Perfect World is Selling the Lato Prime

[oshunter124]

Just now, (PS4)dursereg said:

And no one complains that chinese founder exclusives spira prime and nikana prime were release on global build or do we choose to forget that?

Actually the agreement was that nikana and spira prime were both supposed to be the equivalent of the skana and lato prime in the Chinese build. They never said that it couldnt come to the global build as a normal prime weapon.

[oshunter124]

2 minutes ago, Volinus7 said:

So China has 2 warframe publishers???

http://wf.mytvgame.com/wf/main.html

http://wf.changyou.com/main.shtml

Mytvgame seems to be for the ps4 version.

[achromos]

29 minutes ago, (PS4)dursereg said:

And no one complains that chinese founder exclusives spira prime and nikana prime were release on global build or do we choose to forget that?

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by achromos

[Insizer]

30 minutes ago, (PS4)dursereg said:

And no one complains that chinese founder exclusives spira prime and nikana prime were release on global build or do we choose to forget that?

But that was most likely in the contract between DE and their chinese counterparts...

[bluepheonix13]

31 minutes ago, (PS4)dursereg said:

And no one complains that chinese founder exclusives spira prime and nikana prime were release on global build or do we choose to forget that?

They were never really exclusives but were supposed to be timed exclusives (if I recall correctly, guaranteed exclusivity for 30 days).

[(PSN)Filthy113]

Well it's more a less going to be a disaster no matter how you spin this because one side of the coin it's well then the other side it's WAR!

Seeing this of course begs the question how did it happen without DE knowing?

The proper correction and course because there will be some pretty angry people if it's just "deleted".

Of course I gotta say it "if they can why cant we" there okay I feel better.

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

38 minutes ago, (PS4)dursereg said:

And no one complains that chinese founder exclusives spira prime and nikana prime were release on global build or do we choose to forget that?

timed exclusive != exclusive

[AwesmePersn]

5 minutes ago, (PS4)Filthy113 said:

Seeing this of course begs the question how did it happen without DE knowing?

I'm under the assumption that Chinaframe has autonomy. 

[(PSN)Silverback73]

8 hours ago, JSharpie said:

Okay? Who the hell cares?

^

They've turned their version into a fanciful version of the SILVERHAWKS CARTOON, so yeah...I only care so long as funding from a new market in China keeps DE/OUR Warframe profitable.

https://www.google.com/search?q=silverhawks+cartoons&prmd=ivsn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwios-2fyf7PAhUKxoMKHY3DDcAQ_AUICCgB&biw=320&bih=460&dpr=2#imgrc=dBSbEpw0c2oBWM%3A

Edited October 28, 2016 by (PS4)Silverback73

[(PSN)obsidiancurse]

36 minutes ago, AwesmePersn said:

I'm under the assumption that Chinaframe has autonomy. 

But why were the assets even in the code? If these items are legally locked shouldn't they have been removed from the database before the code was given to China? Appreciate it may not have been quite that easy but if they had a legal obligation it should have been done.

[MagPrime]

Just now, (PS4)obsidiancurse said:

But why were the assets even in the code? If these items are legally locked shouldn't they have been removed from the database before the code was given to China? Appreciate it may not have been quite that easy but if they had a legal obligation it should have been done.

Judging from SpaceMom's wording, there were no legalities involved.  

I'm betting it was a "Don't use this, 'kay?"  

Yeah....we wont use it.....

>.>

<.< 

[(PSN)obsidiancurse]

3 minutes ago, Noamuth said:

Judging from SpaceMom's wording, there were no legalities involved.  

I'm betting it was a "Don't use this, 'kay?"  

Yeah....we wont use it.....

>.>

<.< 

Well it's not so much the the legalities between DE and China but between DE and the founders.

If DE cannot legally re-release these items they shouldn't have been in the China code, they had a legal obligation to the founders to remove those assets or at least have a legal agreement with China to not utilise those assets. Handing over assets they could not legally release with nothing more than a handshake seems negligent.

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

19 minutes ago, (PS4)obsidiancurse said:

Well it's not so much the the legalities between DE and China but between DE and the founders.

If DE cannot legally re-release these items they shouldn't have been in the China code, they had a legal obligation to the founders to remove those assets or at least have a legal agreement with China to not utilise those assets. Handing over assets they could not legally release with nothing more than a handshake seems negligent.

They can legally rerelease them if they want. It would just be breaking a promise, which tends to be frowned on.

[FAZZWARFRAME]

I have more than 10 plus years of experience working for a company providing software as a service (the SAAS model) and in my opinion, whenever a kerfuffle like this happens there is usually no definite right or wrong and both parties should bear some responsibilities.  In a B2B relationship both parties needs to contribute to solving the crisis to maintain that healthy win-win situation; if we gamers push too hard with our “pitch fork” mentality demanding there to be a winner and a loser out of this incident, it will hurt DE and CY’s partnership in the long run.  With that said, I’d like to talk about the 2 issues with China Warframe (opinions only per my industry experience, no insider info).

 

Lato Prime availability:

When it comes to expandable content following a confined structure (secondary weapon for example), it is logical to assume that the Lato Prime is being positioned as some form of reference data in Warframe’s model.  Depending on the architecture this could be a class, a section in the config file, or an entry in the database.  The point I’m trying to make is that Warframe most likely reads the list of available weapons dynamically and that they are not hard coded, as such, having 1 extra weapon definition, or 1 less weapon definition, should not “break the game”.  Weapons that have restricted access not meant to be leveraged by the licensee (in this case, CY) should never have been included in the baseline (global) definition to be given to the licensee in the first place.  Per Mom’s statement, DE basically gave CY A, B and C but also have a contract that states that CY cannot use C.  Why not just give them only A and B in the first place to eliminate the risk of abusing restricted material?  It is also possible that each weapon have an active-inactive flag that DE felt comfortable enough to pass to CY as long as the flag is set to inactive, but again, why even introduce that extra layer of risk?  Alternatively, it is also possible that the marketing staff in CY is new and not up to speed on the contract, thus mistakenly promoted Lato Prime not knowing they are restricted.  It appears that Mom / DE found out about the promotion after the fact, so I doubt anyone from CY asked for approval upfront (not saying that they need to, whatever agreed upon business process is whatever, we’ll never know).

 

Dart Prime / Kitana Prime availability:

This is in the exact reverse order of Lato Prime, in that the NA update is screwing up China’s exclusivity.  The underlying cause, in my opinion is completely different.  To offer WarFrame under the SAAS model to CY, a lot of the behaviors in the game HAVE TO BE configurable; things like if an item will cost platinum, farmability and drop tables, which mission modes are active such and such, so that it can be customized to how CY wants it while still sharing the same framework.  The actual configuration might have been done by DE per CY’s business requirements, or by CY themselves following some configuration guide / knowledge transfer session.  My first suspicion is that the configuration was done wrong, but had this been the case it should have been swiftly resolved and CY would not be making the statement of DE being too busy to make the change and that some of CY’s suggestion is “too complicated”.  So the more logical guess to the cause of the problem is that the implementation of Starchart 3.0 broke / is not compatible with some of the legacy configurations.  The new starchart is a big overhaul on the engine and has a lot of moving parts; things like the relic system and drop table, mission progress conversion from 2.0 to 3.0, the key to relic conversion etc, etc.  It only takes one incompatibility with CY’s configuration to break the whole thing (my bet is either the key to relic conversion script, or the available relics not taking into account China Warframe’s restricted items).  CY most likely was suggesting an inter-layer transformation fix like “if spira prime then replace with akstiletto prime”, and yes, it really is very complicated.  All in all I think this falls on whichever party is supposed to QA.  It is clear that regression coverage is lacking when it comes to applying Starchart 3.0 onto China Warframe platform; impact analysis to existing data / configuration is a must and I doubt that the QA / UAT test cases are thorough enough; You’d think that something as obvious would have been caught in the staging / pre-production environment…

 

 

As players we tend to address DE (and CY) as a single entity due to our passion for the game.  It is important to keep an open mind and acknowledge that in a large company with many moving parts, no body actually knows EVERYTHING.  Miscommunications and lack of understandings on how a small part fits into the bigger picture often leads to what we consumer sees as “not connecting the dots”, and it is more common in the technology industry as you may think.

[MagPrime]

23 minutes ago, (PS4)obsidiancurse said:

Well it's not so much the the legalities between DE and China but between DE and the founders.

If DE cannot legally re-release these items they shouldn't have been in the China code, they had a legal obligation to the founders to remove those assets or at least have a legal agreement with China to not utilise those assets. Handing over assets they could not legally release with nothing more than a handshake seems negligent.

Ehh, legalities get fuzzy when you go over international lines.  My understanding is that DE can't re-release the items in the global build, but since it's China (a closed environment, like someone said) many things don't apply, for, well, reasons.

[(PSN)obsidiancurse]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

They can legally rerelease them if they want. It would just be breaking a promise, which tends to be frowned on.

Are you sure? Every time founders items are brought up on these forums (and that's about once week) there are always posts stating that DE cannot legally re-release these items.

now if that's false, another giant can of worms opens.......

[(PSN)Silverback73]

1 hour ago, achromos said:

 

We need a Spartanesque Space Marines frame!

[Heckzu]

31 minutes ago, Noamuth said:

Judging from SpaceMom's wording, there were no legalities involved.  

I'm betting it was a "Don't use this, 'kay?"  

Yeah....we wont use it.....

>.>

<.< 

ex·plic·it

ikˈsplisit/

adjective

adjective: explicit

1. 1.

   stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

   "the speaker's intentions were not made explicit"

From DE Rebecca's wording, I would infer that it was explicitly stated in their contract with the international partner. This would also mean that failing to abide by that of the contract, Perfect World breached the contract and therefore the contract can be terminated.

2 minutes ago, Noamuth said:

Ehh, legalities get fuzzy when you go over international lines.  My understanding is that DE can't re-release the items in the global build, but since it's China (a closed environment, like someone said) many things don't apply, for, well, reasons.

It's not that the rules don't apply there, it's because you can't punish those who break the rules because they're not here.

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

1 minute ago, (PS4)obsidiancurse said:

Are you sure? Every time founders items are brought up on these forums (and that's about once week) there are always posts stating that DE cannot legally re-release these items.

now if that's false, another giant can of worms opens.......

I am not a lawyer working on a case so I can't give legal advice, but they plaster legal disclaimers all over every thing stating they can change things whenever they like. It would not surprise me to know they did the same with the founder items.

[MagPrime]

4 minutes ago, Heckzu said:

ex·plic·it

ikˈsplisit/

adjective

adjective: explicit

1. 1.

   stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

   "the speaker's intentions were not made explicit"

From DE Rebecca's wording, I would infer that it was explicitly stated in their contract with the international partner. This would also mean that failing to abide by that of the contract, Perfect World breached the contract and therefore the contract can be terminated.

It's not that the rules don't apply there, it's because you can't punish those who break the rules because they're not here.

So, basically, the rules don't apply because you can't enforce anything about them.

 

[(PSN)obsidiancurse]

7 minutes ago, Noamuth said:

Ehh, legalities get fuzzy when you go over international lines.  My understanding is that DE can't re-release the items in the global build, but since it's China (a closed environment, like someone said) many things don't apply, for, well, reasons.

But again that doesn't affect any legal agreements between DE and founders. Unless the original agreement was specifically claused to say where they were and weren't  exclusive, DE still has that obligation to uphold their contract with the founders.

This is actually the most interesting thing to happen in Warframe in ages for me, I'm curious to where it's heading and what in means for founders items in the future.

[Heckzu]

9 minutes ago, Noamuth said:

So, basically, the rules don't apply because you can't enforce anything about them.

 

Exactly. Just like how the U.S. illegally started a war and invaded Iraq and the UN couldn't even enforce its own laws.

[MagPrime]

Just now, (PS4)obsidiancurse said:

But again that doesn't affect any legal agreements between DE and founders. Unless the original agreement was specifically claused to say where they were and weren't  exclusive, DE still has that obligation to uphold their contract with the founders.

This is actually the most interesting thing to happen in Warframe in ages for me, I'm curious to where it's heading and what in means for founders items in the future.

Fair enough.

It's been so long since I was involved in this kind of stuff, I'm gonna pass on commenting further.

[AwesmePersn]

1 hour ago, (PS4)obsidiancurse said:

But why were the assets even in the code? If these items are legally locked shouldn't they have been removed from the database before the code was given to China? Appreciate it may not have been quite that easy but if they had a legal obligation it should have been done.

I'm just speculating, but there could have been something like "receive all assets in original condition." or something like that to prevent content being preemptively edited out. Then again, I'm just speculating.

[atom]

10 minutes ago, (PS4)obsidiancurse said:

But again that doesn't affect any legal agreements between DE and founders. Unless the original agreement was specifically claused to say where they were and weren't  exclusive, DE still has that obligation to uphold their contract with the founders.

This is actually the most interesting thing to happen in Warframe in ages for me, I'm curious to where it's heading and what in means for founders items in the future.

what legal agreements? afaik founders packs were just like prime packs with the added promise of never coming back. the TOS for the game still applies and DE can change anything without any legal implications. it may look bad if they do it but there is no legal claim here imho