Reaper Queen Falsely Advertised.

[Scrysis]

26 minutes ago, raptorjesus666 said:

 

so it is my own fault? good to know

 

if something changes, then it's not much work to adapt the description for it no?

if they decided to cut the reaper queen, and actually said so in the dlc "reaper queen will not be tamable" then everyone would be ok with it

HOWEVER

when the dlc was released, it still stated that she IS tamable

i mean post 5 (the moderator post) is from yesterday, 2 days AFTER release and it still said in the store page that the queen is tamable
the dlc store page was changed yesterday in the late day

which means: for more then 2 days there was "false" info in it

i really don't understand why you could not understand that lol
your words:

"If you bought the DLC prior to release, then you KNEW you were paying for a product that was under development and that could change.  That's on YOU, not the developers.  If you bought the DLC after release, well, you hardly have cause to complain since the new description is there for all to see."

people who bought it even 2 days AFTER release, had the same info as the ones BEFORE release, as the info was not changed "yet"
so no, you can't justify it lol

 

Wildcard does not have direct control over when and how their store page is updated.  That is under Steam's purview.  If you have issues with the timing of announcements, verify that wildcard wasn't waiting for steam to update the description.  If you are upset with the handling/timing of of the DLC description change, it would be better that you mention that instead.  

 

If you are STILL upset, steam does have a refund process if you bought the DLC JUST to go around impregnating people with a reaper.  Although, you may be upset later on if wildcard makes changes and allows tameable reaper queens at a later date.

 

You still got aberration.  The maps, mechanics, and creatures are still there.  That's not false advertising.  Just because one creature didn't work exactly like the devs thought it would, doesn't mean you got something OTHER than aberration.  If you bought the DLC within that two-day window, then try petitioning steam for a refund.   That's all you can do.  It's not like the devs were out to deliberately mislead people for two days while they tried to hammer out concurrent releases, issues, and bugs.

[raptorjesus666]

5 minutes ago, Scrysis said:

 

Wildcard does not have direct control over when and how their store page is updated.  That is under Steam's purview.  If you have issues with the timing of announcements, verify that wildcard wasn't waiting for steam to update the description.  If you are upset with the handling/timing of of the DLC description change, it would be better that you mention that instead.  

 

If you are STILL upset, steam does have a refund process if you bought the DLC JUST to go around impregnating people with a reaper.  Although, you may be upset later on if wildcard makes changes and allows tameable reaper queens at a later date.

 

You still got aberration.  The maps, mechanics, and creatures are still there.  That's not false advertising.  Just because one creature didn't work exactly like the devs thought it would, doesn't mean you got something OTHER than aberration.  If you bought the DLC within that two-day window, then try petitioning steam for a refund.   That's all you can do.  It's not like the devs were out to deliberately mislead people for two days while they tried to hammer out concurrent releases, issues, and bugs.

do you know for a fact that a publisher/developper can not update steam store pages at heart?
if so, mind posting some evidence about this?

as this is literally the first time i ever hear that
even stronger, a friend of mine actually has his own game on steam http://store.steampowered.com/app/306660/Ultimate_General_Gettysburg/
and he can change the description whenever he pleases to

i play-tested the game for all it matters

[Scrysis]

2 minutes ago, raptorjesus666 said:

do you know for a fact that a publisher/developper can not update steam store pages at heart?
if so, mind posting some evidence about this?

as this is literally the first time i ever hear that
even stronger, a friend of mine actually has his own game on steam http://store.steampowered.com/app/306660/Ultimate_General_Gettysburg/
and he can change the description whenever he pleases to

i play-tested the game for all it matters

 

Go request a refund then.  *shrug*  All I know is that on release day, they were waiting on steam.  I'm not going to dig through day's worth of twitter posts to find it.

But seriously.  If you're that upset over the presentation of the feature between those two days (although, from your post, it sounded like you bought the DLC before it was released) and bought it during that time, you have a valid reason to go and request a steam refund.  If steam won't issue the refund, then take it up with steam, because at that point, it isn't a wildcard thing any more.  You have recourse.

If you're upset at the feature being removed/changed, that is a different topic entirely and should be addressed as such.

[raptorjesus666]

Just now, Scrysis said:

 

Go request a refund then.  *shrug*  All I know is that on release day, they were waiting on steam.  I'm not going to dig through day's worth of twitter posts to find it.

But seriously.  If you're that upset over the presentation of the feature between those two days (although, from your post, it sounded like you bought the DLC before it was released) and bought it during that time, you have a valid reason to go and request a steam refund.  If steam won't issue the refund, then take it up with steam, because at that point, it isn't a wildcard thing any more.  You have recourse.

If you're upset at the feature being removed/changed, that is a different topic entirely and should be addressed as such.

yes, they were waiting on steam to upload the dlc. the actual data.
not an "update" to the store page

 

i did buy the dlc prior to release, that is correct
i'm a very big fan of the "alien" movies. you can not deny that the reaper queen, and the impregant mechanic is very uhm "simmilar" to the alienc franchise
so yes, not being able to do this, while it clearly stated that we would (even AFTER release) is a big let down

nowhere do you hear me complain about anything else in this dlc. so why you keep bring other (irrelevant) stuff up is unknown, and not needed
this topic is about the reaper queen, and i talk about the reaper queen

 

everyting has allready been said in my first post

[Scrysis]

2 minutes ago, raptorjesus666 said:

yes, they were waiting on steam to upload the dlc. the actual data.
not an "update" to the store page

 

i did buy the dlc prior to release, that is correct
i'm a very big fan of the "alien" movies. you can not deny that the reaper queen, and the impregant mechanic is very uhm "simmilar" to the alienc franchise
so yes, not being able to do this, while it clearly stated that we would (even AFTER release) is a big let down

nowhere do you hear me complain about anything else in this dlc. so why you keep bring other (irrelevant) stuff up is unknown, and not needed
this topic is about the reaper queen, and i talk about the reaper queen

 

everyting has allready been said in my first post

 

No, according to the post and the title of this thread, this post is about "false advertising".  This is about the presentation of the aberration dlc in the store and the fact that some of the features changed between pre-purchase and release. 

 

If you truly want to talk about the disappointment you have over the changes about the reaper, that is best put into its own thread.  

[raptorjesus666]

Just now, Scrysis said:

 

No, according to the post and the title of this thread, this post is about "false advertising".  This is about the presentation of the aberration dlc in the store and the fact that some of the features changed between pre-purchase and release. 

 

If you truly want to talk about the disappointment you have over the changes about the reaper, that is best put into its own thread.  

see my very first post, again

the "features" might have changed
the store page info did not

people still had the original store page info, after the dlc went live
the store page was changed yesterday, 2 days after dlc release
this means, that for 2 fulls days (12/12/17-14/12/17 anyone who bought the dlc, still read "tamable reaper queen"

if a feature is not in game (tamable reaper queen) despite store page saying she is
then that info is "false"

intentional or not, the info and the advertising is/was based on false information

[Scrysis]

13 minutes ago, raptorjesus666 said:

see my very first post, again

the "features" might have changed
the store page info did not

people still had the original store page info, after the dlc went live
the store page was changed yesterday, 2 days after dlc release
this means, that for 2 fulls days (12/12/17-14/12/17 anyone who bought the dlc, still read "tamable reaper queen"

if a feature is not in game (tamable reaper queen) despite store page saying she is
then that info is "false"

intentional or not, the info and the advertising is/was based on false information

And like I said before, if you bought the DLC prior to release, you knew that some features might be changed.

If you bought the DLC during the 2 day window before they updated the page information, you have a valid point, and can petition steam for a refund.

You seemingly just don't want to acknowledge either of these two things.  You mentioned that you have no complaints about the rest of the DLC, and have made no mention of attempting a refund, even if you did buy the DLC before release.  Ergo, you're satisfied enough with the DLC to keep it, and are just upset that the reaper was changed.  At this point, a new thread should be created for better visibility and clarity.  This thread effectively is no longer valid, and attempts to achieve nothing since the description in the store was already changed, and it is no longer "false advertising".

[bennyrodz]

54 minutes ago, Scrysis said:

And like I said before, if you bought the DLC prior to release, you knew that some features might be changed.

If you bought the DLC during the 2 day window before they updated the page information, you have a valid point, and can petition steam for a refund.

You seemingly just don't want to acknowledge either of these two things.  You mentioned that you have no complaints about the rest of the DLC, and have made no mention of attempting a refund, even if you did buy the DLC before release.  Ergo, you're satisfied enough with the DLC to keep it, and are just upset that the reaper was changed.  At this point, a new thread should be created for better visibility and clarity.  This thread effectively is no longer valid, and attempts to achieve nothing since the description in the store was already changed, and it is no longer "false advertising".

I think most would agree this IS the right thread as it IS "false advertising".  This thread is perfectly clear and visible and most certainly valid.

 

1 hour ago, raptorjesus666 said:

see my very first post, again

the "features" might have changed
the store page info did not

people still had the original store page info, after the dlc went live
the store page was changed yesterday, 2 days after dlc release
this means, that for 2 fulls days (12/12/17-14/12/17 anyone who bought the dlc, still read "tamable reaper queen"

if a feature is not in game (tamable reaper queen) despite store page saying she is
then that info is "false"

intentional or not, the info and the advertising is/was based on false information

Agree with everything you said. No matter which way you spin it, we were lied to plain and simple.

[PhilNGraves]

Personally, I agree with you about the post and that if someone was puchasing this dlc solely to 'impregnate' (lol I was actually considering it) then go for the refund.  If you live in the UK you can get refunded by citing the Consumer Protection Act 2015, however I don't believe the US is quite as progressive.

That said, false advertising is a convoluted enterprise to prove, and this largely doesn't qualify I'm afraid.  While misleading, not to mention disturbing that no one at WC ever actually takes resposibility for much of anything that I have seen, false advertising would require a large degree of intentionally misleading advertisement solely for the sake of increasing profits.  'Impregnating' is awesome, but I don't see it as something that largely (or even marginally) increased sales.  

All in all, it was misleading... but false advertisement is a bit too dramatic a response lol.

[bennyrodz]

2 minutes ago, PhilNGraves said:

Personally, I agree with you about the post and that if someone was puchasing this dlc solely to 'impregnate' (lol I was actually considering it) then go for the refund.  If you live in the UK you can get refunded by citing the Consumer Protection Act 2015, however I don't believe the US is quite a progressive.

That said, false advertising is a convoluted enterprise to prove, and this largely doesn't qualify I'm afraid.  While misleading, not to mention disturbing that no one at WC ever actually takes resposibility for much of anything that I have seen, false advertising would require a large degree of intentionally misleading advertisement solely for the sake of increasing profits.  'Impregnating' is awesome, but I don't see it as something that largely (or even marginally) increased sales.  

All in all, it was misleading... but false advertisement is a bit too dramatic a response lol.

I can only speak for myself but I was not talking about false advertisement in a court of law, whether it be in the UK or US. I think you are too stuck on the wording.  There was an advertisement, that ended up being false.  Whether that falls into legality issues or not is irrelevant, the point is that MANY of us feel as if this was a "bait and switch" as they had PLENTY of time in the two months it was delayed to inform us of this change, and yet they waited 2 days after the physical release.  if they were as close to releasing in October as they stated they were, that means they would have known at that time if reaper queens would have been included, yet they waited until after the fact to change the description, thus bait and switch.

[PhilNGraves]

2 minutes ago, bennyrodz said:

I can only speak for myself but I was not talking about false advertisement in a court of law, whether it be in the UK or US. I think you are too stuck on the wording.  There was an advertisement, that ended up being false.  Whether that falls into legality issues or not is irrelevant, the point is that MANY of us feel as if this was a "bait and switch" as they had PLENTY of time in the two months it was delayed to inform us of this change, and yet they waited 2 days after the physical release.  if they were as close to releasing in October as they stated they were, that means they would have known at that time if reaper queens would have been included, yet they waited until after the fact to change the description, thus bait and switch.

Ah, I almost forget my age sometimes lol.  Misnomer has become so commonplace, yet I seem to forget that.  

As per the Consumer Protection Act 2015, I just meant that you can, should you live in the UK and feel strongly about this debacle to want a refund, present your information about the advertising to the merchant you used to purchase it (xbox live, ps network, steam, etc.) and get refunded. 

It is misleading, to that I agree... hard not to as I considered that advertisement not 2 days ago lol.  You would think admitting a screw up and stating whether implementation of the Queen in the future is possible or not would be easy...  *wink wink, nudge nudge*

[bennyrodz]

2 minutes ago, PhilNGraves said:

Ah, I almost forget my age sometimes lol.  Misnomer has become so commonplace, yet I seem to forget that.  

As per the Consumer Protection Act 2015, I just meant that you can, should you live in the UK and feel strongly about this debacle to want a refund, present your information about the advertising to the merchant you used to purchase it (xbox live, ps network, steam, etc.) and get refunded. 

It is misleading, to that I agree... hard not to as I considered that advertisement not 2 days ago lol.  You would think admitting a screw up and stating whether implementation of the Queen in the future is possible or not would be easy...  *wink wink, nudge nudge*

ahhh I see what you mean, that's a great point, I didn't realize you guys had it so good in UK lol.  And heres hoping they say something, anything really.  Instead of just ignoring us and pretending they didn't mislead us at all. A simple apology is certainly a place to start.

[shileka]

oh christ, you can't tame ONE SINGLE CREATURE is it really worth all this complaining?

[PhilNGraves]

Ahh, but denying the right to impregnate is a sacrilege!  Think of all those deflated dreams!

Seriously, though, take Scrysis's (Scrysiss'?  I hate english) advise and try a topic on the creature itself.  Much more likely to get a response that way.

It is cute how quick the description for Abberation changed though, lol.

[LouSpowells]

16 minutes ago, bennyrodz said:

NO ONE is talking legalitys.  Change the term to "bait and switch".  Regardless we were completely and utterly misled and that's what the OP is saying.

Well, hopefully you can understand my confusion considering the use of the legal terms. To me though, this looks more like an issue of vague descriptions that required more clarification and remained unchecked due to lack of attention to detail...not a malicious attempt by the developers to trick customers into buying the game by misleading them to believe they would get something that they wouldn't actually get. False advertisement usually indicates that ill-intent was involved, but it looks to me like a stupid oversight....a perfect situation to apply Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." lol
 

[bennyrodz]

1 minute ago, LouSpowells said:

Well, hopefully you can understand my confusion considering the use of the legal terms. To me though, this looks more like an issue of vague descriptions which required clarification...not a malicious attempt by the developers to trick customers into buying the game by misleading them to believe something. It's a perfect situation to apply Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." lol

no worries I completely understand.  I would agree that it wasn't a trick IF they didn't conveniently change the wording 2 days after release.  From the original wording you know with absolute certainty that the queen was originally supposed to be tamable (or raising same as the Male).  As the key there was to impregnate your foes.  And the description wasn't vague originally, it was perfectly clear, just as clear as when they said the final boss seemed "familiar", they lead you to believe something that ended up being a fact. But in this case they misled until after the release.  If for example they changed the final boss to a dino of some sort, that ALSO would have "misleading" but on one hand they went through with what was advertised, and on the other they pulled after release.

[adeezl]

Can we honestly be surprised that this DLC hasn't gone as planned? Nothing has really gone as planned for consumers since first released in early access. I figured people would expect delays and retracted statements from wildcard at this point. I mean it only took 2yrs for play anywhere, which they've already retracted from the windows 10 store in 1 day. (That 2 rating was killer huh),  I can't even see it in my game library on the store. I'd say lower your expectations to the very least with this game at this point, you'll be much happier.

[PhilNGraves]

Expect nothing and you won't be surprised when you get it.

[shileka]

Want to bet of reaper queens were tameable TC would be making a complaint thread about them being OP instead?

[raptorjesus666]

1 hour ago, PhilNGraves said:

Personally, I agree with you about the post and that if someone was puchasing this dlc solely to 'impregnate' (lol I was actually considering it) then go for the refund.  If you live in the UK you can get refunded by citing the Consumer Protection Act 2015, however I don't believe the US is quite as progressive.

That said, false advertising is a convoluted enterprise to prove, and this largely doesn't qualify I'm afraid.  While misleading, not to mention disturbing that no one at WC ever actually takes resposibility for much of anything that I have seen, false advertising would require a large degree of intentionally misleading advertisement solely for the sake of increasing profits.  'Impregnating' is awesome, but I don't see it as something that largely (or even marginally) increased sales.  

All in all, it was misleading... but false advertisement is a bit too dramatic a response lol.

i do not talk about juridic aspect. i game for fun, not for proffession

but that said, this is also not the first time
in the official ark release video was the phoenix, the phoenix was "supposed" to be there at launch

yet that also did not happen
i could give more examples, but this is getting off-topic now which i actively tried to avoid 

i "could" try a refund, but i allready know the answer
i played (and enjoyed) scorched earth for many many hours, played on official 714  then on 694

the playtime of ALL dlc are added to the seasonpass, so a refund would not be possible as even without actually playing aberration i'm allready over the 2 hours refund period
 

also i wish to point out "impregnating" could lead to human npc, and human breeding if they work it out, or refine it
that would and could be a major selling point

there is no "evolve" when all species are dead, think about that

[ShinigamiGreed]

Ultimately, this is a bit of a no win situation for everyone involved.  Wildcard could say that they removed it, sure, or they just changed the wording.

Having played with the reaper queen by spawning and using dotame on it, I'm sure it was originally meant to be tameable.  However, the mechanic to chestburst someone is not only incredibly slow and telegraphed, but it grabs players off of mounts, instantly kills all but the hardiest players in terms of survivability, and sets them up with... a creature they could potentially raise and tame.  Wait, what?

While there were many ways to solve this, the Queen was also the "Giga" of aberration, but even more nerfed in the tameable version.  They might eventually make her a tameable creature, they might not.  Don't really care, personally. 

Personally they could have retooled it a bit, keep it as a powerful, fight ending, rider grabbing super move, but slow as hell.  As for the baby from an enemy reaper queen?  Just make it non-tameable and either run away, or start attacking the enemy player/their tribe. 

[ZiggyH99]

15 minutes ago, ShinigamiGreed said:

Ultimately, this is a bit of a no win situation for everyone involved.  Wildcard could say that they removed it, sure, or they just changed the wording.

Having played with the reaper queen by spawning and using dotame on it, I'm sure it was originally meant to be tameable.  However, the mechanic to chestburst someone is not only incredibly slow and telegraphed, but it grabs players off of mounts, instantly kills all but the hardiest players in terms of survivability, and sets them up with... a creature they could potentially raise and tame.  Wait, what?

While there were many ways to solve this, the Queen was also the "Giga" of aberration, but even more nerfed in the tameable version.  They might eventually make her a tameable creature, they might not.  Don't really care, personally. 

Personally they could have retooled it a bit, keep it as a powerful, fight ending, rider grabbing super move, but slow as hell.  As for the baby from an enemy reaper queen?  Just make it non-tameable and either run away, or start attacking the enemy player/their tribe. 

well that a simple solution from a logical person but WC is rarely ether 

[raptorjesus666]

and still not a single official word

"if we ignore them long enough, they might forget it"

[noodaboy]

OP laid it out clear and concise, why defend against it?  Why the lengthy diversion topic? It is false advertising.  You may argue that feature might have changed, but originally on the onset, said feature was expressed.  And no statement was given that said feature is changed.

So yeah, it is false advertising.

[ArkCreation]

On 12/14/2017 at 9:12 AM, TigerH99 said:

When Aberration became avalible for purchase, in the description of the things you get on the store page, its says that if you buy the dlc, you will be able to get items like ziplines railguns, etc along with taming the rock drake and then it goes on to say that if you tough enough, you will be able to TAME and COMMAND the fearsome Nameless (aka Reaper) Queen to Terrify and impregnate your foes. Not only does the store page where you buy it say this but multiple times in the demo stream demonstrating the dlc , jat (or drake, who ever the guy with the black hat and beard is) says that the reaper queen will be tameable.

Yet when you buy the dlc you cant tame the Queen whatsoever, the only thing you can tame is a weaker version of the reaper king that can only be a max level of 76 on difficulty 5 before leveling it up by riding around killing stuff. No Queen, no impregnating your foes. Only a weaker knockoff off a weaker male varient.

So wildcard delays a lot, and um they release new maps and add content a little later. Usually with more delays and incorrect deadlines. So I’m guessing it’s one of those.  Or they’ll try something new in addition to the delays they are famous for.

Cut content before release with a sprinkle of forgetting to mention in patch notes.

they need to fire their mail room guy.