I think it's fair to assume that if Frontier don't make any more money we won't get any more content or do you think it's Father Christmas and his helper elves making the game to bring smiles to the faces of little children all around the world
What the flag?
- Thread starter Phoenix
- Start date
- Status
Nestle likes to necro its limited editions too:
http://www.nestle-nespresso.com/new...ited-edition-coffee-is-back-by-popular-demand
http://www.nestle-nespresso.com/new...ited-edition-coffee-is-back-by-popular-demand
No, they say they're limited time only. Just like FD did.
You'll find this "unethical" sales practice is used extensively the world over. And is well within trading standards.
Last edited:
Of course it is, what i fail to see is, how that makes it any more acceptable, and (even worse), why we are so willing to even defend it.
TheSPunk3d
T
I really do hope that this thread is a joke cause that lawyer comment would make for a pretty damn good punchline.
Last edited:
To be perfectly honest, it's likely because many of the people who don't seem to be particularly outraged over the re-release of the "limited edition" Viper skins have a sufficiently balanced perspective in life that allows them to categorize this as insignificant.
If I were as worked up over every real or imagined infringement on my human, civil, criminal, and consumer rights as op is, I'd never be able to leave the house; I'd be perpetually on the phone complaining about false advertising, misleading sales pitches, people cutting in front of me at the bank, the cop I saw CLEARLY speeding without having his blue lights and siren on, the lady that stole my parking place at the grocery store, and the fact that that last box of cereal I purchased had definitely contained precisely 25 grams less than was advertised on the box.
But since I can separate a "big deal" from the "small stuff", I actually focus on issues that (in my opinion) are worth spending time on. Virtual pixels are FAR beneath this level.
You don't have to. But your complaint falls outside of any regulatory body's guidelines. And, given the complaint is being made in the public domain, it's open to challenge from those who disagree, on the basis that it's deemed acceptable behaviour by the regulatory bodies that are there to protect us and because we want these sales to be repeated.
So when the legal/regulatory argument is voided, you're left with customer dissatisfaction. And, when you boil it right down to the emotive basis, this dissatisfaction is derived from two sources:
1. The customer wants exclusivity of a product and is upset others get to share that
2. The customer feels they wouldn't have made the purchase had they understood the product was to be available again
I can't argue against someone's feelings. But I can argue that their ill feeling is caused by their own misunderstanding and their ignorance that limited time offers are commonly used repeatedly.
I can also argue that, given there was no legal, regulatory or ethical rules broken, they are not entitled to the exclusivity they desire. This means others are entitled to enjoy the product. And the sale of the product directly benefits the game.
And, given all of the above, I can express my opinion that those complaining are, with the best will in the world, being intrinsically selfish and short sighted.
However, they are entitled to feel aggrieved and are entitled to complain. And, I imagine, entitled to request a refund of the product or opt to decline future purchases. Just as others are free to think their motives are misguided and self fulfilling.
I want limited skins to be made available again and again. Both so I and others can buy them and because I want FD to do well.
So I wholeheartedly disagree that this is unethical. I like it. And I like it whenever it happens with any company that I have an interest in.
Why would I not defend something I like?
Last edited:
You could try to argue, but your arguments are weak. And, as you are no legal entity, so you can't decide about this.
Telling people an offer ends at a given date, and then re-establishing that offer just a few weeks later on, is usually considered marketing fraud. And there are a lot of verdicts about this topic. Thing is, when a company lies about the product or its limited status, someone is put in a disadvantage and someone else is responsible for that.
And Frontier even stated, back then when the skins reappeared on the shop for the first time, that this was a 'Bug' and they 'fixed' it by pulling them from the store. By that action they officially admitted that they felt it was wrong to put them up again. You could read wrong as 'unethically'.
Now they are doing just the same again, consciously. The very same they deemed wrong just a few weeks earlier. In german law we know the term "vorsatz" (deliberate?), which makes a crime even worse.
Just to get the chain right:
Frontier advertised them as limited, and officially announced to end availability at a given date.
They never marked this with a foot note that these items could re-appear later on (as a PLC, they are legally bound to note such things).
They re-offered the limited items at a much lower price, shortly after.
The officially announced this was a mistake and pulled them from the store again.
Despite their own admittance that it was already wrong the first time, They re-offered them again, again for a different price (at least in EUR).
Such a behaviour could also have influence on investment decisions into the stock of Frontier (maybe because of vanishing trust). As such, it is under regulation of the FCA. The FCA, however, can and will decide if this is considered marketing fraud or not. And to have them to, we are preparing to file an official complaint against Frontier Developments PLC.
You're not a legal entity, either. Yet you seem to be arguing the opposite of me.
But we're both capable of understanding consumer rights. I don't think FD have broken them. But the onus isn't on me to prove they have.
As said many times before... Good luck with your fight. My company is regulated by the FCA. They're very stringent in their rulings (many companies in our industry have lost their licence).
FD won't be feeling their wrath any time soon, though.
Last edited:
I mean, you could try Watchdog, but I think they’ve got bigger fish to fry
Last edited:
This user have no doubt the legalities are properly covered to avoid any sort of major damage, more concerned about the repeated nature of this being brought up. In the long run trust is more worth a thousand tricks, for a loyal customer is also more likely to fork up the dosh, more than once. If this is indeed a long term project, then a long term good relationship is desirable, something you learn after being part of long lasting communities! It is by no means sufficient, so a little trickery is probably still needed. But maybe some new ones to create some variety, I'm feeling like I'm in the Matrix here, with the Deja Vu and all.
Brett C
Frontier
Greetings Commanders,
We will now be closing this thread. Using the Frontier Forums as a means for threatening legal action is not needed, nor is it constructive.
If you wish to speak to Frontier legal, please contact Frontier Developments plc, by writing to 306 Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WG, England, UK. Alternatively, you can email Frontier by using this email address enquiriesx@frontier.co.uk, within the email, please set the subject to "Attention Frontier Legal".
Thank you.
We will now be closing this thread. Using the Frontier Forums as a means for threatening legal action is not needed, nor is it constructive.
If you wish to speak to Frontier legal, please contact Frontier Developments plc, by writing to 306 Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WG, England, UK. Alternatively, you can email Frontier by using this email address enquiriesx@frontier.co.uk, within the email, please set the subject to "Attention Frontier Legal".
Thank you.
- Status