materially misleading product warranty or guarantee, or promise to replace, maintain or repair an article."

This includes the specific wording for "Never returning" Items.

"Get them before they are gone" is not a sufficient argument for this as its a term used a lot in advertising that essentially just means "Gone for now" or "Limited time." And is a blanket term used for a diminishing supply and or limited time offer.  As the wording does matter the context does as well. "Never returning" is an explicit statement for the consumer that has an implication DE cant get away from.
The changes to the supporter packs had no such statements in them and now even has explicit information about what items will not return to the market and which will:
"Note: items marked with * will be exclusive to this pack for a limited time. All other items and Customization's are available for purchase with Platinum in the in-game Market."*

The Deimos supporter pack is the only valid argument you have in terms of the supporter packs, Even then their wording was not as such that it would never return. Again wording matters in these cases and all other supporter packs state nothing of not returning and some of them even have implicit text I already showed to refer to that shows the packs themselves will return while specific items in them will not. So this is not the end all be all of an argument in terms of advertising.

However the advertisement page also includes a list of things not to do in advertising in regards to false advertisement such as: "Don't forget that no one actually needs to be deceived or misled for a court to find that an advertisement is misleading."


The FTC may be lenient in terms of the actual penalties but if the FTC were to get involved Canadian law would have a much harsher reality for anyone who does conduct false advertisements.

The EULA will not matter in any of these cases, As the game itself and the advertisements for products for said game are fundamentally different. Saying that the EULA is something that protects them from a lawsuit no matter how ridiculous you think it might be is a very stupid argument to make. If the EULA protected any company from false advertisement laws then we would have it as a rampant problem which we very much do not.

This is why they specifically can not return the packs if we get down to the specifics. They also have on record to say that the heirloom packs and founders will not return which can also be used in a court of law as evidence of their original intention.


You can make the argument that "of course no one would actually sue DE" but that's not exactly how things work as they have to be prepared for any case scenario. No matter how ridiculous you think it is.


So there you go, No matter how much you care or do not care about the statements and words that DE have used for the heirloom pack the penalties are very harsh within the Canadian law system.

It is what it is. If they were to ever reverse the heirloom pack advertisement as well it opens a brand new argument for Founder Packs which I've already stated is a pot DE does not want to stir as it falls under the same things stated here and in terms of their own words.


And as I've already said before, Just because these heirlooms wont be available for Mag and Frost, that does not mean they will not make new ones for them which I honestly believe they might do as nothing stops them from doing that. And it might be a better thing to advocate for, rather than items that can possibly get them into trouble.


Even if we disregard all of this and argue on for eternity DE has explicitly already stated they will not return the packs. This is not something they have said before not even with the supporter packs and its a statement you should respect.

You not caring about it wont matter. DE has already made up their minds and have been very firm about it. Do with that as you will.

Edited Thursday at 09:51 AM by darklord122

[Circle_of_Psi]

11 hours ago, (XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA said:

Correct.

Correct.

[(XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA]

3 hours ago, stormy505 said:

It's showing a history of behavior 9/10 times exclusivity just doesn't hold when looking at previous instances in warframe. And the 1 time that it did has wildly different circumstances and community sentiment surrounding the discussion. I think there were legitimately more people saying it should stay exclusive than not, cause there was an understanding that the founders pack was a huge risk on the buyers side. way more expensive on a much worse and much more risky game that wasn't looking too great to survive in the long term, it is something that allowed players of today to play warframe cause to be frank at the time DE was going under. Compared to the circumstances surrounding the heirloom pack today... where DE is anything but dying and got too greedy so players called them out for it.

It'll probably take 2-3 years for it to come around. Probably in some heirloom bundle. But DE tends to bend to community sentiment when it's justified. I think the unlikely scenario is an excal umbra situation where they release something very similar but slightly different. More likely is just a re-release.

I could not possibly care less about the fact the founder pack was a "riskier investment", that it was even more expensive, or that DE was in dire straights at the time and now in your subjective personal opinion it's "just greed". 

Fact of the matter is as has been pointed out this is the strictest wording of "it's not coming back ever" *since the Founder's pack*. 

Those things I just pointed out are irrelevant copium. 

"It's showing a history of behavior that 9/10 times-" 

Let's play a game called "spot the difference". 

Was the way it was advertised the same? Did DE come out and EXPLICITLY STATE multiple times "no it's not coming back ever? Did they even say they wouldn't because "it wouldn't be fair to people who bought it expecting exclusivity"? 

No? 

Okay then. 

[Quest]

7 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

 

From what you know? What sort of qualifier would you add to what you know? For example, what I know is that it can and does, depending on the context, like say country to country, and the particular wording such laws employ, and revisions that frequently or infrequently occur depending on such variables. For example Covid had impact on some countries false advertising laws, to attempt to counter and address certain issues that arose around products credibility/claims of effectiveness. Certain laws, have existed since before digital goods even really existed as ideas, so have been updated and revised since, but again, depending on the variables, trying to be comprehensive about all the new types of considerations, interactions, potential issues around and with digital goods, and the nature of them (like if you include ideas around scarcity, where physical goods and digital goods an differ), well some laws are woefully inadequate, or create potential loopholes. Thats before we even get to establishing precedent and case examples, and importance/priority. 

Also do you mean advertisements contradicting? I am not sure where I used the phrasing of advertisements conflicting, so i am not sure which part lost you, but as far as advertisements contradicting, that was to do with my hypothetical bike example of where someone may be liable for false advertising under the law. I actually borrowed it from a Consumer Rights page around false advertising. Can't remember if it was Australia, UK, or Canada. For example, if Bills Bikes advertises that they have a one of a kind manufactured Special Red Bike, and that only 2 were ever made, and that Bills Bikes would be selling one of them, that week only for $100 (and all this was generally conveyed in an advertisement). Sally sees that advertisement, and she doesn't really need a new bike, she has two already... but then she thinks about it, and I mean, only 2 Special Red Bikes exist, and well $100 is steep (well arguably its cheap, but this is just an illustrative example), so she goes in and buys it... Then next week she sees the same advertisement... and its a bit strange, so she goes into Bills Bikes and asks about it. Well Ben (owner of Bills Bikes, and the guy who does the advertising too) he explains, this is the other Special Red Bike. After all two were made... Well okay, but then Sally keeps seeing this advertisement every week, for a few months, and then she discovers that there are like 100's of these Special Red Bikes... so the advertising contradicted reality. More so though if Bill willingly mislead, and was deceptive about the nature of the bikes, the time period, etc. However... There are some potential defences on offer for Ben. For example, if he doesn't actually manufacture those bikes, and he purchases them from a company and then he sells them. If like a year later, the Special Red Bike Company starts making more Special Red Bikes, Ben may be exempt from liability. Since at the time of the creation of the advertisement and deal, he wasn't being deceptive or misleading or unfairly pressuring/inducing Sally or others. Well in a liable sense. Something being limited in nature can add pressure or induce a purchase, but an important variable is whether its intentional and deceptive, and used to generate sales through deceit. 

I am not really making any claims about what DE hasn't or has yet to do, rather explaining what I understand about general current laws (keeping in mind, again, country to country and even with some larger countries, it can get more complicated...) and how thats relevant for what DE has already done, and what they could do, and why it could matter, but also may not matter. Some businesses sustainability can be a factor for some interactions that involve the law and interactions with the Government, unless you are misunderstanding the general point i was making? 

When you say you believe, whilst I am extending good faith to you, and I aren't incredulous to your claims or anything, but like do you have a source or external reason behind your belief? For example, I made a reference to e Reb interview on the Founders pack for example. I can, if prompted find it and link it. Her wording is pretty deliberate, and she never brings up the law. To my interpretation its the sort of thing, that may be an internal policy point, and expressly viewed in that lens, as opposed to a legal restriction or issue. Since if it were, then they could potentially just say to people who keep asking "Unfortunately we are legally bound to not rerelease those items, even if we hypothetically wanted to". 

To my understanding, that would only need to think of that many possible thousands of players if, and if, they were legally liable and potentially in breach of such laws, where as I am expressly stating, that I am personally unsure based on what I know. Which again, is admittedly not enough, for myself to consider or tout as expertise, but enough, to make the sorts of points I am making, with the ideal being that someone who is an actual legal expert, especially in this specific field, could actually give some input and answer questions. Explain rather than guess or speculate like so many in threads of this nature. So DE considering the false advertising laws, should probably be your first point no? Since if they know they are legally covered, then the thousands they have to consider, is less a legal issue and more of a potential goodwill issue. Still important, but still not as risky. 

Also isn't that what we are doing now? Considering those advertising laws? Thats what all my points above are in reference to? Exploring and considering them and where DE may or may not be liable, what such laws actually say specifically, actual liability, possible exceptions, loopholes. Then we'd still have to talk about enforcement as well, as as mentioned earlier, precedents, comparable examples that could give us insight on how such matters could potentially proceed if taken that far (to my understanding there aren't actually make examples of video games being taken to caught over false advertising, in this manner anyway. Hello Games, did end up facing false advertising charges, in the UK over No Man's Sky a few years back, but they were cleared of those charges. The context is generally a bit different too. If you aren't familiar I can go into more detail if you would like? There are also a few Mobile Games that people often talk about in regards to false advertising and "blatantly" so, but to my understanding, even if many of them are blatant in that regard, in regards to the FTC, many not really have the interest or manpower to prioritise them over say.. like Covid health stuff. but this is one of those areas, I will openly state I am more relying on hear say from other people and the relative trust I may place in them and their supposed expertise, and I have tried searching for more examples of false advertising lawsuits or legal cases in and around games, but... 

So you know when you say or make some claims, and also, clarify you might not be certain? Is it possible you are just relatively intelligent and knowledgable person, who can reason relatively well and you look at a situation, and reason your way to certain conclusions and beliefs, with combination of deductive and inductive reasoning, based on how things might or should be? Maybe including some knowledge as well? Many of us, myself included, can do that, but then the actual reality and specifics of a situation, especially when you get more involved in specific fields, or disciplines, and you start to realise the fun, dumb, goofy things, that layman don't really know or understand, and you start to see some things are messier and less effective than they should be. Sometimes I feel that way about the law, in general, but here as well. Do you get what I am saying? I also say this because a lot of the points you make, are often just circular reasoning. They depend on each other, but you use them to justify each other. 

I mean of course they don't need to mention the legal aspects, especially if they don't want to, but like you say, you can't really say, and there are reasons that are theres, that can be of benefit, by being selective about such information. Also, including potential negative consequences, if they ironically lied about the reasons. If you have players telling players that DE are really ethical and great at understanding fans, and they don't do that Destiny stuff and rely on FOMO like some games companies... and then certain items get brought up and players are like "ah, well legally they probably can't bring that back, but thats a very rare exception", what good would it do DE for one of them to step in and say "Thats not true, legally we could, but we just don't want to," when it could be more convenient to let random anonymous players speculate. Which they will and do. 

So its not really about disregarding all that, as I just demonstrated by addressing all that, and expanding on it. Statements on streams are not legally binding contracts, and I am not saying that, to imply "therefore the skins will definitely return", I am just speaking of content. Ambiguity of message is more of a relative and contextual issue. Can you remember the meme about what Rebecca said on a Dev Short about Dante and then the aftermath of the changes they made? Its not something I know well, but something a few other posters with better memories than me have pointed out in past threads, (I might have to tag them if you want the specifics), but DE and I think Reb have at times past, spoke about how DE wouldn't do anything like the Founders again, as far as that specific type of exclusivity. Granted, there are many ways to interpret that, did she specifically just mean a Warframe with mastery being locked away? Regardless, if we were to go off things said in Interviews and Streams and DE sticking to them... Which to be clear, I don't think thats an inherently bad thing. It can be a strength to have a Dev team, who will realise that they can make mistakes, and get it wrong, and make adjustments and go back on promises, if they think the promise was actually counter productive and bad for players. Like they did with Regal Aya, and even now Heirlooms. Remember they were actually advertised as Support Packs at Tennocon, and they were a 10 year Celebration thing (yet we are getting more)... and some players were like... well it has to be that price, because of the Platinum, and Regal Aya, and it can't be sold for Plat... and yet... The actual consumer ethics side though isn't really my main point though, in this post, its more the potential legal aspects, to be clear. 

Also what stops them from doing something similar to the Founders pack. That ones super easy and simple, their discretion. Its pretty reasonable, to argue and point out that DE and Warframe, in the months prior to its launch, and months after, were taking risks. We have documentaries about this time period for them, and the risks involved. Not just risks for them, but the Founders and people who played the game and supported it back then (including many who supported but weren't necessarily those that purchased the various tiers of Founders). Having a bundle package then that would be for early investors only, in the times when Kickstarter, etc were going strong and those sorts of initiatives, for crowdfunding projects and offering incentivises for those taking the risks... Warframe could have died a few months or years in... Those players took a risk, and some sort of incentive to encourage them to take a risk, makes sense. Heirlooms, in the context of DE at that time, is an incredibly different landscape and frame all together, given its consistent success, parent businesses/companies, and year to year growth/success. You also don't have the weight of over a decade, the general video game landscape has also changed. DE generally brands itself as being more ethical and consumer friendly and "not like other game devs" who might be more predatory... Thats why, in many ways, running back, apologising and implementing a change for one, doesn't necessarily have to mean, they will or also need to go back and release Excalibur Prime again, just because. 

I agree with that, the idea they might make new ones for Frost and Mag too. I have brought that up a few times, as a potential solution, albeit one that not all will necessarily like, but an interesting possibility, to try and accomodate Mag and Frost players who feel negative about the whole situation. Great minds think alike eh eh?

I mean, I think people should feel free to accept and not accept what they want. Just basic consumer rights. Doesn't say anything about what they think will or won't happen. Obviously its good to not pointlessly shout at the cloud at the sky, but as long as people are relatively good at understanding their criticism as criticism, and how reality may not conform to or around it, eh. I think most Warframe fans suggestions and ideas.... aren't good, but they should still exist, in the Forums, most of the type, because regardless of feasibility, often its still sincere feedback, that DE can look at, and interpret in a better way, if they so chose. Even though on a more personal level, what you describe, I do tend to agree with and practice all the same. 

Thanks for your reply, and I hope I didn't come across as antagonistic. I am really interested on your thoughts and understanding of the legal aspects we have both brought up. Cheers. 

 

Some of you guys need to learn that less can be more with how long these posts are