Support NeoGAF

[Waluigilicious]

I fail to understand why they didn't simply choose to go e-shop only. The reason I say that is because by selling the game like this they pretty much strike off two reasons why they would even need to go physical:

1. Everyone buying the game has an Internet connection. This means that everyone who buys the game has access to the eshop.

2. The game requires quite a bit of hard drive space. This makes it a good chance that a good chunk of the people buying this game has enough space to download the whole thing or will be happy to upgrade their space sometime down the line.

That's two legit reasons why people buy physical (no access to eshop, lack of space) down the drain. So why even make a physical version and have this backlash? Just out it on eshop only and heck make it very slightly cheaper than the other console versions as a sort of thank you/incentive to buy for previous Wii U owners.

 

[James Scott]

It's pretty BS. It was $49.99 when it came out on Wii U. I dont see how they could justify charging $10 more 4 years later for a game you need to download 2/3rds of. Even if the physical release costs more than a blue ray, I don't see how you can ask consumers to download the equivalent of Breath of the Wild just to play the physical release. And again, this is a port of a 4 year old game that's more expensive than it was back then.
It's also like 720p, the same as the Wii U version. What a terrible way of handling this

 

[Lord of Ostia]

We have been told that the digital price can't be lower then the Physical version per Nintendo. To get a lower digital they would have had to forgo a physical version. I figure most companies will just do digital only to keep parity.

Then why is Puyo Puyo $40 physical and $30 digital on Switch? Clearly it isn't mandated that the prices must be the same.

 

[Pancake Mix]

It's pretty BS. It was $49.99 when it came out on Wii U. I dont see how they could justify charging $10 more 4 years later for a game you need to download 2/3rds of. Even if the physical release costs more than a blue ray, I don't see how you can ask consumers to download the equivalent of Breath of the Wild just to play the physical release. And again, this is a port of a 4 year old game that's more expensive than it was back then.
It's also like 720p, the same as the Wii U version. What a terrible way of handling this

Nintendo published it as an exclusive in 2013 and set that price. Warner Bros. is self-publishing in 2017 and thinks they can go for full-price. Nothing else to it.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Then why is Puyo Puyo $40 physical and $30 digital on Switch? Clearly it isn't mandated that the prices must be the same.

It's been mentioned that this was probably circumvented because the physical version includes a bonus physical item.

 

[MisterR]

There is a point at which it becomes insane though. Switch sold essentially mostly due to one first-party title so far and is still sold out in some areas. Suppose that third party games would give just zero profit to Nintendo. They won't sell more Switches on those games existence since they can't sell more Switches anyway. At the same time those third party games are somewhat competing with their own offerings. The Switch drought will end but "eating the cart costs" would convert third parties' existence in physical market into a straight loss. Especially since if Nintendo didn't differentiate between card prices at all, games would bloat since there would be no reason to optimize their size, and if they differentiate the same as they do now only with base price shifted, nothing changes whatsoever.



This is a somewhat more constructive idea but it's hard. Few want media like this, few make it, Nintendo seems to have an exclusivity deal for Switch with Macronix, Macronix continues to generate losses nonetheless.

They would have to make their very own miracle tech to handle this basically. And given advances in regular flash, it would be somewhat shocking if they came up with one.

Almost all of your response makes no sense. It's highly unlikely that Nintendo makes zero profit on third party games. Sony, MS and Nintendo all make profits from licensing fees for third party software. The fact that the system has low availability at the moment has nothing to do with the desirability of the Switch going forward as stock increases and a strong third party presence would help them sell consoles going forward. Since your first point of Nintendo not making profit on third party's is incorrect then your assertion that they would then lose money on third party's product is also incorrect. They would lose some profit which would probably be well worth it for a more robust 3rd party environment.

 

[WordAssassin]

I think most publishers are going to do what Puyo Puyo tetris is doing. You are going to pay more for the switch physical but you get a collectors edition with $.05 keychains to give it the appearance of more value while allowing them to recoup their extra costs or just digital only.

If the game costs more to put out physically on Switch, I understand that, but there are roads to take to massage the impact of it costing more, as you said. Binding of Isaac costs more on Switch because of the carts, to compensate the devs threw in some stickers and a totally bitchin instruction manual. PuyoPuyoTetris costs more physically, but you get keychains of a Puyo and Tetromino.

This is bullshit though. The game is years old, it's finally being ported to other systems, yet on the Switch they cheap out and don't even include the whole fucking game on the card you're paying more money for to own physically. That's not even something that can be band-aided over with an exclusive Chase McCain minifig, that's just straight up bullshit.

Perceived value goes a long way for a huge amount of people. Even if you're blowing smoke up my ass with some stickers or a keychain to gloss over the fact your game costs $10 on one platform than the other, at least there is the perceived value of, "Well, yeah it costs a bit more, but I get some little chachkies as a bonus and I do get to have a physical version of the game, too." But this doesn't even give you the physical version of the game you're buying the physical version of!

It costs more to put games on the Switch. Why do you think developers should have to eat this extra cost? They are taking all the risk. Nintendo chose a more costly option for games. Shouldn't they be eating the extra profit to benefit their fans?

Granted I am not a publisher, but when you are making a game for multiple platforms, I'm fairly sure that you don't go "Ok well, we've got this game coming out on PC/PS4/Xbox/Switch, but it took a little more effort to get it running on the Xbox, so we're gonna charge more for that version." It's all part of the budget of the game, and you split the cost evenly across platforms. I get and can begrudgingly accept that carts raise the price of the physical versions of *some* games (notice also that it's not across the board that Switch games are more expensive than their PS4/Xbox counterparts) but digital too? Snake Pass for example is $20 on all platforms yet they only started Switch development of it two months ago meaning it wasn't even part of their original budget. Somehow they're able to charge the same price on all platforms despite adding in a Switch version at the 11th hour. Why can't a game like RiME?

And it's also not like, historically, late ports suddenly cost more that the original version. When Tomb Raider came out on PS4 a year after Xbox it was $60, just like it was $60 on Xbox a year earlier. They didn't charge $70 because they had to also develop it for the PS4. And they added content to the PS4 version as well! Resident Evil 4 didn't cost $10 more on PS2 when it came out than it cost on GameCube, despite a PS2 version coming out of seemingly left field after the director said it would never ever happen. So why are we suddenly OK with ports costing more, despite being late and offering no additional content? Just cause it's Nintendo? I can excuse the cart price increase as I said but digitally it's some bullshit.

Edit: Also, you have the devs of games like Monster Boy (or is it the other one, Wonder Boy?) saying they want to bring a physical version out, but it will *not* cost more than the digital version. People are just being shitty yo, trying to take advantage of us poor new Switch owners cause we've got a brand new toy that uses proprietary format. That's like a perfect recipe for taking advantage of the situation. "Nothing to play" + different physical media? $$$$

Lazy and shitty developers.

Here's someone who has zero idea how game development works.

It's unfair of me to 1) blanket them all with that term and 2) call out developers specifically when this case in particular was much more likely made by the publisher, and not the developers. In fact I shouldn't have said developers at all really, it's not like the poor souls putting their all into actually creating the games are the ones who are setting the price.

 

[Nilaul]

Well that's one game I'm not getting.

 

[MisterR]

Then why is Puyo Puyo $40 physical and $30 digital on Switch? Clearly it isn't mandated that the prices must be the same.

Because Puyo Puyo threw in a crappy keychain to justify the increased cost.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

It's been mentioned that this was probably circumvented because the physical version includes a bonus physical item.

That's possible, or there isn't such a mandate. Either way, if all it takes is that cheap keychain, they could've printed a paper map or included some other extremely cheap physical item for the Rime physical copy, and offer the digital version cheaper.

 

[Vitacat]

I fail to understand why they didn't simply choose to go e-shop only.

I wouldn't have bought it digitally, not for more than maybe $30 anyway.

I got the physical version preordered for $35. Even with the 13gb download I still save 7gb over the eshop version. I can resell the game if I choose, and I can lend it to someone if I like.

I will only buy smaller, inexpensive (i.e. $30 or less) games digitally from Nintendo, and even then ONLY if there is no physical version.

 

[frankie_baby]

I fail to understand why they didn't simply choose to go e-shop only. The reason I say that is because by selling the game like this they pretty much strike off two reasons why they would even need to go physical:

1. Everyone buying the game has an Internet connection. This means that everyone who buys the game has access to the eshop.

2. The game requires quite a bit of hard drive space. This makes it a good chance that a good chunk of the people buying this game has enough space to download the whole thing or will be happy to upgrade their space sometime down the line.

That's two legit reasons why people buy physical (no access to eshop, lack of space) down the drain. So why even make a physical version and have this backlash? Just out it on eshop only and heck make it very slightly cheaper than the other console versions as a sort of thank you/incentive to buy for previous Wii U owners.

3. Digital only games sell less

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

This happened a lot sooner than I predicted (3rd party games with big mandatory day one installs). It is kind of naive in this day and age to think you can get away with only 32GB (or 25 of storage) for any reasonable amount of time.

Large SD cards or USB hdd support will be a must by the end of the year.

 

[Waluigilicious]

3. Digital only games sell less

So will physical 1-player games with online connection and storage limitations.

I predict this will sell less on Switch relative to Wii U compared to how any other port does.

 

[dragonflys545]

Probably like 47cents

Spoiler

source - my ass, but i doubt its much

I worked in the consumer electronics industry briefly and price varies base on minimum order quantity. In the developers case they are probably paying a shitton more when buying only like 1k units, versus Nintendo who is probably producing 1million units. Also comes down to the raw material cost and demand.

 

[James Scott]

Nintendo published it as an exclusive in 2013 and set that price. Warner Bros. is self-publishing in 2017 and thinks they can go for full-price. Nothing else to it.

Still, it's not a new game. It's not a remake, it's a port of a game they finished over 4 years ago. Lego games are usually like $40-50 bucks as well.

 

[Marty Chinn]

That's possible, or there isn't such a mandate. Either way, if all it takes is that cheap keychain, they could've printed a paper map or included some other extremely cheap physical item for the Rime physical copy, and offer the digital version cheaper.

Pretty sure the mandate is there.

 

[Xenoblade]

No longer buying the game. Well done WB

 

[WordAssassin]

This happened a lot sooner than I predicted (3rd party games with big mandatory day one installs). It is kind of naive in this day and age to think you can get away with only 32GB (or 25 of storage) for any reasonable amount of time.

Large SD cards or USB hdd support will be a must by the end of the year.

Large SD is coming but I'm pretty sure USB HDD breaks the core functionality of the Switch. If you're playing a game off of USB and you pull your Switch out of the dock and go jump on the bus, what happens to your game?

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Pretty sure the mandate is there.

Based on what? And why would including a keychain make such a huge difference?

 

[KingdomHeartsFan]

If your not even gonna put the game on the cartridge then I'm not buying it.

 

[ggx2ac]

That's possible, or there isn't such a mandate. Either way, if all it takes is that cheap keychain, they could've printed a paper map or included some other extremely cheap physical item for the Rime physical copy, and offer the digital version cheaper.

If there was a mandate, it shouldn't be possible to buy Super Bomberman R off the Australian eShop for AUD$65 while getting a physical copy is AUD$90.

Edit: And now it seems that​ Konami raised the price to AUD$90 on the eShop recently.

http://www.vooks.net/super-bomberman-r-price-raised-27-percent-89-95-australian-eshop/

 

[stan423321]

I fail to understand why they didn't simply choose to go e-shop only. The reason I say that is because by selling the game like this they pretty much strike off two reasons why they would even need to go physical:

1. Everyone buying the game has an Internet connection. This means that everyone who buys the game has access to the eshop.

2. The game requires quite a bit of hard drive space. This makes it a good chance that a good chunk of the people buying this game has enough space to download the whole thing or will be happy to upgrade their space sometime down the line.

That's two legit reasons why people buy physical (no access to eshop, lack of space) down the drain. So why even make a physical version and have this backlash? Just out it on eshop only and heck make it very slightly cheaper than the other console versions as a sort of thank you/incentive to buy for previous Wii U owners.

An equivalent question that would react the same to your points would be "why are PC game keys sold in retail boxes in Europe". Granted, most of these have some data on discs to reduce downloading, but Doom shipped with a single DVD and required user to download 40 gigs day one, and now more since you can't just avoid patches with Steam. Metal Gear Solid V PP shipped with nothing but Steam installer and key in the box.

The following are the reasons for which I understand these products are bought:

• A lot of (especially older) people are not comfortable with online shopping and internet in general, even if the intended final user of the software (say, a grandkid) feels fine with it. Alternatively, the chance for them grabbing on your software while not going to shop intending to purchase it is higher when compared to somewhat focused online shopping.
• A lot of people don't have or don't want to use debit/credit cards, and going to shop to buy a point card to use it in a shop online is just additional confusion.
• On some occasions, people want to hand something physical as a gift, even if the value is not really physical.

This ignores the Switch LCU version being seemingly a resellable roaming license despite requiring a download. I honestly don't know how much of gaming populace actually actively trades games in instead of directly or indirectly binge-selling them for cents, but some undeniably do.

 

[Waluigilicious]

If there was a mandate, it shouldn't be possible to buy Super Bomberman R off the Australian eShop for AUD$65 while getting a physical copy is AUD$90.

Edit: And now it seems that​ Konami raised the price to AUD$90 on the eShop recently.

http://www.vooks.net/super-bomberman-r-price-raised-27-percent-89-95-australian-eshop/

Oh wow. Was it an honest mistake? What is the usual US to AUS conversion on eshop titles?

 

[Lord of Ostia]

If there was a mandate, it shouldn't be possible to buy Super Bomberman R off the Australian eShop for AUD$65 while getting a physical copy is AUD$90.

Edit: And now it seems that​ Konami raised the price to AUD$90 on the eShop recently.

http://www.vooks.net/super-bomberman-r-price-raised-27-percent-89-95-australian-eshop/

So is there one or isn't there? And if there is, why does adding a keychain make a difference to Nintendo? None of that makes sense

 

[Phamit]

So the size of 8,2 GB mentioned in the eShop is wrong?

 

[James Scott]

The thing is that they wouldn't make the game cheaper even if Nintendo allowed it since it's full price everywhere.
Puyo Puyo is weird since it's the only digital version of the game due to licensing.
If they wanted to charge $50 but couldn't due to Switch, why couldn't they make the digital versions cheaper and add a chase McCain mini figure (like they did on Wii U)? Would be the same as the Puyo Puyo thing

 

[Deleted member 465307]

So the size of 8,2 GB mentioned in the eShop is wrong?

I think it's speculated that you'll have to download an additional 13 GB after that first file, but I guess we won't know until it releases.

 

[ggx2ac]

So is there one or isn't there? And if there is, why does adding a keychain make a difference to Nintendo? None of that makes sense

I don't know, I bet that Konami got greedy because more people would be buying the digital version since it's cheaper and it's mentioned in the article that the physical release was very limited.

Otherwise, pressure from retailers? I don't know.

 

[Vitacat]

So the size of 8,2 GB mentioned in the eShop is wrong?

That's probably the initial download from eshop. Then the executable probably downloads the 13gb data file.

 

[AzaK]

HAHAHA that's hilarious. That 32 Gig will go far! Seriously fucked that Nintendo thought 32GB would be OK. They could have packed in a nice large SD card for cents.

 

[WordAssassin]

So is there one or isn't there? And if there is, why does adding a keychain make a difference to Nintendo? None of that makes sense

It seems like the only mandate is an unspoken(?) one: don't piss off retailers by pricing your digital games lower than the physical versions.

In the case of Switch games, some devs/publishers might see that and go, "well, shit, our game is $30, but we wanna do it physical too, but that'll raise the cost to $40 cause of the carts. We could raise the digital price too so we don't piss off B&M stores... but I guess we could also include some stickers or a keychain, call the physical version a limited edition, and sell it for the $10 more? Sure that'll work."

So including a sticker or keychain is like some kind of loophole to price your digital version lower than your physical version, cause once you include some knicknack then it's an LE and not the same game. But not everyone wants to print a sticker sheet so they just raise the price of the digital version to match the higher cart price. *fart sound*

 

[stan423321]

Almost all of your response makes no sense. It's highly unlikely that Nintendo makes zero profit on third party games. Sony, MS and Nintendo all make profits from licensing fees for third party software. The fact that the system has low availability at the moment has nothing to do with the desirability of the Switch going forward as stock increases and a strong third party presence would help them sell consoles going forward. Since your first point of Nintendo not making profit on third party's is incorrect then your assertion that they would then lose money on third party's product is also incorrect. They would lose some profit which would probably be well worth it for a more robust 3rd party environment.

The entire reason they are making that profit is that they are not looking for occasions to annihilate it. Given that the cart is undeniably a solid part of price - if it wasn't WB would not opt for this scheme - and first parties are documented to make less on third party physical releases than digital ones with the prime part of revenue getting grabbed by the distribution sector instead - a coverage of cart cost sounds highly problematic regardless of them making profit right now.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

I don't know, I bet that Konami got greedy because more people would be buying the digital version since it's cheaper and it's mentioned in the article that the physical release was very limited.

Otherwise, pressure from retailers? I don't know.

I doubt it's pressure from retailers. Like I said, indie games and indie publishers get away with having more expensive physical copies all the time.

 

[Matt]

The entire reason they are making that profit is that they are not looking for occasions to annihilate it. Given that the cart is undeniably a solid part of price - if it wasn't WB would not opt for this scheme - and first parties are documented to make less on third party physical releases than digital ones with the prime part of revenue getting grabbed by the distribution sector instead - a coverage of cart cost sounds highly problematic regardless of them making profit right now.

Platform holders make more money on digital releases because they ARE the retailer.

 

[Ridley327]

So practically if a game is above 16 GB or maybe even above 8 GB you either have to pay more than the other versions or download the rest of the game.

I guess that might explain the prices also for the exclusive software.

Nintendo needs to get some better deals for the game carts.

Not really, since Super Bomberman R is just over 2GB. I can't imagine a 4GB card being anywhere close to the top 10 reasons why Konami charged $50 for it.

 

[rekameohs]

Nintendo needs to stamp down on this. WB will always be scummy.

 

[Kelegacy]

Looks like I will be getting this on PS4 then. Even if they forced 13gb download there, that's space he machine has and then some. Not so with the Switch.

Not buying a memory card either. Not until I absolutely have to, which I hope is never.

 

[Dark Cloud]

Yeah this sucks. Hoping those prices for carts can go down enough to where they don't have to do these practices.

 

[jdstorm]

Nintendo can't get third party support as is and you think telling them to eat shit is gonna get them to line up for Switch ports? If anything Nintendo needs to eat the extra cost of carts. At the end of the day Nintendo needs them more than they need Nintendo.

No i think telling publishers to "Eat Shit" would preserve the status quo where 3rds dont care about Nintendo platforms. Where were 3rds on the WiiU? I think that is a better option for Nintendo then "Alienating their core customers by forcing the people who buy Mario and Zelda games to have a sub par experience dealing with 3rd parties"

At this point by not telling 3rd parties to "provide a complete on cart port with cost and release date parity" you are telling your loyal customers to do exactly that.(eat shit) Its a bad look. 3rd parties will return if they think they can make a profit. Customers will seek other entertainment options if they have a poor experience and may never return.

Feature and cost parity isnt a feature to be negotiated. Its a basic consumer expectation.


Besides if Nintendo really wanted to go full scortched earth they could lobby against included gatcha microtransactions in games targeted at children (under an 18+ rating) Nintendo are mostlty reluctant to profit in this way and it would completely fuck over every 3rd party who included this feature while avoiding Nintendo platforms.

Its also a very simple PR win. Most parents (and some gamers) would be happy to buy a console knowing that it was Gatcha free. Banning 3rds who dont hit a certain quality control standard gives Nintendo a position of strength to advertise from. (Walled garden, the best curated content ect) And should Nintendo succeed without 3rds it puts a lot of financial pressure on them to be allowed back into that walled garden. Especially considering that including Nintendo there are only 3 gaming platforms on the planet that support the sale of full priced video games (Xbox Live and PSN)

 

[Lord of Ostia]

It seems like the only mandate is an unspoken(?) one: don't piss off retailers by pricing your digital games lower than the physical versions.

In the case of Switch games, some devs/publishers might see that and go, "well, shit, our game is $30, but we wanna do it physical too, but that'll raise the cost to $40 cause of the carts. We could raise the digital price too so we don't piss off B&M stores... but I guess we could also include some stickers or a keychain, call the physical version a limited edition, and sell it for the $10 more? Sure that'll work."

So including a sticker or keychain is like some kind of loophole to price your digital version lower than your physical version, cause once you include some knicknack then it's an LE and not the same game. But not everyone wants to print a sticker sheet so they just raise the price of the digital version to match the higher cart price. *fart sound*

Yes I understand that thought process, but that has nothing to do with a mandate from Nintendo. You are proving my point, the key chain doesn't prove there is a mandate from Nintendo. If there isn't a mandate, there is no excuse for Rime.

 

[Cody_D165]

lol no buy from me then

 

[Ridley327]

I fail to understand why they didn't simply choose to go e-shop only. The reason I say that is because by selling the game like this they pretty much strike off two reasons why they would even need to go physical:

1. Everyone buying the game has an Internet connection. This means that everyone who buys the game has access to the eshop.

2. The game requires quite a bit of hard drive space. This makes it a good chance that a good chunk of the people buying this game has enough space to download the whole thing or will be happy to upgrade their space sometime down the line.

That's two legit reasons why people buy physical (no access to eshop, lack of space) down the drain. So why even make a physical version and have this backlash? Just out it on eshop only and heck make it very slightly cheaper than the other console versions as a sort of thank you/incentive to buy for previous Wii U owners.

The target audience for LEGO games aren't the kind of people that forks over the dough for digital-only titles, except for maybe Minecraft. This isn't some obscure anime Musou title we're talking about here.

 

[F34R]

After posting earlier in the thread, I though about it over and over. I canceled my pre-order on it. I'm just not taking it like this.

The price was kinda making me squirm a bit, but I was almost convinced I'd be ok with it. Then comes along the download required. Done.

I am standing ground on this. If this is a norm for third-party games, I guess I'll be sticking to first-party and indie... /shrugs

 

[hawk2025]

The target audience for LEGO games aren't the kind of people that forks over the dough for digital-only titles, except for maybe Minecraft. This isn't some obscure anime Musou title we're talking about here.

Oh, but they are the kind of people that buy MicroSD cards to extend storage?

Or that are expected to connect to a network and wait a few hours to play?

This is clown shoes all around.

 

[Ridley327]

So the size of 8,2 GB mentioned in the eShop is wrong?

It wouldn't be the first time that a page had outdated information on the Switch eShop. There was a minor crisis when the page for Puyo Puyo Tetris went up and had the retail pricing instead of the digital pricing, but that has been since corrected. By release day, I imagine that LCU's page will be updated to reflect the ~20GB size that it actually is.

Oh, but they are the kind of people that buy MicroSD cards to extend storage?

Or that are expected to connect to a network and wait a few hours to play?

This is clown shoes all around.

There's no real path to victory with the route WB has taken here, but suggesting that a super mainstream brand like LEGO goes digital only is about the worst option you could pick.

 

[stan423321]

Platform holders make more money on digital releases because they ARE the retailer.

...your point being, you would like to see a "physical sector of" before "distribution sector"? I don't see where I disagree with this or how it changes the part where they get less money from physical purchase than from digital one.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I fail to understand why they didn't simply choose to go e-shop only. The reason I say that is because by selling the game like this they pretty much strike off two reasons why they would even need to go physical:

1. Everyone buying the game has an Internet connection. This means that everyone who buys the game has access to the eshop.

2. The game requires quite a bit of hard drive space. This makes it a good chance that a good chunk of the people buying this game has enough space to download the whole thing or will be happy to upgrade their space sometime down the line.

That's two legit reasons why people buy physical (no access to eshop, lack of space) down the drain. So why even make a physical version and have this backlash? Just out it on eshop only and heck make it very slightly cheaper than the other console versions as a sort of thank you/incentive to buy for previous Wii U owners.

Because they want a retail presence. That's the reason most physical versions of games exist, not for collectors.

PS4 games have been requiring huge D/L's and internet connections since launch and gamers don't seem to give a shit, not sure why you would expect Nintendo to try and pressure third parties about it.

 

[Sectorseven]

This is par for the course on every major platform including Wii U. Why was anyone under the impression it wouldn't (eventually) be a thing for Switch?

 

[Persona7]

This is 720p too? Wow.