Kresnik258
Member
Wow, that's fricking awful. Please no.
Limited Run Games - Putting digital games into your hands
- Thread starter dallow_bg
- Start date
- Status
Wow, that's fricking awful. Please no.
Why is it terrible? It would allow them to order enough copies for their super fans along with some for general release.
eXistor
Member
Eh, not really interested in SC if true. I like the game well enough, but it's hardly something I'd want in my collection tbh.
/edit: also, the membership thing? Not a fan. I'd probably skip LRG releases altogether if that's gonna be the only way to get games. The games are expensive enough as it is (with shipping), so another $30,- for something I never had any problems with is not worth it to me. It will do nothing to combat scalpers btw if they think that's gonna make a difference. They'll still make a giant profit and $30,- less won't change a thing.
/edit: also, the membership thing? Not a fan. I'd probably skip LRG releases altogether if that's gonna be the only way to get games. The games are expensive enough as it is (with shipping), so another $30,- for something I never had any problems with is not worth it to me. It will do nothing to combat scalpers btw if they think that's gonna make a difference. They'll still make a giant profit and $30,- less won't change a thing.
LimitedRunGames
Member
Wow the membership thing spread quickly. Crazy.
mthodmn101
Banned
You get like a 17 dollar shirt, so it is essentially around 1 dollar a month to guarantee you get the games each month for the first year. I would do it since i would ideally like an entire collection, and this would do it.
PERFECT.
I'm in. Excellent idea!
By the way, this exact approach has worked wonderfully for Joyful Noise Recordings:
https://www.joyfulnoiserecordings.com/
They are a super friendly, indie record label that creates limited premium products. I wouldn't hesitate to contact them and maybe talk a little bit about their experience to see if it can help you guys.
For now, I can say I think it's an excellent idea. Not only do you help people worried about missing out on games, but the amount of subscribers also helps you have a signal of demand and adjust print runs accordingly. It's an excellent idea IMO.
Kresnik258
Member
That's how it sounds to me. I'm guessing copies available to non-members are going to be severely reduced.
If that's not the case, I'd be more down for it, but still.
Not sure how I feel about the membership thing. You basically pay $30 to be guaranteed a shot at 1-2 games a year? I know it says per platform but so far its only been PSVita and PS4 (which I'm not complaining about).
I have only bought 2 games so far but I didn't have any issues. I think I'd probably just take my chances with marking the games on my calendar and trying to secure a copy as soon as they're live. If I miss out, there's worse things in life.
**EDIT**
Nevermind, I see it says one copy per platform of every game that goes for sale. That's a different thing from how I read it the first time and way more worth it.
**2nd EDIT**
Now I've read it again and I'm not sure. Is it one copy of each game that goes live, or just one copy per platform each year?
I have only bought 2 games so far but I didn't have any issues. I think I'd probably just take my chances with marking the games on my calendar and trying to secure a copy as soon as they're live. If I miss out, there's worse things in life.
**EDIT**
Nevermind, I see it says one copy per platform of every game that goes for sale. That's a different thing from how I read it the first time and way more worth it.
**2nd EDIT**
Now I've read it again and I'm not sure. Is it one copy of each game that goes live, or just one copy per platform each year?
Yeah, I have no use for a T-Shirt and don't want to join a club.
If said club gets so popular that there aren't enough for general release then I'd be mad.
blazeuk
Member
Given I've now experienced the problems the store has and I'm missing a vita game because of it I'd pay the $30 to be able to guarantee myself a copy of games. I mean the alternative that some people here have suggested so far is "tough luck, spend an extra $40 on the retail price through eBay instead" so I'd be saving money if there was still the potential to miss out again on future releases.
I'd hope if memberships happen then the number of prints for each game would take that into account. I'd hate to see a game get a print of 3,000 only to have 2,850 of them go to members and leave just 150 for non-members. Hopefully that would mean they'd bump production up to 4,000 in that case.
I think if I were going to become a member I'd also want to know about all the games coming down the pipe as soon as possible. So far, I've only bought 2 of the releases. The rest just haven't been my thing and I'm not interested in pretending like they are so I can feel like my membership was worthwhile. I realize I have NO idea how their business works behind the scenes, but the August release is still unknown and I'd have liked to have known about that back in June if not earlier.
*shrug* I know I can't have everything my way though and like I said, I don't know how the backend works. I'm just speaking from the perspective of a customer.
I think if I were going to become a member I'd also want to know about all the games coming down the pipe as soon as possible. So far, I've only bought 2 of the releases. The rest just haven't been my thing and I'm not interested in pretending like they are so I can feel like my membership was worthwhile. I realize I have NO idea how their business works behind the scenes, but the August release is still unknown and I'd have liked to have known about that back in June if not earlier.
*shrug* I know I can't have everything my way though and like I said, I don't know how the backend works. I'm just speaking from the perspective of a customer.
The print runs won't exist in a vacuum -- LRG wants to make money.
If 1000 people sign up for the club but they still sell out of everything in regular sales in 20 seconds, they will simply increase all print runs by 1000.
The difference is that they made some extra money, got customers to stay loyal for a year, and we don't freak the fuck out about buying videogames every month.
Think of it this way: Even if copies for non-members would be reduced, the hardcore buyers that want to get EVERYTHING for every release are now out of the competition. I think this is better for literally everyone involved. I'd sign up the minute it went live.
Missing even *one* release in a full year more than pays off the subscription.
It's a total no-brainer IMO.
Kresnik258
Member
Now I've had time to get over the initial hump, I'm not *that* opposed to the idea.
I think my problem comes from the fact that I like LRG because I like collecting physical media. The shirt & sticker I'd probably just bin, lol.
But I feel I'd have to join, because it would save me money in the long run in case I missed any releases and would have to pay eBay prices down the line. In which case I should be happy that I'm being given any easy solution to avoid that, but something about it rubs me the wrong way.
GodzillaDB
Member
If this option is the sole alternative over the current system, I would definitely be down with a membership plan since I know that I'll definitely be making purchases in the future.
Same opinion I think.
Guys, this doesn't make sense.
LRG has NO incentives to make it incredibly hard for people to buy their games. They WILL keep adjusting quantities so that they sell as much as possible. This is meant for people that do not want to take a chance and would rather pay $30 for a shirt and some peace of mind.
There's absolutely no reason why this would make it harder for people that are currently happy with just taking a chance every time a game goes up.
YianGaruga
Banned
I think I'd subscribe, but the membership also makes me feel like I NEED to subscribe or I'll have to fight with the common folk or copies. It seems like it could work, but it doesn't feel good, you know?
No interest in the shirt as well.
No interest in the shirt as well.
It would actually make it easier. Realistically all the scalpers would join the club as well so it would free up more of the general release copies. What this allows LRG to do is have a better estimate of the demand so they don't massively under print while having a minimum order to show possible partners.
Give them some feedback. Maybe they could go the giantbomb route and give a coupon to use against an order. What would feel better to you?
mthodmn101
Banned
So if you don't subscribe, it will just be the same for you.. will have to fight for copies like usual
Squarehard
Member
Even if LRG has no incentive to do so, they are only in control in part to the partners they work with on the majority of these releases.
You speak as if LRG has full control over the quantity of their inventory for each release, but in fact, due to their business model, they actually can only control so much.
goldenpp72
Member
That membership is bullshit if it takes from the copies everyone has access to. Then everyone would just join the club and we'd be right back where they started but with us being poorer. I'd be willing to join if it next garunteed no hassle buys, but if I still have to fight other club members what's the point?
You are currently fighting the "common folk" for copies, right now.
This will actually *HELP* them set print runs at the right quantities, because they get a direct line to subscribers.
- They know their subscription numbers
- They have a history of purchase for said subscribers, so it helps them estimate demand outside of subscribers as well
- They can make a poll of subscribers for upcoming releases, which gives a good sense on whether whoever signed up will actually buy an upcoming release
This is a great idea, strictly from an Economics perspective. It's good for customers and it's good for LRG themselves.
Yes, they can only control so much, but all the incentives are aligned. If LRG goes to a dev and they have 2000 subscribers, the dev is incredibly more likely to be ok with a larger print run than simply rolling the dice with absolutely no security.
Do you think Eastasia Soft wouldn't have been ecstatic with printing 10K copies of Soldner instead of 3.2K today? Having a membership system *helps* LRG make that case.
This is better for everyone involved.
YianGaruga
Banned
I mean everyone talks about the fact that the system needs to be fair, this is not fair as some people get an advantage.
The cart "exploit" is an issue, but if people pay for it it's okay?
Think of another Soldner situation where supply and demand are just extremely far apart. That leaves minimal copies for the non-subscribers in the worst case scenario. It will make problems even worse and make feel people second class.
I'm not really against the idea, but it's not perfect.
The number of subscribers is not really great data either. It's very clear that every release can easily sell a baseline of 2000 copies. You don't get additional information from subscribers.
you can also make a poll for everyone
What? LRG pays for the license and production. They have full control over the number of copies they order. Where they wouldn't have control is a company wanting a high minimum order and if they have an active subscriber base maybe they could turn some heads with the Sega's and other big companies.
But if they had this they could have gotten an interest poll and seen that the interest was far higher then they or the company expected. Also they would most likely print copies taking these members into account.
Devil is in the details and how they are proposing it will be implemented.
Will it be another buying window on the day, or will it be beforehand to help judge demand better?
What if you have more demand from your subscribers than you have copies to sell? Can subscribers miss out still? Would it even go on general sale?
Will it be another buying window on the day, or will it be beforehand to help judge demand better?
What if you have more demand from your subscribers than you have copies to sell? Can subscribers miss out still? Would it even go on general sale?
Print runs are endogenous. You are looking only at the partial equilibrium.
No idea will ever be perfect. This is a massive improvement over a free-for-all.
Yes, and everyone that has ever worked with data knows that public polls are awful. Customers that have skin in the game are orders of magnitude more likely to answer truthfully and accurately. With no commitment and no money in, everyone has an incentive in a poll to say "Yes, I want that".
Cross-tabbing subscriber polls with public polls would be a fantastic way to help estimate demand.
I am sure they would print enough for subscribers and then some. If they have a solid number there is no risk involved. Then they are just estimating how much the general public is going to want to purchase which is probably a smaller amount then the Collector/Scalper market.
The only devil in the details is how they setup the membership benefits. Most places require you to be a member before everything goes on sale. So would they require you to join March 1st to qualify for the copies in March or would it be sign up in March to qualify for the April copies.
Yep, give me that and I don't complain. Because at least that will make me pay for something I in fact want.
YianGaruga
Banned
That just means everyone will subscribe because the cost of a sub (including a game) is approx. the cost of a game. That couldn't work.
I think the sub shouldn't come with anything tbh. The member card is neat I guess
Yeah I worked with data and there are ways to make good polls and bad polls and also right ways to interpret data and bad ways.
If you take an unannounced game and ask "should we do this game"? Your data would be absolutely garbage
But if you take an already announced game, limit the poll to the forums or spread it via newsletter and ask people for actual purchase intent, I don't think the data would be useless. Yes, the sub poll would be more useful, but not by much
I think a coupon would be more useful but then you are getting into some new logistics.
LimitedRunGames
Member
There's a reason we kept the poll to our forums. We had discussed this option back in December and were met with the same response. This is not something we are 100% planning to do, we're just trying to figure out if opinions had changed. After Soldner-X 2 sold out we started discussing it again internally as a way to get games in to the hands of collectors rather than resellers.
Preorders are not an option for us. The dirty, ugly, truth is that resellers and scalpers are an important and sadly necessary part of the ecosystem that makes what we're doing work. If resellers weren't interested, we'd see a drastic drop in sales which would ultimately hurt the developers and us. Preorders would make our releases open editions rather than truly limited releases and I see that as something that would push many, many, people away.
I like to point out Breach & Clear as the kind of case-in-point here, prior to our release we'd only sold about 2,000 copies digitally in five months. There is no way that open preorders for the game would have moved more than a couple hundred copies. We wouldn't have even been able to hit the minimum order quantity to manufacture the game. Assigning a limit to the game drove demand, the people who actually wanted the game were able to get it and the remaining copies were bought up by speculators. These two groups coalesced to push greater sales than we'd see if either group didn't turn up.
Don't take this as us professing a love for resellers. We're very adamant about our limits and crack down on anyone abusing them. We don't like resellers who go out of their way to break our rules, but the ones who stick to the limits and buy our games - they're a necessary part of the ecosystem, just like mosquitos. Everyone has their place in making the system work and thrive.
Additionally, on preorders: we've received threats, harassment, and constant emails regarding the ties for Octodad. We don't want to deal with this nonsense again. If we ever do preorders it's because the dev pushed for it and it was a game we really wanted, damn the consequences.
If we want to get more games in the hands of collectors before resellers, we have to find ways that inconvenience resellers without completely scaring them off. We feel like a paid membership would inconvenience resellers enough where many would not consider it - they might buy one membership, but they certainly wouldn't buy multiple and even if they did it would make it that much easier for us to track.
If you're concerned that this would cause all releases to go to members rather than not - well, you're extremely optimistic about how many people would sign up and extremely pessimistic about the numbers we'd print. We're not stupid - we want to make money for us and our devs. It is always our goal to try to meet demand in a satisfying way for all parties. Memberships would provide an actual metric to base print runs on and would ultimately result in more accurate print runs. They'd exist more for the peace of mind of collectors going for a full set.
Logistically, I'd rather not try and keep up with memberships. I'm not going to fight to make this a thing if the response is overwhelmingly negative but know that we don't have any other ideas to get games to fans first because we're not shifting to open preorders and we will never do reprints.
Gunstarheroes
Member
Basically, if they wanna do this, i would hope they are committed to uping the print runs slightly.
I get that for everyone that wants a complete set, thats great, but i believe there are some people that genuinely just want certain ones and not everything (Coming as an indiebox subscriber, no one if flying around trying to get Brutal Legend after a year, but good luck getting a cheap copy of Axiom Verge or Freedom Planet)
Thats the main thing i worry about, and that is coming from someone who does own every release outside of the Vita Breach and Clear
Edit: Just saw your response. For the record, i love how transparent and open you've been, and i apologize if that came off asshole-ish. Its a bit kneejerk, but i guess i'd say more optimistic about how many people would sign up.
Also, yeah, i wouldn't expect, nor want you to do reprints, and i totally understand the pre-order issues.
I get that for everyone that wants a complete set, thats great, but i believe there are some people that genuinely just want certain ones and not everything (Coming as an indiebox subscriber, no one if flying around trying to get Brutal Legend after a year, but good luck getting a cheap copy of Axiom Verge or Freedom Planet)
Thats the main thing i worry about, and that is coming from someone who does own every release outside of the Vita Breach and Clear
Edit: Just saw your response. For the record, i love how transparent and open you've been, and i apologize if that came off asshole-ish. Its a bit kneejerk, but i guess i'd say more optimistic about how many people would sign up.
Also, yeah, i wouldn't expect, nor want you to do reprints, and i totally understand the pre-order issues.
goldenpp72
Member
Would you guys be more interested if they did yearly passes per console? Say they did a pass for Ps4 and vita that nets you the whole subscription years titles, and the total cost to you is just what you would have paid anyways but upfront. I like this idea better because it requires a certain group to commit money in advance and would help them both regulate the releases so they don't release too much, but also give them a definitive figure of copies to make for a subset of people.
This way if they ever add another console they won't get screwed either. Or maybe preload money into an account that reduces every release, and as long as you keep it funded you never miss anything. This removes choice so that they have assured orders, and helps those who collect them all.
This way if they ever add another console they won't get screwed either. Or maybe preload money into an account that reduces every release, and as long as you keep it funded you never miss anything. This removes choice so that they have assured orders, and helps those who collect them all.
That's ultimately the same as the original idea only it requires them to hold large sums of money against individual accounts. It also hurts anyone who doesn't have the money upfront to put against the games. The membership would allow them to do the same thing but open it to everyone who wants to guarantee a copy without adding a huge financial burden.
Of course they would adjust it. They want to make money for themselves as well. Being able to have a rough starting point would be super helpful in estimates and partner acquisition. Also it assures the biggest fans never get burned while everyone else still gets to keep the status quo.
goldenpp72
Member
It isn't quite the same, as you'd not end up paying 30 more a year, and it would give them assurance you put your money where your mouth is. It would only be for the serious collectors, not the people who pick and choose which is also fine. I own 5000 physical games and I'm often a busy person. I'd love to ignore the stress of this and just give them advance cash to assure them I'm gonna buy whatever they put out.
YianGaruga
Banned
I think I don't really care about the outcome. I spend a lot at LRG anyway, another $30 wouldn't kill me. So far I didn't have a single problem ordering a game so I don't need it, but whatever.
If it makes people happy they can go ahead. Maybe make it a 3 month trial run before going all out
If it makes people happy they can go ahead. Maybe make it a 3 month trial run before going all out
I don't envy the position LRG finds themselves in right now. Their releases are increasingly popular, but not popular enough to justify increasing the print count. Moreover, some of the appeal comes from the limited release quantities. With that in mind, I don't know if there is any palatable solution, other staying the course. This problem seems to just come with the territory, as far as low print count releases are concerned.
What about some kind of option where you ONLY open up for orders for a single day? So in that case, any point of time within 24 hours, someone can order. If someone is stuck at work or unable to access the Internet during the sale times, then at least everyone in that ONE DAY can get a chance to do so. Print that amount, and it'll still be incredibly limited.
I'm personally someone who does not care about a digit attached to a game, as long as people are able to obtain it without a bunch of issues. I've been there for sales of items that only had 1,000 copies made, was lucky to get one, but saw how many people had issues and glitched out, unable to obtain a copy, and that really stinks.
But yeah, if something like that were to be implemented, I think it would be more than fair, still be limited, and still have time to weed out the cheaters like, the next day or whatever. So in that case, just less copies would be printed, with whoever ordered 1-2 copies, could get it.
(For me, as long as I'm able to obtain teh Japanese games, and Rainbow Moon... I hope I can at least get that.)
Oh, and note that LRG is getting more popular, with Youtubers starting to cover their titles, so they are getting more known. It will increase demand by A LOT now.
Kresnik258
Member
I don't mean to be too argumentative with this and I'm sure the numbers wouldn't have been massively skewed by what I'm going to say, but the physical run is still the only way to get Breach & Clear on Vita in Europe (bar account swapping which is a pain in the ass on Vita), which probably helped contribute to its success for anyone actually wanting to play it.
I'm assuming "in Europe" can be substituted with "outside of North America" in that last sentence but I'm not confident enough about that to say it with certainty
Yes but some people don't have the money to put at minimum price $360 plus shipping assuming 1 vita game a month. Also it requires them to have an escrow account or something similar to retain funds in until they put them towards the required copy. It would be preordering but even more of a hassle.
YianGaruga
Banned
Pre-orders won't happen. It's pointless to bring it up again and again. The reasons have been explained several times.
Same boat.
I didn't have any trouble so far, but I imagine the first time something goes south - especially if I would miss the "rumored" Shadow Complex or other high profile games - I would rather pay a (for me) small membership fee and gain guaranteed access.
I also imagne the number of people willing to subscribe would be rather minimal anyway, as was stated by LRG above.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
The fact that so many people are taking issue with the way this whole thing works suggests to me that they're on to something. It's probably really satisfying to get ahold of the games you want as a result.
Squarehard
Member
I actually wouldn't be too opposed to spitting up the costs of the memberships based on console, but also split up the costs of the membership.
I only ever buy the Vita games anyways, and if there is an occasion I want a PS4 game as well, then I'm more than happy to roll the dice to try and get one without paying for the membership.
$15 a year to guarantee I get every Vita title I want I would be more than happy to do.
Obviously, this is more of a pipe dream than an actual suggestion because of all the other caveats related to number of releases, controlling the way for early access for just console only, etc, blah blah blah; but hey, one can still hope it could happen, however unlikely it would be.
I only ever buy the Vita games anyways, and if there is an occasion I want a PS4 game as well, then I'm more than happy to roll the dice to try and get one without paying for the membership.
$15 a year to guarantee I get every Vita title I want I would be more than happy to do.
Obviously, this is more of a pipe dream than an actual suggestion because of all the other caveats related to number of releases, controlling the way for early access for just console only, etc, blah blah blah; but hey, one can still hope it could happen, however unlikely it would be.
- Status