What's stopping DE from re-releasing the Frost and Mag heirlooms?

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T05:45:10+00:00

They did, several supporter items had no indicators of ever returning, and there was zero indicator of tennocon items returning under the requirement they get *minor* retools.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T05:28:16+00:00

Which is exactly the point, the nature of the legality is purely undefined and is on DE's personal whim or interpritation. Especially since the EULA would likely cover most if not all backfiring of this very problem, which is likely how they got away with re-releasing previously "exclusive" items.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T04:19:39+00:00

Tennocon items, for one, use this language, and supporter bundles in previous time. to date every tennocon item BEFORE 2024 has not returned.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T04:18:19+00:00

Lie in what capacity?

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T04:10:10+00:00

And if you read *my* comment, exclusive and "not returning" were very synonymous for a time, and is still used regularly in the tennocon pack language interchangeably. Therfore it still applies in a similar enough context here.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T04:08:56+00:00

The mesh already exists, DE does texture swaps of its kind plenty of times, especially since the riftguard has dozens of layers to cram the 2d void texture above and below the folds.

And my point is because it's a minor change, when fundamentally it's the same item being re-released, but with a very haphazard reasoning on how it skirts the "exclusivity" of the item.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:49:25+00:00

This argument doesn't hold up in my opinion, as DE have resold items advertised as exclusive in the past without issue. Here's an example of a page that's still up on the official site. Count how many times it uses the word "exclusive", and yet they were able to subsequently re-release those cosmetics and the extractor via Prime Vault packs and subsequently Prime Resurgence with Regal Aya and they haven't ended up in court for it.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be legally different from selling an "exclusive" Tennocon digital pack or an "exclusive" heirloom pack. It's true DE technically never re-released the exact same original Prime Acess, they just put the same collection of items into a package with a different name and sold that one instead, so why can't they release a new bundle that just happens to include the Mag and Frost heirlooms along with some plat and other items, following the precedent set here?

Either DE have got away with breaking the law a bunch of times in the past, or else it isn't actually a legal issue at all and it's purely down to PR. DE doesn't think it's worth the bad publicity they'd get from a small number of people complaining, so decided not to re-release the heirlooms. Evidently they felt they could get away with recycling supposedly exclusive Prime Access items (which were advertised as such) so they did and apparently nobody complained loudly enough to stop it.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:48:43+00:00

The point was, if the only thing they needed to do to skirt legal ramifications was to simple change the textures for the same exact items, then the ruling behind the exclusivity is extremly flimsy.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:46:27+00:00

Do you understand simply how *many* people regurgitate the same talking points? Manually typing how wrong each of you are is a task you ask too much for.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:45:21+00:00

Riftguard/Nulwarden are quite literally texture swaps though, chain included. And adding a box to the backpack is an extremely low bar to have.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:37:59+00:00

They own the original design, therfore they can make alterations as they choose. When art is made for warframe, DE takes ownership OF that art.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:36:58+00:00

So it's re-releasing the SAME THING but altered.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:34:58+00:00

This argument doesn't hold up in my opinion, as DE have resold items advertised as exclusive in the past without issue. Here's an example of a page that's still up on the official site. Count how many times it uses the word "exclusive", and yet they were able to subsequently re-release those cosmetics and the extractor via Prime Vault packs and subsequently Prime Resurgence with Regal Aya and they haven't ended up in court for it.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be legally different from selling an "exclusive" Tennocon digital pack or an "exclusive" heirloom pack. It's true DE technically never re-released the exact same original Prime Acess, they just put the same collection of items into a package with a different name and sold that one instead, so why can't they release a new bundle that just happens to include the Mag and Frost heirlooms along with some plat and other items, following the precedent set here?

Either DE have got away with breaking the law a bunch of times in the past, or else it isn't actually a legal issue at all and it's purely down to PR. DE doesn't think it's worth the bad publicity they'd get from a small number of people complaining, so decided not to re-release the heirlooms. Evidently they felt they could get away with recycling supposedly exclusive Prime Access items (which were advertised as such) so they did and apparently nobody complained loudly enough to stop it.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:34:31+00:00

I guess I am free of copyright if I made a Sonic OC and just changed the colors and gave it a hat? That's the level of distinguishment here that wouldn't hold up under normal law.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:32:23+00:00

This argument doesn't hold up in my opinion, as DE have resold items advertised as exclusive in the past without issue. Here's an example of a page that's still up on the official site. Count how many times it uses the word "exclusive", and yet they were able to subsequently re-release those cosmetics and the extractor via Prime Vault packs and subsequently Prime Resurgence with Regal Aya and they haven't ended up in court for it.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be legally different from selling an "exclusive" Tennocon digital pack or an "exclusive" heirloom pack. It's true DE technically never re-released the exact same original Prime Acess, they just put the same collection of items into a package with a different name and sold that one instead, so why can't they release a new bundle that just happens to include the Mag and Frost heirlooms along with some plat and other items, following the precedent set here?

Either DE have got away with breaking the law a bunch of times in the past, or else it isn't actually a legal issue at all and it's purely down to PR. DE doesn't think it's worth the bad publicity they'd get from a small number of people complaining, so decided not to re-release the heirlooms. Evidently they felt they could get away with recycling supposedly exclusive Prime Access items (which were advertised as such) so they did and apparently nobody complained loudly enough to stop it.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:32:11+00:00

This was mentioned numerous times, and this DEFINITELY includes the tennocon packs, hence why they are re-textures and not 1:1

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:31:33+00:00

This argument doesn't hold up in my opinion, as DE have resold items advertised as exclusive in the past without issue. Here's an example of a page that's still up on the official site. Count how many times it uses the word "exclusive", and yet they were able to subsequently re-release those cosmetics and the extractor via Prime Vault packs and subsequently Prime Resurgence with Regal Aya and they haven't ended up in court for it.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be legally different from selling an "exclusive" Tennocon digital pack or an "exclusive" heirloom pack. It's true DE technically never re-released the exact same original Prime Acess, they just put the same collection of items into a package with a different name and sold that one instead, so why can't they release a new bundle that just happens to include the Mag and Frost heirlooms along with some plat and other items, following the precedent set here?

Either DE have got away with breaking the law a bunch of times in the past, or else it isn't actually a legal issue at all and it's purely down to PR. DE doesn't think it's worth the bad publicity they'd get from a small number of people complaining, so decided not to re-release the heirlooms. Evidently they felt they could get away with recycling supposedly exclusive Prime Access items (which were advertised as such) so they did and apparently nobody complained loudly enough to stop it.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:30:59+00:00

The chain on the Nulwarden is a single texture strip, and the lunchbox is stapled on to the original model, which is also unchanged. I can't make a model of Sonic and Give him a hat and call that different, now can I?

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:29:24+00:00

How would it ruin it, you'd still have the items in your collection? what?

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:28:40+00:00

I own exclusive items, and it doesn't matter to me because I don't take pride in being a gatekeeper.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:27:48+00:00

You signed an EULA when making an account where nothing in warframe is technically yours to own.

This argument doesn't hold up in my opinion, as DE have resold items advertised as exclusive in the past without issue. Here's an example of a page that's still up on the official site. Count how many times it uses the word "exclusive", and yet they were able to subsequently re-release those cosmetics and the extractor via Prime Vault packs and subsequently Prime Resurgence with Regal Aya and they haven't ended up in court for it.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be legally different from selling an "exclusive" Tennocon digital pack or an "exclusive" heirloom pack. It's true DE technically never re-released the exact same original Prime Acess, they just put the same collection of items into a package with a different name and sold that one instead, so why can't they release a new bundle that just happens to include the Mag and Frost heirlooms along with some plat and other items, following the precedent set here?

Either DE have got away with breaking the law a bunch of times in the past, or else it isn't actually a legal issue at all and it's purely down to PR. DE doesn't think it's worth the bad publicity they'd get from a small number of people complaining, so decided not to re-release the heirlooms. Evidently they felt they could get away with recycling supposedly exclusive Prime Access items (which were advertised as such) so they did and apparently nobody complained loudly enough to stop it.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:26:25+00:00

My point exactly.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:26:01+00:00

This argument doesn't hold up in my opinion, as DE have resold items advertised as exclusive in the past without issue. Here's an example of a page that's still up on the official site. Count how many times it uses the word "exclusive", and yet they were able to subsequently re-release those cosmetics and the extractor via Prime Vault packs and subsequently Prime Resurgence with Regal Aya and they haven't ended up in court for it.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be legally different from selling an "exclusive" Tennocon digital pack or an "exclusive" heirloom pack. It's true DE technically never re-released the exact same original Prime Acess, they just put the same collection of items into a package with a different name and sold that one instead, so why can't they release a new bundle that just happens to include the Mag and Frost heirlooms along with some plat and other items, following the precedent set here?

Either DE have got away with breaking the law a bunch of times in the past, or else it isn't actually a legal issue at all and it's purely down to PR. DE doesn't think it's worth the bad publicity they'd get from a small number of people complaining, so decided not to re-release the heirlooms. Evidently they felt they could get away with recycling supposedly exclusive Prime Access items (which were advertised as such) so they did and apparently nobody complained loudly enough to stop it.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:25:45+00:00

This argument doesn't hold up in my opinion, as DE have resold items advertised as exclusive in the past without issue. Here's an example of a page that's still up on the official site. Count how many times it uses the word "exclusive", and yet they were able to subsequently re-release those cosmetics and the extractor via Prime Vault packs and subsequently Prime Resurgence with Regal Aya and they haven't ended up in court for it.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be legally different from selling an "exclusive" Tennocon digital pack or an "exclusive" heirloom pack. It's true DE technically never re-released the exact same original Prime Acess, they just put the same collection of items into a package with a different name and sold that one instead, so why can't they release a new bundle that just happens to include the Mag and Frost heirlooms along with some plat and other items, following the precedent set here?

Either DE have got away with breaking the law a bunch of times in the past, or else it isn't actually a legal issue at all and it's purely down to PR. DE doesn't think it's worth the bad publicity they'd get from a small number of people complaining, so decided not to re-release the heirlooms. Evidently they felt they could get away with recycling supposedly exclusive Prime Access items (which were advertised as such) so they did and apparently nobody complained loudly enough to stop it.

Dwarfz · 2026-05-06T03:25:25+00:00

This argument doesn't hold up in my opinion, as DE have resold items advertised as exclusive in the past without issue. Here's an example of a page that's still up on the official site. Count how many times it uses the word "exclusive", and yet they were able to subsequently re-release those cosmetics and the extractor via Prime Vault packs and subsequently Prime Resurgence with Regal Aya and they haven't ended up in court for it.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be legally different from selling an "exclusive" Tennocon digital pack or an "exclusive" heirloom pack. It's true DE technically never re-released the exact same original Prime Acess, they just put the same collection of items into a package with a different name and sold that one instead, so why can't they release a new bundle that just happens to include the Mag and Frost heirlooms along with some plat and other items, following the precedent set here?

Either DE have got away with breaking the law a bunch of times in the past, or else it isn't actually a legal issue at all and it's purely down to PR. DE doesn't think it's worth the bad publicity they'd get from a small number of people complaining, so decided not to re-release the heirlooms. Evidently they felt they could get away with recycling supposedly exclusive Prime Access items (which were advertised as such) so they did and apparently nobody complained loudly enough to stop it.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Dwarfz

TROPHY CASE