FANDOM


  • I've heard this contract alluded to frequently with vague claims as to how and what it stipulates never to be released again.

    If it exists, it's relavent to this wiki, and must be documented, if it does not, it's such a pervasive rumor that it must not go unchallenged by fact.

      Loading editor
    • Please take a look at Founders. Is that what you're looking for?

        Loading editor
    • No, I'm referring to the rumored contract DE signed that opens them up for what in some instances has been called a "legal" suit, and others a "civil" suit should Founders ever be made accessible again. It has no mention on the wiki, on the page you've linked, and yet people keep talking about it in game and in discussions on this wiki as if it is fact. None of my extensive searches have uncovered such a thing, but if it exists it should be made public knowledge instead of simply rumor, no?

        Loading editor
    • If the contract is indeed real then it's still not the Wiki's responsibility to document it (mention it at most), that's up to DE. You might be able to find a Founder with memory of it or not, but otherwise a Google search should also answer your question.

      In any case, DE will likely never release Founder items into the game again, either due to a sales contract or simply out of customer interest.

        Loading editor
    • DE has described the gear given out with the Founder-Packs as exclusive to it; but no, there is nothing legally binding them to that statement.

        Loading editor
    • this is a Beta game and DE can do everithing they want without any warranties for the users....

      The EULA prevail over any other contract.

      See the chapter 8 of the Warframe EULA.

      8. WARRANTY DISCLAIMER

      TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE GAME AND ALL INFORMATION, CONTENT AND SERVICES CONTAINED THEREON ARE PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND

        Loading editor
    • I am a founder with explicitely no memory of this alleged contract, I began searching because every conversation about founders eventually leads back to "The Contract" which most claim is located on the 'bill of sale', when I know for a fact that first mentions of this elusive document started well after Founders concluded, and I've checked my digital receipt to, surprise, find no mystery contract.

      I don't believe I stated that I wanted the entirety of the contract documented on the wiki, but a source link, should it exist would be appreciated, if not, this false information has saturated enough in the community that I think it's at least worth a 'note' section saying that no such document has been proven to exist.

      200.186.76.98 wrote:
      this is a Beta game and DE can do everithing they want without any warranties for the users....

      The EULA prevail over any other contract.

      See the chapter 8 of the Warframe EULA.

      ...

      I've suspected as much. Thanks. Forgot it's still beta...

        Loading editor
    • I this is real I'm happy

        Loading editor
    • 74.139.129.56 wrote:
      I this is real I'm happy

      They probably won't re-open it, but I keep encountering people saying that it's for any reason other than DE's intention to stick to their word. These people also seem prone to hyperbole, one even went so far as to call me evil for saying the exclusivity isn't what led me to buy it, and I wouldn't have minded it not being so exclusive. (And then proceeded to tout the 'virtues' of physical beatings in the real world)

        Loading editor
    • If Warframe is still kicking by 2022, I wouldn't be surprised if by then they hold a giveaway for Excalibur Prime and the weapons. But the rest of the stuff, not so much. 

      Ten years as an MMO is kinda a big deal.

        Loading editor
    • The founder packages were sold as limited time offers only. If they start to sell founder stuff now, it would be at least false advertisement ins some countries. So there is no contract, but due to their public marketing regarding the exclusivity of the founder sales they would open them up for refunds in some countries. But that is a very, very theoretical possibility: First legal costs will be most of the time hire than the refund you get and more important second of all, the PR damage done by breaking their promise is way greater than any possible financial gains on DE's end.

        Loading editor
    • 80.108.172.200 wrote: The founder packages were sold as limited time offers only. If they start to sell founder stuff now, it would be at least false advertisement ins some countries. So there is no contract, but due to their public marketing regarding the exclusivity of the founder sales they would open them up for refunds in some countries. But that is a very, very theoretical possibility: First legal costs will be most of the time hire than the refund you get and more important second of all, the PR damage done by breaking their promise is way greater than any possible financial gains on DE's end.

      But pursuing a legal complaint cross international borders require tidius effort and money not unless you're in canada if your not just filing the complaint alone pose extreme legal and practical challenges. You can't really enforce your country's civil laws outside your own not unless there is a contract made which in this case is quite elusive. The legal challenges are actually in the complainants shoulder to prove first that he has a right that was violated.

        Loading editor
    • There was never a contract ... That's a myth ... If Digital Extremes wants to sell the access again, they'll do it ... Just read the EULA ... they can do whatever they want ....

        Loading editor
    • I guess to some dumb people, video game eulas are above the law of the land... fortunately, Eulas are NOT supreme...

      People get sued for way less, like verbal contracts...

      DE made the promise of exclusivity forever for purchasing a founder’s account that will NEVER be made available again and if that’s not a contract, then I don’t know what is. By all definition, that’s a real contract right there. If they break it, it becomes false advertisement. DE is welcome to do as they please, but there are consequences.

        Loading editor
    • 198.179.137.128 wrote:
      I guess to some dumb people, video game eulas are above the law of the land... fortunately, Eulas are NOT supreme...

      People get sued for way less, like verbal contracts...

      DE made the promise of exclusivity forever for purchasing a founder’s account that will NEVER be made available again and if that’s not a contract, then I don’t know what is. By all definition, that’s a real contract right there. If they break it, it becomes false advertisement. DE is welcome to do as they please, but there are consequences.

      The problem with the "verbal contract" argument, is to have it be legally upheld as a point of contention in the courts is the fact that the value of said contract would have to be proven. Not to mention with the fact that a written document (the ELUA/ TOS in this instance) already being in place, in court that would trump anything verbal.

      On the part of "false advertising" not even that could be proven simply because all DE had to do is say that they were selling access to the game early and/ or the gear was exclusive to the founders program because the only way to get it was through paying into the program. The founders package was for the beta, warframe is still in beta it could be possible for it to come back in that fashion again by "oi, we need dosh" if they ever actually get the game out of beta and use that as a reason.

      To also mention, if Hello Games couldn't get sued for all of their lies then the fraction of the few thousand active founders wouldn't stand a chance in any court (and that's already assuming the could acually prove that something so small would be grounds for action). Even if they did have to settle out the cost of "false advertising" the founders 2.0 pack would make them so much money it would still come out as a net positive. Even on the social side that still wouldn't be generally seen as a bad thing because if that was the case EA, Ubi, Activision, Blizzard, ect would've closed down years ago.

        Loading editor
    • ^there’s actually plenty of proof and evidence... they (DE) won’t challenge the deal they made.

        Loading editor
    • You guys need to learn some English. Here is the English definition.

      Contract-

      a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

      DE said “exclusive forever, never be made available again” and they took money for this deal. That’s a contract. They won’t challenge that, EVER. That’s why everyone gets UMBRA. Don’t hold your breaths.

        Loading editor
    • 2600:387:B:F:0:0:0:8A wrote: You guys need to learn some English. Here is the English definition.

      Contract-

      a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

      DE said “exclusive forever, never be made available again” and they took money for this deal. That’s a contract. They won’t challenge that, EVER. That’s why everyone gets UMBRA. Don’t hold your breaths.

      Law is more complicated than that. If this contract is unwritten, then you must prove those terms (perpetual exclusivity) were included with no loopholes, which companies rarely leave themselves without. And while they posted ad pages claiming exclusive, those aren't considered part of the contract. That being said, its still extremely unlikely. Easier for DE to use paid workhours on future improvements/advancements then debating best way to reintroduce founders items.

      Not a lawyer, not a founder, would want founder items if offered

        Loading editor
    • 136.160.229.202 wrote:

      2600:387:B:F:0:0:0:8A wrote: You guys need to learn some English. Here is the English definition.

      Contract-

      a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

      DE said “exclusive forever, never be made available again” and they took money for this deal. That’s a contract. They won’t challenge that, EVER. That’s why everyone gets UMBRA. Don’t hold your breaths.

      Law is more complicated than that. If this contract is unwritten, then you must prove those terms (perpetual exclusivity) were included with no loopholes, which companies rarely leave themselves without. And while they posted ad pages claiming exclusive, those aren't considered part of the contract.

      That being said, its still extremely unlikely. Easier for DE to use paid workhours on future improvements/advancements then debating best way to reintroduce founders items. Not a lawyer, not a founder, would want founder items if offered

      "If this contract is unwritten, then you must prove those terms (perpetual exclusivity) were included with no loopholes, which companies rarely leave themselves without." https://i.gyazo.com/ba5a4550d0a1d4f6a12e8f6ca4f3d183.jpg THE Quote: ​​​​​​"Being a Founder has its privileges, Snag exclusive items that will never be available again, PLUS instant access to the Closed Beta!" Here is it!

        Loading editor
    • A sale is not a contract, a contract may pertain to a sale, but using the word "exclusive" outside of a legally binding contract complete with definitions for such words(as most contracts typically include) just means something is less accessible than freely available.

      We've already established that a screengrab of an advertisement does not a contract make.

      If you were to charge the company with breech of contract, you would need to acquire and produce said contract, that would not constitute a contract in a court of law. You MIGHT be able to get in a false advertisement charge, but that is a different charge with very different repercussions depending on circumstance and context.

      That particular screenshot is also 6 months outdated as the founders program did not end in March of 2013, so I'll ask again, should you not be obligated to file charges for DE going against their word in that particular image by extending the end date? Or maybe they need to be sued right now because they provided the assets to the Chinese warframe team, who then turned around and made Excal Prime acquirable as any other prime in-game, thus making it a defacto "breach" of this so-called "contract".

      You can literally sue anyone for almost anything, but the challenge is in demonstrating it as legal fact in court, and in some cases your attourney is just as liable for damages if they permit you to file for suit in exceptionally frivolous circumstances.

      This is my legal opinion as a layman with only a passing interest in the law surrounding such things: Nobody has ownership of "an exacalibur prime" except for DE who hold the copyright for the only instances of such a thing, which are a conglomeration of video game assets visually, audibly, and otherwise represented by disperate files and configurations of code within 'the game'. If the game ends, your "items" vanish, your account vanishes, and all the little status modifiers and details that fill up the segments of a database your account information 'inhabit' cease to be. Excalibur Prime is no more or less accessible as good or service than any other warframe as they aren't a product, but the entirety of Warframe is the product and the service.

        Loading editor
    • A Lone Tenno
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message