Yeah. I mean, obviously I don't want them to surrender info that they can't, but I was hoping there was an update on it and I missed it.
I'm excited for it, so I'm just making sure I'll be able to partake.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Limited Run Games |OT| Sweet XOXO for Digital to Physical Media
- Thread starter GodzillaDB
- Start date
I'm excited for it, so I'm just making sure I'll be able to partake.
ICEY is still coming!
Yes ESRB is a big reason, I'm not allowed to go into detail on what the fees and fines are, but there are definitely more expenses now then we initially thought. We got hit with some crazy ones last year and this year.
When we started doing ESRB stuff we didn't think it would be as ridiculous as it is.
Yes ESRB is a big reason, I'm not allowed to go into detail on what the fees and fines are, but there are definitely more expenses now then we initially thought. We got hit with some crazy ones last year and this year.
When we started doing ESRB stuff we didn't think it would be as ridiculous as it is.
Have you thought about doing your business on China to circumvent stuff like this?
It's really hard to get set up in Asia.
Also if there is a case where I can't get all DLC on a disc or new DLC comes out of nowhere I want to be able to use my NA account.
We have been considering raising prices $5 for a while now due to the ESRB. I wish to god I wasn't under NDA so I could tell you the crap we've been through with them.
For god's sake pay the $5 fee for multiplat games if you truly want them, not the end of the world. I know for a fact the ESRB can be pretty stingy so I don't blame LRG for what's happening at all.
So what's so flawed and cringeworthy about my argument? You also ignored LRG stating that esrb fees have been higher than they originally anticipated. PS4 would be going up in price without the Switch.
You would be able to if you bought the DLC from an account that shares the same region as it. If it's set up as your primary PS4, then you would be able to access it on your North American account.
Still, doesn't change the difficulty with Asia, I guess.
This is going to be my final post on the matter and possibly in this thread. Look, if you guys and the developers want to raise the price of other platforms to parity so everyone can scrape the extra off the top, that's fine. It's your business and you can justify it however you want. It might have been a better idea to raise prices last year to keep people from asking these kinds of questions. Trying to shift explanations around in the final hours leading up to a new platform release is short-sighted and overall bad PR.
ESRB costs should be left out of the price parity explanation. By that logic the price of all runs would increase with Switch carts still costing more than everything else.
ESRB costs don't somehow magically equate to:
PS4 2+2 = 6
Vita 2+3 = 6
Switch 3+3 = 6
All of your explanations still read to me as raising the price of other platform releases so that those buyers can take on more of the cost of the overall business process.
I've been an advocate for Limited Run Games for a long time. I realize that I'm a small fry when compared to the collectors and special edition fanatics, so my concerns hold little (if any) weight. I cleared my post from last night, but what I said stands. I'm hanging around for a potential Phantom Breaker release and that's it.
I appreciate what LRG has done for the community and the industry and I wish you continued success.
ESRB costs should be left out of the price parity explanation. By that logic the price of all runs would increase with Switch carts still costing more than everything else.
ESRB costs don't somehow magically equate to:
Edited for accuracy.
PS4 2+2 = 6
Vita 2+3 = 6
Switch 3+3 = 6
All of your explanations still read to me as raising the price of other platform releases so that those buyers can take on more of the cost of the overall business process.
I've been an advocate for Limited Run Games for a long time. I realize that I'm a small fry when compared to the collectors and special edition fanatics, so my concerns hold little (if any) weight. I cleared my post from last night, but what I said stands. I'm hanging around for a potential Phantom Breaker release and that's it.
I appreciate what LRG has done for the community and the industry and I wish you continued success.
Please don't try to devalue our concerns because "it's $5". $5 adds up if you're considering multiple purchases. This is magnified significantly for customers outside of the US. And there's also the principal of the thing.
Last edited:
I don't know where you are getting some of these numbers from. The price increase as a whole for all platforms is now $15 over the digital price vs $10.
We had been taking a hit with every Vita release since we launched when compared to PS4. Vita and Switch are pretty on par with costs. We started off with price parity and we are ending with price parity.
Last edited:
Oh, then it's settled? I thought just yesterday you were discussing it and it was just for Switch solo/multi releases.
Any older titles we have signed will most likely maintain the old pricing schedule. As well as some games that would increase in price too much if we added the extra $5.
Like that Vita game that could be 8K units, I rather take a hit on profit than be stuck with all of them...
Last edited:
I don't even want to imagine the pile of free money they're sitting on. The fees they're imposing don't seem even closely related to the usefulness of their work.
You started off with a price parity that was transparent for PS4 players and that Vita players were grateful for.
You end with a price parity that wrongs PS4 players and that's transparent for Switch players.
It's still price parity all right, but the implications are very different :p
I won't repeat what Saoshyant has already said. You've stated several times with a straight face you were happy that the PS4 games' price was going up just because it made you feel better has a Switch buyer. Do you know there's likely still a vast majority of PS4/Vita collectors in this topic ? Don't expect many words of sympathy in this context ;)
You're basically wishing your neighbour's grass gets yellow-ish because yours is not that green. LRG later brought the ESRB argument, which makes sense, but you didn't need it to defend the measure at first.
Btw about that : I've adressed the ESRB thing in my post too, although I must admit they have since precised the situation a little bit more. Hard to really form an opinion because of the NDA, though.
Where does it stop ?
This price increased may be justified in the end, I don't know, but in my opinion the problem is LRG has brought it up in the worst way possible.
Last edited:
While we're at it, might I suggest looking at Danmaku Unlimited 3 and all those Japanese only musou games? :D
Dang, even though the first one was not too good I would love to have physical copies to help the otome market on the Switch be known.
As someone who has been following the LRG releases for a while, I am super excited for the possibility of Switch releases...
I am very much hoping one title in particular that hasn't announced its switch version yet you would be willing to work with for a Physical Switch release hopefully.
Physical is <3
I am very much hoping one title in particular that hasn't announced its switch version yet you would be willing to work with for a Physical Switch release hopefully.
Physical is <3
Noting on the forum, twitter, fb, and website. I myself, don't use all of them to get my news, so I'm sure others only use single outlets for news. Would make it clear for everyone.
To be fair, nobody went this crazy when Nicalis re-released Wonder Boy: Dragon's Trap PS4 at price parity with the Switch version. Everyone demands transparency from LRG, but it's starting to feel like that transparency always comes back to bite them.
At the end of the day, my buying evaluation hasn't changed: "Is X game worth buying at Y price?" Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'd rather not be charged an extra $5, but I'd rather be charged an extra $5 than have LRG fold in a year.
You know what would help out a lot? Mitigating shipping costs. I pay a ton of money for shipping. Doug, is there any way to implement something like a LRG shipping club, where we pay $50-60 for "free" shipping, and as long as we have two games ready to go they'll be shipped out at the end of the month in a nice box? That works out to about $5 a month for shipping, and since many games aren't ready to ship out yet, I barely notice the delay anymore. If someone has to have that game *right now*, they just have it shipped normally.
This wouldn't be like a subscriber club or anything... strictly just for shipping.
Edit: Just checked my order history, and I spent something like $120 on shipping last year. A lot of those games were single games that I also tacked a box onto.
At the end of the day, my buying evaluation hasn't changed: "Is X game worth buying at Y price?" Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'd rather not be charged an extra $5, but I'd rather be charged an extra $5 than have LRG fold in a year.
You know what would help out a lot? Mitigating shipping costs. I pay a ton of money for shipping. Doug, is there any way to implement something like a LRG shipping club, where we pay $50-60 for "free" shipping, and as long as we have two games ready to go they'll be shipped out at the end of the month in a nice box? That works out to about $5 a month for shipping, and since many games aren't ready to ship out yet, I barely notice the delay anymore. If someone has to have that game *right now*, they just have it shipped normally.
This wouldn't be like a subscriber club or anything... strictly just for shipping.
Edit: Just checked my order history, and I spent something like $120 on shipping last year. A lot of those games were single games that I also tacked a box onto.
Last edited:
Even if I'm vehement about the price increase, I want to say that I totally agree with that line. ^^
And those people with the wrong assumptions will pass it on to others, and so forth
Oh. Just because people weren't complaining online doesn't mean they don't have an opinion. I actually did not buy the Nicalis Wonder Boy's, because I thought the pricing was odd and overpriced. I've only bought like 4-5 Switch games because I hate the Switch tax.
And that's completely fine. I always encourage people to vote with their wallets. Don't like something? Don't buy it. I'm personally waiting for Bayonetta to go on sale because I'm not a fan of Nintendo charging full price for 2-4 year old ports I already own.
So then the alternative here is that people quietly stop buying LRG stuff without expressing why. Is that better?
Which is totally fine and reasonable, but it's also reasonable for them to ask $40 for the game.
If you're talking to D3 Publisher, ask them about EDF 2017 Portable too.
And Nightshade :)
I don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something here, but how can price parity be fair if one format is inherently more expensive to produce and you split the ESRB fee evenly across the board ($5 per format)?
I mean, I'm pretty sure you've already done a good job explaining why you're not buying.
Buy yeah, it's a business' job to figure out why people aren't buying from them, not the other way around. That doesn't mean you can't make suggestions, of course. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. Simple as that. If enough people don't like the price, LRG will take notice.
People start and stop buying things all the time without explaining why. A common flaw with vocal and frequent complainers (of which there are many on message boards and social media in general), is the belief that their opinion is held by the majority. It's further reinforced when said complainers surround themselves with others of similar opinion.
There are many buyers who will be unphased by the increase. There will be many buyers unhappy, but will continue to buy anyway. There are also likely those that would stop even without a cost increase. I'm guessing that LRG could stand to lose everyone in this thread and still be just fine. They should stop trying to appease people here and on Twitter, etc. until or unless it actually starts to have an impact on the business. They're too nice and accommodating most of the time. It's got to take a toll on their well being.
Vita was already more expensive than PS4 and nobody had a problem.
This.
I can't wait to own more physical Switch titles. I love those tiny cartridges. I love the fact that so many indies are going physical on Switch.
Isn't that the issue here? Why isn't the Switch version more expensive than the one for PS4? If a format is inherently more expensive to produce for, don't let the customers for the other format pay more for price parity.
PS4 owners were already paying more to match the cost of the Vita games, and the costs for all releases(including PS4) has gone up because of the ESRB.
There was a pretty big problem with Mutant Mudds. I believe that accommodating the Vita version is the only reason the PS4 version was two different products, since Vita isn't executable compilation friendly
And that's not okay either, even if it was harder to tell. I think people being more keenly aware of how expensive Switch cartridges are is what makes them finally pay attention to it now though. I don't think it was as obvious that PS4 owners were picking up part of the Vita bills back then. If it had been, I'm sure more people would have raised their voices about it (the ones that didn't buy both versions, that is).
8K for a Vita game? I don't even know what it is but I'm pretty sure I'll want a copy...
As they said earlier, that's only part of the equation. The other part is the ESRB fees, which are stupid and expensive.
It's also worth noting that nobody complained when there was price parity between PS4 and Vita games, even though Vita games cost more to produce. (Edit: Dang, Oregano beat me to it)
Things get more expensive over time. It's the unfortunate truth of the matter. Paying an extra $5 isn't my favorite thing in the world, but $5 more for a physical game I really love isn't asking much, I think. I'm thankful that LRG gives us a physical option in the first place.
TL;DR Limited Run are the good guys. As a company, there's always room for improvement, but stop throwing them under the bus every time they have to make a difficult decision.
No, they've said on the contrary Vita owners were paying less. That they barely covered Vita manufacturing cost, or something (unless I grossly misunderstood). That's a price parity that's not wronging any customer.
Sure, I'm thankful too, but a 20% price increase needs to be more carefully explained than that ^^
I've spent thousands of dollars on LRG already, and 20% of $1000 is already $200. It's not negligible.
That's really sad to read that when you're honestly voicing a concern. I don't feel like I'm complaining all the time, thus throwing me (and others) in a bag of unidentified relentless complainers is pretty harsh.
But oh, well. I'll buy Thimbleweed Park anyway, I'm not kidding anybody.
Last edited:
I don't think it's ever been hidden that cartridges cost more. The only difference is Switch is the first time publishers have been able to get away with charging more.
That's semantics. Either way they had a higher margin on PS4 products so they could have been sold for a lower price.
I agree that those fees are stupid. But the issue here is that if you divide those fees evenly among all platforms, the ones that are more expensive to produce to begin with should remain so even after the price hike. As it is now, most of that cost is unevenly distributed so that some customers pay more so that others have to pay less because...it looks bad if Switch games are more expensive (when they in fact are)?
C'mon. That was a "normal" margin, and Vita's was almost dangerously low. They couldn't afford to have two low margin products. It's just not the same situation at all.
... And ESRB fees have driven the costs up and margin down.
You are ignoring that it's already been said that Switch costs are comparable to Vita costs.