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

[PublikDomain]

7 hours ago, darklord122 said:

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.

Then DE has violated these same laws with Supporter packs, among other many examples.

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

And yet nothing has happened.

Why?

Maybe because it's not actually that big of a deal.

Just to be clear about what I'm trying to say here, out here in the real world this threat of legal action has so far turned out to be a big pile of nothing. DE has never, in any of the many occasions where they have used "representations, in any form whatever, that are false or misleading", had to issue an apology, or had to run new corrective advertisement, or have been fined, or have been dragged to court. If there have actually been any consequences whatsoever they haven't been enough to stop DE from continuing to do this exact thing as recently as just four months ago. So why would this suddenly change for Heirlooms? Because it's "different"?

Edited Thursday at 05:18 PM by PublikDomain

[darklord122]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Then DE has violated these same laws with Supporter packs, among other many examples.

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

And yet nothing has happened.

Why?

Maybe because it's not actually that big of a deal.

Just to be clear about what I'm trying to say here, out here in the real world this threat of legal action has so far turned out to be a big pile of nothing. DE has never, in any of the many occasions where they have used "representations, in any form whatever, that are false or misleading", had to issue an apology, or had to run new corrective advertisement, or have been fined, or have been dragged to court. If there have actually been any consequences whatsoever they hasn't been enough to stop DE from continuing to do this exact thing as recently four months ago. So why would this suddenly change for Heirlooms? Because it's "different"?

Re-read. Your supporter pack argument is not a good leg to stand on as they have had no ties to actually limiting it to a one time thing. Only 1 per account basis. Find more specific wording that said they would not return and maybe you can use it as an actual argument. And no, Not "Until they are gone" type arguments as advertisements like those are used all the time for products that return but have either limited supply or a limited sale window. Both digitally and physically, both inside Canada and outside of it.

And find other examples instead of saying "Many other examples" If it was so rampant we would have had these issues way more often and people screaming FOMO at the top of their heads for exclusive packs, but we don't. Any and all returning items that have had exclusivity have never stated they would not return and have just been based on personal assumptions. But apparently they have for you? Where? Show it.

But no instead of discussing the supporter packs or any other exclusive item that came back with no statements otherwise, The most popular things instead to discuss are Founder Packs and Heirloom Packs that pop up fairly regularly, Which could not possibly have anything to do with the specific wordings in the advertisements for them stating that they never will return. But hey, Never means Someday for you right?

Just because legal actions have not happened does not mean they will not and companies know this, As not only can individuals file lawsuits but other companies, Governments and even the FTC can as well. Or even the competition bureau themselves. You saying consequences wont happen is not something you can be sure of. And you claim that they have broken laws and agreements already due to my law argument, but the only argument you put forth are exclusive items. Nothing about them stated that they would not return and you have yet to actually prove otherwise.

And just because things have not happened legally, Does not mean they will change advertisements just because of a chance that they wont get punished. Its never a guarantee you want to #*!% with company wise.

If you believe otherwise then maybe some real world things are needed for you.

Its not a sudden change specifically for heirlooms, its just the only one we have had for a while, the only other one being the founder packs that have also been stated to never return and they never have nor will. Before someone says "But, Founder packs are not the same as Heirlooms" No they aren't but the inherent promises are. You break one you break the other.

But keep going in circles with your support pack argument that hinges on ambiguous wording at best.

DE already does not intend to re-issue those heirlooms and have been very firm with it, so fundamentally this argument is useless to have.


Ive said my piece but feel free to argue against the brick walls, Points have been made and the current Creative Director of Warframe is against you in terms of statements. It literally could not be served more clear for you. 

Edited Thursday at 06:10 PM by darklord122

[PublikDomain]

35 minutes ago, darklord122 said:

Re-read. Your supporter pack argument is not a good leg to stand on as they have had no ties to actually limiting it to a one time thing.

I'm not talking about "one time thing", I'm talking about how they were represented as "exclusive". It was represented as "exclusive", it is no longer "exclusive", and this original representation is now false or misleading in a material respect. And "all representations, in any form whatever, that are false or misleading in a material respect are subject to the Act."

For another example, early Prime Access Exclusives were specifically described in the Prime Access FAQ like this:

Quote

The Exclusive items in Prime Access are Exclusive to the Prime Access Program.

Then we got the Prime Vault program and The FAQ was changed to read this:

Quote

The Exclusive items in Prime Access are Exclusive to the Prime Access and Prime Vault Programs.

But while new items added after the Prime Vault program came about may never have been represented as being "Exclusive to the Prime Access Program", old ones absolutely were. And yet that representation was later changed. The original representation would today be false and misleading.

"All representations, in any form whatsoever" doesn't seem to me to differentiate between representations of exclusivity or representations of availability or representations of quality or of anything else. So either DE is liable for all of their many misrepresentations over the years, or it's not actually that big of a deal and the threat of legal doom is overstated.

[darklord122]

34 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

I'm not talking about "one time thing", I'm talking about how they were represented as "exclusive". It was represented as "exclusive", it is no longer "exclusive", and this original representation is now false or misleading in a material respect. And "all representations, in any form whatever, that are false or misleading in a material respect are subject to the Act."

For another example, early Prime Access Exclusives were specifically described in the Prime Access FAQ like this:

Then we got the Prime Vault program and The FAQ was changed to read this:

But while new items added after the Prime Vault program came about may never have been represented as being "Exclusive to the Prime Access Program", old ones absolutely were. And yet that representation was later changed. The original representation would today be false and misleading.

"All representations, in any form whatsoever" doesn't seem to me to differentiate between representations of exclusivity or representations of availability or representations of quality or of anything else. So either DE is liable for all of their many misrepresentations over the years, or it's not actually that big of a deal and the threat of legal doom is overstated.

You overstate Exclusive meanings, As the term is less literal than you think it to be.

Them adding the prime vault is not false advertisement as it still falls under the prime access category, Its just a re-occurrence of the prime items as the more you add the more you have to cycle them. But nothing changed in terms of pricing and the items in said packs outside of inflation. This argument is a very bad one as they are both 2 sides of the same coin more or less.
The statement of exclusivity changed but the actual exclusivity did not, Therefor not false advertisement.


It's very much different when they specifically say that these things will only be available to certain things, But by adding "exclusivity" as a forefront instead it becomes more ambiguous in terms of what one can do.

If it actually said "These exclusive Prime Access items will never appear outside of the prime access program" Or lets take a more direct approach "Ember prime will only be available through prime access" Would leave things way less ambiguous and more restrictive, As not only would it only be tied to a monetary storefront it will also be restricted to be un-farmable as relics would be seen as another acquisition method.

"Exclusive" and "Limited" items have generally lost their meaning in the modern day in any games, and now its more down to the actual specifics of their statements. And when something has in big bold letters "This item will never return" That states more than "This exclusive item pack" Or "Limited time only". If the support packs or prime packs ever had this kind of limiting FOMO stated people would have been fuming and still would be right now, But no-one really is. I don't see mass complaints about exclusives coming back because the wording has never specified they wont. Or every support pack added to this day would cause literal threads.

Also you only showed the exclusive title but nothing from the FAQ or anything in the prime access that shows any kind of limiting factor that would suggest they would not return or be acquired by other means.

Now we can bicker back and forth but whats done is done, No matter the legal jargon we throw at each other,  DE themselves are firm in their decision. Care about or don't but they are pretty adamant about their statements. Last time they made such statements was with the founder packs. So there is not really much up for discussion.
Even if it sucks with FOMO, People did win by changing future Heirloom packs. But the past one is pretty strongly staying the way it is.


Ciao.

Edited Thursday at 07:03 PM by darklord122

[PublikDomain]

1 minute ago, darklord122 said:

as it still falls under the prime access category,

According to who? Is there some legal carve-out somewhere that says "Digital Extremes' Prime Access Program is legally the same as the Prime Vault Program even though they have different names and pricing schemes and availability"?

2 minutes ago, darklord122 said:

If it actually said "These exclusive Prime Access items will never appear outside of the prime access program"

Why does it need to? A representation is a representation, and as you have said the law pertains to "all representations, in any form whatever". I see no exceptions made just because you feel that two programs are similar enough, or that you don't think representations of exclusivity matter enough.

If you're going to make some claim of supposed law-breaking, apply it equally. Don't go making exceptions where it's convenient for you.

[darklord122]

18 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

According to who? Is there some legal carve-out somewhere that says "Digital Extremes' Prime Access Program is legally the same as the Prime Vault Program even though they have different names and pricing schemes and availability"?

Why does it need to? A representation is a representation, and as you have said the law pertains to "all representations, in any form whatever". I see no exceptions made just because you feel that two programs are similar enough, or that you don't think representations of exclusivity matter enough.

If you're going to make some claim of supposed law-breaking, apply it equally. Don't go making exceptions where it's convenient for you.

The representation is what is deemed to be seen as false advertisement in a court of law. To continue the quote as you can not search things up yourself even when I provided the source: To determine whether a representation is false or misleading, the courts consider the "general impression" it conveys, as well as its literal meaning.

This means that they take the meaning in its entirety and consider weather or not it can be seen as a false advertisement to the consumer. The exclusivity of prime access can be brought forward to a judge but if the general consensus of exclusivity having a differed meaning that also has FAQ'S and information to show its still accurate towards what it advertises they will most likely judge it to be not false advertisement. However one cant fully know with this example it still would probably be in DE's favour.

However when looking at an advertised product were statements such as "Never will return" Is to be concerned they take that into account. And thus the past heirlooms would have a way higher possibility of false advertising in a court of law than the prime access as the meanings and information related are completely different.

In a court of law nothing is guaranteed but that's also precisely why companies wont take the false advertisement route generally, And with Canadian law I highly doubt DE will as well, You really think they don't make changes to their programs without any type of consultation? 

I never applied a double standard.


If you need to read up more unless you skip most of the thread as usual, you can read up more at the deceptive marketing practice page on the competition bureau website, Its really not hard to find.

And as stated time and time again, Even without the legality in question they wont return them. It's been stated, Over and done with Fomo or not, while that is a shame. And they would dig themselves a grave since the founder pack falls under the same category and we don't need that bag opened again.

But I'm officially done here, This thread is devolving as is and I've already made my point.

Edited Thursday at 07:22 PM by darklord122

[PublikDomain]

12 minutes ago, darklord122 said:

The representation is what is deemed to be seen as false advertisement in a court of law.

Yes, the representation which was changed in both examples. The representation of exclusivity for Supporter packs changed and the representation of where Prime Access Exclusives were available changed. And so if this hasn't resulted in any sort of penalty or fine, why would a change in representation of something else suddenly result in one? Because you feel that it should?

Quote

To determine whether a representation is false or misleading, the courts consider the "general impression" it conveys, as well as its literal meaning.

And I wonder what the "general impression" of "exclusive", "get it before its gone", "limited time", etc. would be? I certainly know the general impression this gives to me! How about a "this weekend only"? And yet the general impressions which were conveyed later changed and nothing bad has happened. Just like nothing bad would happen if DE changed their minds and brought back Mag and Frost Heirloom in some new "Heirloom Tribute Pack" on the market. Y'all overreacting.

Edited Thursday at 07:34 PM by PublikDomain

[Waeleto]

No.

[Waeleto]

On 2024-07-03 at 5:44 PM, PublikDomain said:

So keep asking

We've been asking for excalibur prime to come back for 10 years and look around do you see him anywhere ? it's pointless but if it makes you feel better do it 

[PublikDomain]

1 minute ago, Waeleto said:

We've been asking for excalibur prime to come back for 10 years and look around do you see him anywhere ? it's pointless but if it makes you feel better do it 

Even if it's pointless, IMO it's better to keep asking than to roll over and give up. People had the same "it's pointless" to say about Prime Resurgence plat after DE initially said "no" and that turned out quite well for us!

[Waeleto]

1 minute ago, PublikDomain said:

Even if it's pointless, IMO it's better to keep asking than to roll over and give up. People had the same "it's pointless" to say about Prime Resurgence plat after DE initially said "no" and that turned out quite well for us!

Big difference between "No" and "IT WILL NEVER COME BACK AGAIN BUY IT NOW OR YOU'LL MISS IT FOREVEEEEER"

[PublikDomain]

2 minutes ago, Waeleto said:

Big difference between "No" and "IT WILL NEVER COME BACK AGAIN BUY IT NOW OR YOU'LL MISS IT FOREVEEEEER"

One is considerably scummier, yes.

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

11 hours ago, Quest said:

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

 

People who leave long posts know this already, we just don't really mind and are completely fine with our long posts and other peoples long posts.  Its why you'll often see them moving in herds together. 

You might even be interested in some research and studies around the Internets and social media's influence on long form communication (nothing judgemental or inherently negative or positive), just why and how different peoples communication styles can differ so much. 

Take care! 

 

[Letter13]

Going to go ahead and lock this as the discussion has run its course. 

Long and short of it: No, these items will not be returning.