Release Excalibur, Lato, Skana Prime To Public, Give Founders Something Else.

[Vargras]

There's no way DE is going to take legal heat for this. Every EULA has God only knows how many clauses that basically say the company can do what it likes. There's limits, sure, but those limits are on the level of "can't trick the customer into handing over their firstborn."

Or rather, someone could try suing DE over it, but they wouldn't stand a chance.

You may not be able to sue them, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be upset.

[Hixlysss]

There's no way DE is going to take legal heat for this. Every EULA has God only knows how many clauses that basically say the company can do what it likes. There's limits, sure, but those limits are on the level of "can't trick the customer into handing over their firstborn."

Or rather, someome could try suing DE over it, but they wouldn't stand a chance.

I believe Blizzard does something like this...But yeah, a fair point to be honest. Basically, if the majority of founders vote and agree on making something non exclusive, something which they bought, then that should in no way come back to bite DE, it's as likely as someone sueing DE over the recent Legendary Core issue. There are people who put money into buying cores to level their steel charge, and then it lost it's extra five ranks and they were compensated for  their loss.

 

 

You may not be able to sue them, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be upset.

Again, I point to the recent Steel Charge thing. Sure there are differences due to wording and such, but people did spend money to get their steel charge maxed out, so the same idea applies. So long the founders get something shiny exclusive they can show off, they really have no grounds to complain/sue. Sure there will be people who are butt hurt, but more people will be happy.

[Vargras]

. Sure there will be people who are butt hurt, but more people will be happy.

You don't know that, though. You're gonna have people happy it's open, people mad that it's open, and honestly, the majority will probably be people who had no idea the Founders program was even a thing.

[Hixlysss]

You don't know that, though. You're gonna have people happy it's open, people mad that it's open, and honestly, the majority will probably be people who had no idea the Founders program was even a thing.

I can make a educated guess. I wont know for sure until it happens, if it happens. It couldn't hurt to at least hold a poll asking "Hey, would you guys mind if the founder primes were non exclusive and we made you guys something else instead?" Would that be too much to ask?

[Verazix]

If I can get enough founders, specially grand masters, to support this thread I'm fairly certain DE will change their mind. Especially if the founders can all agree on a suitable alternative to the three primes.

 

Have another GM's approval, as well as my commendation for not being self centered and egotistical like a large amount of today's generation (not just in gaming).  I don't even care whether I get compensation or not, I didn't support the game for exclusives, it doesn't increase my epeen by having exclusives, and releasing them most definitely won't make me feel like I wasted my time and money.  I've always had a sort of personal vendetta against superiority complexes, which by proxy effects my viewpoint on exclusives.

[Vargras]

I can make a educated guess. I wont know for sure until it happens, if it happens. It couldn't hurt to at least hold a poll asking "Hey, would you guys mind if the founder primes were non exclusive and we made you guys something else instead?" Would that be too much to ask?

If you'd want a poll, you couldn't place it in the design council forums, as not all Founders have access to it.

[Hixlysss]

Have another GM's approval, as well as my commendation for not being self centered and egotistical like a large amount of today's generation (not just in gaming).  I don't even care whether I get compensation or not, I didn't support the game for exclusives, it doesn't increase my epeen by having exclusives, and releasing them most definitely won't make me feel like I wasted my time and money.  I've always had a sort of personal vendetta against superiority complexes, which by proxy effects my viewpoint on exclusives.

Thank you. How ever I can't tell if the people opposing it are doing it because of Epeen, or because they want DE to stick to their word reguardless of what we ask, I'm thinking the latter in all honesty. It's noble, but in the F2P world the dev's have to bend to the will of the community at some point. If we want the founder primes to be non exclusive, so be it, if not, so be it. I'm just asking for a chance for the community to be heard, that is all. Let the founders cast their votes and judgment be cast.

 

 

If you'd want a poll, you couldn't place it in the design council forums, as not all Founders have access to it.

 

What? I've seen some disciples and hunters in there. That aside, DE could make a special thread that only founders can get into to vote on this, it's not that hard.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Rikov

[Vargras]

Thank you. How ever I can't tell if the people opposing it are doing it because of Epeen, or because they want DE to stick to their word reguardless of what we ask, I'm thinking the latter in all honesty. It's noble, but in the F2P world the dev's have to bend to the will of the community at some point. If we want the founder primes to be non exclusive, so be it, if not, so be it. I'm just asking for a chance for the community to be heard, that is all. Let the founders cast their votes and judgment be cast.

I tend to lean towards the "No" side in all of the "Founder items should be opened to everyone" discussions, if only because of the latter reason. I'm not necessarily speaking for myself, but there's been several instances in the past few years of players feeling betrayed or lied to by devs because they went back on something they had promised earlier, and it's often undermined the developer's reputation and made their jobs more difficult when trying to communicate with players.

 

Gamers tend to hold grudges for a very long time, it would seem.

 

 

What? I've seen some disciples and hunters in there. That aside, DE could make a special thread that only founders can get into to vote on this, it's not that hard.

Random selection, the same thing I mentioned in the other topic. I don't have design council access.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Vargras

[Hixlysss]

I tend to lean towards the "No" side in all of the "Founder items should be opened to everyone" discussions, if only because of the latter reason. I'm not necessarily speaking for myself, but there's been several instances in the past few years of players feeling betrayed or lied to by devs because they went back on something they had promised earlier, and it's often undermined the developer's reputation and made their jobs more difficult when trying to communicate with players.

 

Gamers tend to hold grudges for a very long time, it would seem.

 

 

Random selection, the same thing I mentioned in the other topic. I don't have design council access.

So here is the thing I propose, to your "DE needs to stick to their word reguardless of what they say." DE has said/done things in the past which they are looking into changing. The helmets with stats for one thing. Or hell, go way back, DE said they would NEVER put PvP in this game, look at the conclaves. The community kept asking for some form of PvP, DE kept saying no, we don't want PvP, eventually they added in the conclaves. They went against their word and look, they didn't suffer, there was no big backlash, hell I don't think anyone openly complains about PvP being added because it is what they wanted.

[Vargras]

So here is the thing I propose, to your "DE needs to stick to their word reguardless of what they say." DE has said/done things in the past which they are looking into changing. The helmets with stats for one thing. Or hell, go way back, DE said they would NEVER put PvP in this game, look at the conclaves. The community kept asking for some form of PvP, DE kept saying no, we don't want PvP, eventually they added in the conclaves. They went against their word and look, they didn't suffer, there was no big backlash, hell I don't think anyone openly complains about PvP being added because it is what they wanted.

The issue with your example is that it was universally wanted with no one really saying otherwise. I don't like PvP, but since conclaves are completely optional, there's nothing to complain about.

 

The Founder's program is a very touchy subject, and you will not get universal agreement on any one part of it.

[Hixlysss]

The issue with your example is that it was universally wanted with no one really saying otherwise. I don't like PvP, but since conclaves are completely optional, there's nothing to complain about.

 

The Founder's program is a very touchy subject, and you will not get universal agreement on any one part of it.

Universally wanted? I ran across several people who didn't want it added "It's a PvE game, it doesn't need PvP! I don't want PvP in a PvE game!" Yadda yadda. The only reason we didn't really see them is because the other side was louder. In this case, it's really no different except both sides have a noticeable voice.

[Nexus730]

Have you ever thought of compensation? Like give players who don't have excal prime something similar, such as the Hayden Tenno skin that was mentioned before, Or a special syandana, and a Dark Sector glaive skin.

[Seox]

Universally wanted? I ran across several people who didn't want it added "It's a PvE game, it doesn't need PvP! I don't want PvP in a PvE game!" Yadda yadda. The only reason we didn't really see them is because the other side was louder. In this case, it's really no different except both sides have a noticeable voice.

 

But again, the point he's trying to make is that the addition of conclaves does not innately effect people who don't want to play it. Those players have the option to avoid conclaves. When it comes to founder's items, we won't have the option of them not being exclusive - this effects people whether they choose to "avoid" it or not.

[Vargras]

Have you ever thought of compensation? Like give players who don't have excal prime something similar, such as the Hayden Tenno skin that was mentioned before, Or a special syandana, and a Dark Sector glaive skin.

Cue Founders complaining that now they can't get those items.

 

That's the issue with exclusive anything. If you don't have it, you want it, because you don't have it.

[Hixlysss]

Have you ever thought of compensation? Like give players who don't have excal prime something similar, such as the Hayden Tenno skin that was mentioned before, Or a special syandana, and a Dark Sector glaive skin.

Eh, a little backwards. But the idea of releasing statistical copies of the founder primes has come up, it is a great idea if they share the same stats but just look different and I would be behind that 100% if we can't get the founder primes swapped for something else.

 

But again, the point he's trying to make is that the addition of conclaves does not innately effect people who don't want to play it. Those players have the option to avoid conclaves. When it comes to founder's items, we won't have the option of them not being exclusive - this effects people whether they choose to "avoid" it or not.

OKay, so the problem is people can't avoid their fancy primes from being exclusive, give them something else to have as exclusive. I mean hell, I even said "Release a new excalibur prime and let founders keep their original excalibur prime look as a skin." The founders keep their "exclusive" primes, and the players get to enjoy all the primes as well. Win, Win. 

[Verazix]

How ever I can't tell if the people opposing it are doing it because of Epeen, or because they want DE to stick to their word reguardless of what we ask, I'm thinking the latter in all honesty.

 

Regardless of why people defend it, the reason it's even put in place is because of the "feel" of it.  If no one cared, there obviously would be no need for DE to have made it exclusive in the first place.  Ah well, I'm not really up for discussing exclusivity vs. non-exclusivity, most people are as stubborn as me about it and have just as much right to their opinion as I do.  I just wanted to voice my personal belief that it's unnecessary with a large side of my opinion/loathing of exclusives attached to it.

[Hixlysss]

Regardless of why people defend it, the reason it's even put in place is because of the "feel" of it.  If no one cared, there obviously would be no need for DE to have made it exclusive in the first place.  Ah well, I'm not really up for discussing exclusivity vs. non-exclusivity, most people are as stubborn as me about it and have just as much right to their opinion as I do.  I just wanted to voice my personal belief that it's unnecessary with a large side of my opinion/loathing of exclusives attached to it.

Honestly, I'm used to the whole "Exclusive Founder Item!" thing being something to get attention and get people to buy their pack. Same thing with the prime access. The reason they say "Exclusive!" is so people buy it. But again, I want to repeat, nothing that affects gameplay should be exclusive, Exclusive items in a F2P game should be items that I don't carry into a match. No weapon with +10 to dmg, no helmet that gives me +10 to cool down, nothing like that. And if they do give something like that as an exclusive, the public better get a copy of it with a different skin.

[Loswaith]

The issue with your example is that it was universally wanted with no one really saying otherwise. I don't like PvP, but since conclaves are completely optional, there's nothing to complain about.

 

The Founder's program is a very touchy subject, and you will not get universal agreement on any one part of it.

Actually I know many people opposed PvP being added.  Honestly founders extras can be ignored just as much as conclaves, its effectivly a collectors edition bonus much like a physical statue, it sits there and looks good (sure you may play with it occasionally too).

 

Though I dont honestly want to see primes any better than other frames either, as that just adds to the power creep and current frames arent balanced yet so obviously primes wont be either.  If primes are meant to be better it will add so much more to that imbalance, especially if you try and compare something like mag prime to nova.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Loswaith

[kill3r_furby]

Actually I know many people opposed PvP being added.  Honestly founders extras can be ignored just as much as conclaves, its effectivly a collectors edition bonus much like a physical statue, it sits there and looks good (sure you may play with it occasionally too).

 

Though I dont honestly want to see primes any better than other frames either, as that just adds to the power creep and current frames arent balanced yet so obviously primes wont be either.  If primes are meant to be better it will add so much more to that imbalance, especially if you try and compare something like mag prime to nova.

Thank you for that analogy. As a (I'll play by their rules) "Gimme Gimme I Don't Have" player, I want the OPTION. How many companies go back and re-release their collectors edition content (at least the digital variety) not months after the game is out? How many people threaten lawsuits over that?

Oh right, too few to make a difference. I'd say none but I don't have that much hope for humanity, so I say too few because when was the last time you honestly heard this self same complaint revolving around another game?

[Killerdude8]

Thank you for that analogy. As a (I'll play by their rules) "Gimme Gimme I Don't Have" player, I want the OPTION. How many companies go back and re-release their collectors edition content (at least the digital variety) not months after the game is out? How many people threaten lawsuits over that?

Oh right, too few to make a difference. I'd say none but I don't have that much hope for humanity, so I say too few because when was the last time you honestly heard this self same complaint revolving around another game?

The difference between those and this, Is that THIS Collectors Edition Affects gameplay, Most, if not all Collectors Edition items are just Cosmetic Items + Some nice Physical stuff (T-shirt, Mug, etc...) and have little to no effect on the Gameplay.

 

OP Wants to swap these Gameplay affecting items, for Items that do not affect the Gameplay, At least that Is what I'm grabbing from it.

[Verazix]

Honestly, I'm used to the whole "Exclusive Founder Item!" thing being something to get attention and get people to buy their pack. Same thing with the prime access. The reason they say "Exclusive!" is so people buy it. But again, I want to repeat, nothing that affects gameplay should be exclusive, Exclusive items in a F2P game should be items that I don't carry into a match. No weapon with +10 to dmg, no helmet that gives me +10 to cool down, nothing like that. And if they do give something like that as an exclusive, the public better get a copy of it with a different skin.

 

Completely agree with that, though a lot what of you said is directly in line with what I said here:

 

If no one cared, there obviously would be no need for DE to have made it exclusive in the first place.

 

People want exclusives and are willing to pay for them.  Lato Prime/Skana Prime may be mostly worthless in comparison to other items, but they offer mastery experience others can't get (as does Excalibur) and are directly superior to their counterparts.  I've always liked the idea of Primes being skins, but I think it's a bit too late for that now heh, so I would at least prefer if things that give an advantage of any sort were at least made non exclusive (much like Primed Chamber needs to be less exclusive).  Cosmetics being exclusive is fine (the scarf from prime access was a good exclusive), but even something as minor as free mastery experience is a bit much where mastery experience is a finite resource.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Verazix

[Loswaith]

The difference between those and this, Is that THIS Collectors Edition Affects gameplay, Most, if not all Collectors Edition items are just Cosmetic Items + Some nice Physical stuff (T-shirt, Mug, etc...) and have little to no effect on the Gameplay.

 

OP Wants to swap these Gameplay affecting items, for Items that do not affect the Gameplay, At least that Is what I'm grabbing from it.

Many collectors editions add additional digital bits to their game for them, often starting/mid game items or like you mention cosmetics/physical stuff. All of which founders have (or will get shortly), even if we didnt expect to get the physical stuff (thanks DE for that BTW).

 

Actually the only thing these effect for everyone is mastery (at the higher end I doubt they even give a single mastery level more and its only 2 weapons and one frame's worth), the gameplay is only effected if you dont play with the normal ones, with the exception of Skana prime overhead charge attack they play exactly the same as their normal counter parts (ie. not that well in late game).

 

Actually that was my initial thought too, though whether it's intened or not further posts make it sound like Rikov wants something that's useful to them late game (or always useful) instead.  I dont really need anything more than what we have gotten, but I understand some players may want that show of faith from DE that the founders arent forgotten about if they did release the founders primes for collective or  lore purposes or just making the game better on the whole.  I doubt they will change their minds unless an over whelming number of founders pushes for it (much like how they did with heavy player desire for PvP).

Edited February 21, 2014 by Loswaith

[Thrymm]

why thank you for actually saying my suggestion is fair (thought i went a bit overboard) 

 

To be honest, I think those suggestions are a bit overboard and, in fact, I think some of the support seen here is from the standpoint of "heck yes I'd trade my exclusivity for BP's and boosters that'd save me thousands of plat over time!".

 

Far too many games have eventually given up on exclusivity that was purchased by players in a show of support.  It would show a great deal of integrity to not EVER re-issue exclusive items that where actually purchased with real world money.

 

On top of this, there are a myriad of economic reasons to not go this direction.  "Bundles" that include two weapons and a frame run 500-700 plat or so, give or take.  My current weapon stable has sixty seven weapons in it---if all had catalysts, the platinum value of this BP alone would be double.  If I where to triple forma the whole lot, I'd have five thousand plat worth sitting around(assuming all purchased catalysts/forma, obviously).  A permanent booster reduces the value of purchased bundles that often include a booster to level them, and remove the purchased boosters that, I would submit, are purchased more often by veteran players than new ones(once you've run with a catalysted/forma'd/boostered weapon, spending a few plat on a booster to not have to deal with a 1-30 skill point weapon starts seeming like a really good idea.

 

If any percentage of that platinum got purchased anyway, it would skew the player driven aspects of the economy in the wrong direction as well.  Without any danger of having to pay for forma or catalyst, more plat could easily be reserved for mod purchases, driving prices up.  New players walking into a game are very, very often not at all interested in inflated prices that could easily reach the cost of entire games.

 

Last but certainly not least, some founders probably DID make the purchase to obtain their exclusive gear.  Others probably passed on the opportunity because they didn't want that particular gear---I know that with my own platinum purchases I've passed on the current founders pack and instead went with the better priced platinum bundles in large part because I've no interest in an Ember Prime or Glaive Prime, and passing interest at best in a Sicarus Prime.

 

Should those that trusted this exclusivity to remain be slighted?  I don't think so.  Should those that would have made the purchase with a different reward suddenly watch others get the things that they WOULD have paid for?  I don't think so there either.

 

If unavailable items are to ever be offered to "the rest of us", I think it should be limited to events being repeated that let us have the opportunity to gain these items the same way other people did, but frankly I wasn't around for those either and if an express promise of exclusivity was made with them, they too should fall away forever. 

[Seox]

 

OKay, so the problem is people can't avoid their fancy primes from being exclusive, give them something else to have as exclusive. I mean hell, I even said "Release a new excalibur prime and let founders keep their original excalibur prime look as a skin." The founders keep their "exclusive" primes, and the players get to enjoy all the primes as well. Win, Win. 

That's not win-win, it's using a technicality to make something "exclusive". You know that's a "corrupted wish" and a backdoor, but you keep suggesting it. How is a skin of the exact same thing everyone else can get exclusive at all?

 

Either founders get something exclusive or not. If not, we just got screwed, and if so, people like you complain that people who didn't pay and didn't pick up an early deal that benefited both warframe and ourselves should somehow receive the same rewards.

 

You're probably going for a "founder's skin looks slightly different", but again, that still encroaches on the meaning of "exclusive." Firstly, it completely craps on the promise DE made about the content. Secondly, while a skin could still be exclusive, an item like that with a direct counterpart introduced later loses much of its appeal when it was originally called exclusive and you know this.

 

 

 

Honestly, I'm used to the whole "Exclusive Founder Item!" thing being something to get attention and get people to buy their pack. Same thing with the prime access. The reason they say "Exclusive!" is so people buy it. But again, I want to repeat, nothing that affects gameplay should be exclusive, Exclusive items in a F2P game should be items that I don't carry into a match. No weapon with +10 to dmg, no helmet that gives me +10 to cool down, nothing like that. And if they do give something like that as an exclusive, the public better get a copy of it with a different skin.

 

You mentioned before that "Warframe is the first game where exclusive means exclusive for founder's packs." What other games do you play that blatantly lie to their players and go back on deals where money changed hands?

 

Firefall's founder's pack has remained exclusive.

 

Mechwarrior's founder's pack has remained exclusive (and oh my god at their business practices - if they've stuck to their word, wow. They make changes their community doesn't agree with, unlike warframe).

 

Neverwinter's founder's pack has remained exclusive.

 

I don't think we should propagate the terrible business practices of whatever obscure games you might have in mind.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Seox

[Oyasai_aaa]

Agreed.

 

but after releasing them to public, just turn my lato prime into "the founder edition"

that means stat is not changed from normal ones but given founder-sparkling effect on them.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Oyasai_aaa