Thoughts On Founder Exclusivity

[OniDax]

You said trading doesn't generate ANY revenue which is completely false. It's another avenue by which players can acquire gear that they don't feel like grinding for, which therefore influences plat purchases. Don't argue a point that I didn't even make.

 

It doesn't generate "revenue". Players acquiring gear they don't want to grind for isn't revenue. Plat given in-game to a player doesn't generate revenue. The feature of plat trading may influence someone to buy platinum, but it doesn't generate revenue. The revenue is generated when the buyer purchases platinum. By the time someone is trading for plat, revenue's already been generated. Don't know how this got off topic like this, but it's not false. Trading doesn't generate revenue. Purchasing platinum does. Yes, there's a difference. And it's pretty obvious. So let's stop this discussion and get back on topic, shall we?

 

Oh, there's no point for further discussion.

 

/thread

[JuicyPop]

Also, please tell me why these topics aren't on some list for instant thread lock? Just link the the official response from DE on their stance towards founder/prime exclusivity and be done with this.

[ToeSama]

OP's idea specifically? God no...

 

Idea to bring back the old Founder's Packs for PS4 users only? Sure, why not? Not going to kill anything on the PC side, especially since the update hole between the platforms will keep Rainbow Bridge from being built for a long while yet...

[OniDax]

OP's idea specifically? God no...

 

Idea to bring back the old Founder's Packs for PS4 users only? Sure, why not? Not going to kill anything on the PC side, especially since the update hole between the platforms will keep Rainbow Bridge from being built for a long while yet...

 

I do wonder why they didn't extend it for PS4 though if they did for Steam users. Either way, DE has made their position clear. At this point, warnings need to start being handed out for continuing to bring this topic up.

[JuicyPop]

It doesn't generate "revenue". Players acquiring gear they don't want to grind for isn't revenue. Plat given in-game to a player doesn't generate revenue. The feature of plat trading may influence someone to buy platinum, but it doesn't generate revenue. The revenue is generated when the buyer purchases platinum. By the time someone is trading for plat, revenue's already been generated. Don't know how this got off topic like this, but it's not false. Trading doesn't generate revenue. Purchasing platinum does. Yes, there's a difference. And it's pretty obvious. So let's stop this discussion and get back on topic, shall we?

 

Oh, there's no point for further discussion.

 

/thread

 

So what you are trying to say is that people don't purchase platinum with the intent of using it for player trading? Are you real? It's an avenue to acquire items that are unavailable through the standard market. Its mere presence creates a demand that is met by people buying a larger quantity of platinum than they would have without its existence.

 

This is still technically revenue generation, it's just indirect.

Edited April 8, 2014 by JuicyPop

[OniDax]

So what you are trying to say is that people don't purchase platinum with the intent of using it for player trading? Are you real? It's an avenue to acquire items that are unavailable through the standard market. Its mere presence creates a demand that is met by people buying a larger quantity of platinum than they would have without.

 

No. I'm saying that the INTENT doesn't generate revenue. Why can't you just accept this? It's common sense. It's not hard to understand. Why are we having this discussion? Do I need to define revenue for you?

[ToeSama]

I do wonder why they didn't extend it for PS4 though if they did for Steam users. Either way, DE has made their position clear. At this point, warnings need to start being handed out for continuing to bring this topic up.

 

Unsure. The release date of the EU version was almost a whole 15 days after the NA version, which was almost a whole 15 days after the end of the Founders program. Perhaps keeping it running for another month or so would have been a bad idea somehow? Still could have let the PS4 folks keep accessing it for a bit somehow probably, but what's done is done at this point...

[Llyssa]

OP's idea specifically? God no...

 

Idea to bring back the old Founder's Packs for PS4 users only? Sure, why not? Not going to kill anything on the PC side, especially since the update hole between the platforms will keep Rainbow Bridge from being built for a long while yet...

So, the logical, legal thing is "God no", but your gag-o-matic, ultra-illegal thing is tots tops? Wow.

[PoorCensored]

Edit: Too many threads on this topic; not enough unique avatars. It's hard to keep track of all of them on my phone. Below is the referenced post:

Exclusive content is almost always problematic.

DE shouldn't have made any exclusive content.

Exclusive content owners should be advocating for everyone to have potential access to everything.

Those without exclusive content shouldn't ask DE to break their word.

As far as I can tell, exclusive content creates no-win scenarios. 

They should remain exclusive because of what DE has said. Now, should they have been exclusive? No. And, if DE could go back and do it over again, they'd probably make it like Prime Access. That's probably why Prime Access is the way it is. But the past is the past. DE shouldn't go back on their word.

I think a said something similar up thread...

Because that was what was promised by DE and I want them to keep their promises? I'm sorry for wanting people to keep their word?

There are pros and cons to the Founders gear being exclusive in the first place. If they weren't, we'd have avoided all this mess. Being exclusive almost assuredly drove up sales though which helped to fund the game you see now, so...

I don't like people breaking their word, but I also don't like people not fixing something that is wrong. Up thread (unless this is the wrong thread...), I believe I said I think DE is in a no win situation.

AI don't want anyone to break their word; however, if the only reason someone is not fixing a problem is because of a promise, that as a problem...

... and what influences players to buy plat other than what is available from the market? Player trading.

Speculative.

DE could easily be losing revenue due to individuals purchasing things from the player market at a much lower price than what DE is charging.

We don't have enough data to really talk intelligently about the in game economy - and I don't want to have enough. This isn't a economy or life sim.

Edited April 8, 2014 by PoorCensored

[CandyDragon]

DE could easily be losing revenue due to individuals purchasing things from the player market at a much lower price than what DE is charging.

We don't have enough data to really talk intelligently about the in game economy - and I don't want to have enough. This isn't a economy or life sim.

Do you think Rhino Prime being so hard to grind up outside of rediculous RNG luck is coincidence?

They know that's the case, it seems apparent that the drop rates are reflected accordingly.

[Cepmosod]

While the idea's great, Warframe may have not been on PS4 if it were not for the early players/supporters of the game (aka founders).

OR it might have not really mattered.

We'll never know I guess.



What are we talkin' about again?

[(PSN)TheShinigamiGod]

Ps4 users should get access to the founders packs because the PS4 was released after it ended on PC. But it will not happen.

[ensignvidiot]

No. I'm saying that the INTENT doesn't generate revenue. Why can't you just accept this? It's common sense. It's not hard to understand. Why are we having this discussion? Do I need to define revenue for you?

 

i buy plat packs to trade for prime parts.

 

a 50 hour workweek doesnt leave much time to farm for keys, and then farm those keys

Edited April 8, 2014 by ensignvidiot

[Volt_Cruelerz]

I don't like people breaking their word, but I also don't like people not fixing something that is wrong. Up thread (unless this is the wrong thread...), I believe I said I think DE is in a no win situation.

Again, I don't want anyone to break their word; however, if the only reason I was unable to correct a mistake was because of a promise I made to some one, I'd want that person to release me from that promise. And I know I wouldn't want a promise made to me to cause some one else to have to commit to a bad decision

But the regrettable truth is that we haven't the foggiest idea how to get all the founders to agree on this.  And you will need all.  Some of them may have had children in the past year and will play again in a couple years but are out of the picture in the interim.  How on earth do we get in touch with all these people, let alone get them all on the same page?

 

Personally, I think the idea in the OP (or at least some derivative of it provided someone doesn't poke a fundamental hole in it that I haven't thought of yet) is a good one.  It's just not practical to try to implement something on that scale.

[Llyssa]

But the regrettable truth is that we haven't the foggiest idea how to get all the founders to agree on this.  And you will need all.  Some of them may have had children in the past year and will play again in a couple years but are out of the picture in the interim.  How on earth do we get in touch with all these people, let alone get them all on the same page?

 

Personally, I think the idea in the OP (or at least some derivative of it provided someone doesn't poke a fundamental hole in it that I haven't thought of yet) is a good one.  It's just not practical to try to implement something on that scale.

Sidenote: Every founder had to buy via the online store, so they have transaction receipts of who founders are. With that list in hand, it's not that hard to track them down.

[nobucketrequired]

Attention Tenno!

 

The Warframe Founders Program is ending November 1st, including the ability to upgrade your Founders level.

 

This is your last chance to get your hands on the Exclusive Founders Only Prime gear -- Excalibur Prime, Skana Prime and Lato Prime -- Plus, show off your support with an in-game Founders Badge.

 

Edited April 8, 2014 by BACON4BREAKFAST

[Volt_Cruelerz]

Sidenote: Every founder had to buy via the online store, so they have transaction receipts of who founders are. With that list in hand, it's not that hard to track them down.

Unless those address/cards are no longer valid in which case...

[Aggh]

No.  Stop it.

[JuicyPop]

Speculative.

DE could easily be losing revenue due to individuals purchasing things from the player market at a much lower price than what DE is charging.

We don't have enough data to really talk intelligently about the in game economy - and I don't want to have enough. This isn't a economy or life sim.

 

The only real speculation is what the greater proportion of traders would have done without a trading system in place. If they were already actively purchasing plat en masse before this avenue opened up, then yes my entire arguement here is completely invalid because the plat is now just effectively being purchased indirectly.

 

It really isn't that far of a stretch to assume that there is a large bulk of traders who have never or would have never purchased plat with real life currency. I will admit, though, that it is likely impossible to prove or disprove without data from DE that we can never hope to actually acquire.

Edited April 8, 2014 by JuicyPop

[PoorCensored]

Do you think Rhino Prime being so hard to grind up outside of rediculous RNG luck is coincidence?

They know that's the case, it seems apparent that the drop rates are reflected accordingly.

No, I don't think it is a coincidence. However, last I checked, you can still get it for less than what you would have to pay for Prime Access. Which leads me to think that platinum trading hurts dollars spent instead of help; but we don't have enough data for any real analysis, and I don't really want the data.

But the regrettable truth is that we haven't the foggiest idea how to get all the founders to agree on this.  And you will need all.  Some of them may have had children in the past year and will play again in a couple years but are out of the picture in the interim.  How on earth do we get in touch with all these people, let alone get them all on the same page?

 

Personally, I think the idea in the OP (or at least some derivative of it provided someone doesn't poke a fundamental hole in it that I haven't thought of yet) is a good one.  It's just not practical to try to implement something on that scale.

There are reasons I think DE is in a no win situation, and the wording of the initial offer makes *any* new availability of the items potentially impossible, including trading (changing ownership is making available, I'm sure the inventory system works by creating and deleting records in player inventory and not modifying unique globe item IDS with references to the owning player, etc.).

That said, I have been a proponent of a number of systems similar to the OP - where the Founders control the distribution. I've suggested similar systems - where Founders can lend/revoke access to what items they want to who they want, when they want; and where any number of Founders could nominate another player to purchase the items, and dissenting founders could deny the motion, given the dissenting voices was at least 1/3 the size of those in favor.

[(PSN)atpbx]

I love it when people choose to express an opinion on my behalf.

The PC founders pack is a bone of contention for a very small...........special group of PS4 players who won't shut about it, who change their argument as to why it isn't fair as often as they change their socks.

Nobody else gives a flying one.

[AngelGuardcc]

Jelly of my skana prime and Excalibro Prime ?

[SolarDwagon]

I'm just going to say, props to possibly the first sensible PSN player I've seen.

While I agree with those who say it's impossible, mainly because of the legal implications, I'm still impressed with the idea-it shows actual thought from a segment of the community that, for the most part, has upheld stereotypes.

 

Exclusivity IS always a big bone to pick, especially time-related things, as many people feel aggrieved that they can't get something purely because none of their friends ever told them-I was lucky enough to have friends who pulled me in just before Founders closed, otherwise I might never have found the game at all! So, I understand the frustration some players may have who feel that they are being penalised for not relentlessly playing every new game on the market.
To those people, all I can say is that the Founders program was us gambling on the game's success, in a way-especially in the earlier stages of Founders, I think there was a very real risk of the game being a failure, and people were putting real money behind their belief in the game. Those of us at the tail end of Founders had a bit more security, but the game was far more bare and buggy than it is now. Where I'm going with this is that I think one of the reasons Founders are often annoyed by suggestions of re-releasing the gear, is that right now, especially given our recent MMOBomb victory, the game is in a secure place, and Founders was one of the things that help found this position. (Funny that, the Founders helped found things... Who'd have thought?)

 

Personally, I like the idea, because the true Founders will still have control, and still have the unique (but annoyingly subtle) badges, and retain control over the trade in their own items, but those who care so much about the items have some avenue to obtain them. If that's not good enough for them? Tough cookies.

 

 

TLDR: Nice thought, legal situation says no.

[Llyssa]

Unless those address/cards are no longer valid in which case...

You really think it's that easy to hide from creditors?

 

I'm just going to say, props to possibly the first sensible PSN player I've seen.

While I agree with those who say it's impossible, mainly because of the legal implications, I'm still impressed with the idea-it shows actual thought from a segment of the community that, for the most part, has upheld stereotypes.

 

Exclusivity IS always a big bone to pick, especially time-related things, as many people feel aggrieved that they can't get something purely because none of their friends ever told them-I was lucky enough to have friends who pulled me in just before Founders closed, otherwise I might never have found the game at all! So, I understand the frustration some players may have who feel that they are being penalised for not relentlessly playing every new game on the market.

To those people, all I can say is that the Founders program was us gambling on the game's success, in a way-especially in the earlier stages of Founders, I think there was a very real risk of the game being a failure, and people were putting real money behind their belief in the game. Those of us at the tail end of Founders had a bit more security, but the game was far more bare and buggy than it is now. Where I'm going with this is that I think one of the reasons Founders are often annoyed by suggestions of re-releasing the gear, is that right now, especially given our recent MMOBomb victory, the game is in a secure place, and Founders was one of the things that help found this position. (Funny that, the Founders helped found things... Who'd have thought?)

 

Personally, I like the idea, because the true Founders will still have control, and still have the unique (but annoyingly subtle) badges, and retain control over the trade in their own items, but those who care so much about the items have some avenue to obtain them. If that's not good enough for them? Tough cookies.

 

 

TLDR: Nice thought, legal situation says no.

See, that's the thing: I don't think the legal situation says no. It would need very thorough analysis going over the laws that govern contracts between players and DE, the implied promises, the laws of their incorporation rules, the canadian tort... I think they're in the clear, but it would take a bit of research to be sure.

 

Also, it looks like they updated the ToS without telling us? I don't remember the section on epilepsy or implied endorsements existing previously.

[Sixty5]

My Thoughts on the matter