To say that you have to be willing to ignore the precedent the same company is establishing in another region
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rime comes out in May. Costs £10 more on Nintendo Switch.
- Thread starter Savantcore
- Start date
To say that you have to be willing to ignore the precedent the same company is establishing in another region
I also looked for "latest". Seems to depend on the Twitter algorithms and their filter bubble.
You're all missing the point. We're discussing why the price is higher, not that you have the right to think that it's not OK, because you can think that and more power to you if do that while acting as a grown up.
What I don't understand is that one of your favorite things to do, might be a hobby, might be something more, which is gaming, depends on people creating games for you. When these people/companies need to charge more in order to not make a loss, you scream at them, call them names, say that they're stupid etc. Do you believe that the ones who makes these games, should sell them at a loss? Don't you want to support the ones who make the games you want to play, so they can make new games for you to enjoy?
I'm just trying to understand how you reason here, help me out.
Explaining and excusing are fine lines. Most of the "explanations" in here are purely excuses designed to make us feel sympathy. Sorry, I don't. There are dozens of ways to make this more palatable to the end user, but these devs/pubs are insisting on a way that alienates their potential Switch userbase.
I believe only SK was cheaper there, and not any other games.
Nintendo doesn't force developers to use any feature on any console
I don't care why the price is higher and if there are legitimate business reasons behind the decision. I myself have pout forward one of the legitimate reasons as to why they are doing what they are doing. I just think the potential backlash and failure of the Switch release may not be worth whatever they are trying to do here.
As a consumer all I care about is this: I see Group A gets it at X, Group B also gets it at X but as part of Group C I am getting it at Y. As part of Group C I am also getting it last and I am also getting a version that is techincally inferior to what groups A and B get. Now, as part of Group C I accept that my versions will always be technically inferior, It doesn't bother me, what bothers me is that this version now costs more than better earlier versions.
I'm not calling anyone names, i'm not calling anyone stupid, i'm just putting forward my opinion that this is a mistake and I will be voting with my wallet.
Nintendo isn't even forcing developers to have games playable when docked.
If they've went overbudget in commissioning a Switch port, then their best plan of action should be trying to plug that hole across ALL fronts, not just passing the costs to one customer base who are receiving it late as well. Not only does it alienate those people, in generates a fair chuck of bad press/faith that could further damage sales.
You're right that it's a business, but I'm not seeing how generating bad will and PR helps them in the long run. The game is being associated "that one that's trying to charge extra for ~reasons~" right now as opposed to anything to do with the actual game content and that is damaging.
Are you talking about Shovel Knight or Binding of Isaac? And regional pricing or physical/digital pricing differences?
Regional pricing differences is an unfortunate reality. At least I can circumvent them if I try to buy something since the Switch is region free and on PC I can buy whereever I like. Bought my Switch and Zelda in France since it was cheaper and will import games when I can, since I hate the German USK Logo and it's often cheaper.
And I can somewhat understand the meaning behind the regional pricing, since cost of living is most of the time somewhat different from a direct $ conversion.
DeuceGamer
Member
Sure we want to support them, that's why a lot of us are upset. We won't blindly support them though regardless of what prices and practices they employ.
A lot of us, which seems to be backed up by people in the know, have stated the additional cost of cart would not equal close to the extra $10 they are charging. That's what is frustrating to a lot of us. We do want to support them, but we won't blindly support these types of practices.
No, I mean the precedent you were referring to. In NA Puyo Tetris is cheaper digitally than physically. Its not cheaper in Europe.
I'm sorry if you meant some other precedent
SanSebastian
Banned
I would sell it for full price, that's for sure.
If Nintendo fans are buying Bomberman and 1-2-Switch for 50 Euro, then you would be stupid to put a game out for 10 Bucks.
And they would even defend the decision, so they could tell how this is a lovely game with a great art style and that it's proof for the great 3rd party support.
If Nintendo fans are buying Bomberman and 1-2-Switch for 50 Euro, then you would be stupid to put a game out for 10 Bucks.
And they would even defend the decision, so they could tell how this is a lovely game with a great art style and that it's proof for the great 3rd party support.
Gotdatmoney
Member
I'm not stupid enough to believe adding a Switch Sku adds £10/10USD to the cost of a game. It really is that simple. A) I'm not paying more for one platform period nor supporting the practice B) none of us are forcing the devs and the publishers to do anything. So stop with the victimization.
Perhaps its all a sneaky way to get PR. http://kotaku.com/its-unclear-why-indie-game-rime-costs-10-more-on-switc-1793132910
Sure as hell doesn't look like Nintendo fans are defending this decision in here...... Jesus
http://kotaku.com/its-unclear-why-indie-game-rime-costs-10-more-on-switc-1793132910
Jason, why do you blame Nintendo?
I'm not sure why you think Nintendo is doing anything nefarious here, unless you think they need to pay Rime's devs extra money to lower their price?
Jason, why do you blame Nintendo?
I'm not sure why you think Nintendo is doing anything nefarious here, unless you think they need to pay Rime's devs extra money to lower their price?
DeuceGamer
Member
Yea, sorry, but I don't get that. Giving Third Party's freedom is somehow a bad thing now? They should be able to price it as they want, but they should also realize that doing things like this will have a negative impact on their ability to make a profit.
The games you mentioned can't be compared because they didn't come out on any other console, I'm sorry but you need to try better than that.
BTW, I'm a Nintendo fan and I'm against this bullshit practice, also, I bought Bomberman. The fucking generalization shit that 'Nintendo fans will defend anything' starts to grind my gear.
Check Blaster Master Zero...it is a 10$ game.
DeuceGamer
Member
Agree. I also bought Bomberman but if it would have released for $10 less on PS4 then I absolutely wouldn't have bought it, nor would I have defended it.
SkeptiMism
Member
I'd really like to be a fly in the wall in situations such as this when they decided to price the Switch version higher.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they had to spend a lot more money on the Switch version. Even though the development tools are supposedly pretty good and the system easy to develop for, it's still a new console and creating a game for near launch of a new system is always a challenge of its own. The system's limited power might also make particularly 3d games harder to port than to the other systems.
That said, it's still just not a good look. Word of mouth is important for indie games and for indie games, it's the enthusiasts who are a large part in driving sales. This kind of kills the hype. It's very possible the general audience won't hear of this or won't care though - but still, indie games are more dependent on the enthusiasts than AAA games are with their huge marketing budgets.
I also do feel like the game looks very fit for the audience in Nintendo systems, so it could've sold quite well even. Especially considering the time it will release.
We'll see how it'll do.
And it'll be interesting to see if there are any other similar rumblings about pricing games for Switch.
No offense but this isn't gamefaqs. Have some sense and stop with the console wars fanboy bullshit.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they had to spend a lot more money on the Switch version. Even though the development tools are supposedly pretty good and the system easy to develop for, it's still a new console and creating a game for near launch of a new system is always a challenge of its own. The system's limited power might also make particularly 3d games harder to port than to the other systems.
That said, it's still just not a good look. Word of mouth is important for indie games and for indie games, it's the enthusiasts who are a large part in driving sales. This kind of kills the hype. It's very possible the general audience won't hear of this or won't care though - but still, indie games are more dependent on the enthusiasts than AAA games are with their huge marketing budgets.
I also do feel like the game looks very fit for the audience in Nintendo systems, so it could've sold quite well even. Especially considering the time it will release.
We'll see how it'll do.
And it'll be interesting to see if there are any other similar rumblings about pricing games for Switch.
Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of Nintendo fans who defend the price of those games (although that said, one can certainly personally see enough value in those games to get the games in that price, even if I personally think they're way overpriced) and the pricing of this game.
No offense but this isn't gamefaqs. Have some sense and stop with the console wars fanboy bullshit.
DeuceGamer
Member
I've not seen anyone give actual figures but we have had some in the know state that it is definitely not a $10 difference, which I think is pretty obvious.
WordAssassin
Member
When asked about Binding of Isaac Afterbirth+ being $40 instead of $35 like it is on Steam, the devs said it's an extra $5 to cover the cost of publishing it physically with carts. Dunno how sound that is, but that's their reason.
So then you take that and apply it to PuyoPuyo, digital is $30 and physical is $40, but it also comes with actual physical bonuses in the form of 2 keychains. So $35 for the game and $2.50 for each keychain if again we hold it to the logic of the BoI devs.
So now we have Rime, and it's $30 for digital and physical on PS4/XBO, yet on Switch the physical isn't even just $35, it's $40, and the digital version is $40.
That's some bullshit. I would possibly be willing to give them the pass is the physical was $35-40 on Switch using the BoI/PPT reasoning of the carts, $40 is pushing it, but having the digital release be $10 more as well is ridiculous and indefensible IMO. Except for pissing off retailers there's no reason digital and physical should ever be the same price anyway, but having digital be $10 less on all other platforms except Switch is pure bullshit.
I was really looking forward to getting this game but this has absolutely soured me on it, across all platforms (I have all 3 consoles). Now I'll definitely wait for a price drop. I was gonna go physical on Switch to have a nice box and support an indie dev but this sucks.
So then you take that and apply it to PuyoPuyo, digital is $30 and physical is $40, but it also comes with actual physical bonuses in the form of 2 keychains. So $35 for the game and $2.50 for each keychain if again we hold it to the logic of the BoI devs.
So now we have Rime, and it's $30 for digital and physical on PS4/XBO, yet on Switch the physical isn't even just $35, it's $40, and the digital version is $40.
That's some bullshit. I would possibly be willing to give them the pass is the physical was $35-40 on Switch using the BoI/PPT reasoning of the carts, $40 is pushing it, but having the digital release be $10 more as well is ridiculous and indefensible IMO. Except for pissing off retailers there's no reason digital and physical should ever be the same price anyway, but having digital be $10 less on all other platforms except Switch is pure bullshit.
I was really looking forward to getting this game but this has absolutely soured me on it, across all platforms (I have all 3 consoles). Now I'll definitely wait for a price drop. I was gonna go physical on Switch to have a nice box and support an indie dev but this sucks.
So, fuck you got mine?
IMO, the cost of multiplatform development is the sum total of development costs, porting costs and publishing costs across all systems. That's the figure from which you need to begin from to calculate what to charge. What seems to be happening here is that one version of the game is being treated differently for the purposes of accounting and that differentiation is being propagated to derive a separate retail price. The issue is analogous to what programmers call a leaky abstraction.
Besides being bullshit, this practice is also entirely inconsistent. During development it's normal to have a primary platform and then port that code to the other systems. So why isn't the PC version (or PS4 or whatever they code to first) the cheapest and each version thereafter incrementally more? My guess is because the porting was done in-house and the same accountant did the maths differently. See there's the in-house costs and the external costs and we need to keep that shit separate so too bad for you if you own a Nintendo.
Team Filler
Member
Conmon thread with some people it seems. If Nintendo would try and enforce things like price parity clauses, no doubt some people would start yelling about on how Nintendo shouldn't be telling other publishers what to do. If Nintendo doesn't enforce any price parity and the publishers try and abuse this to their advantage, then people are still yelling at Nintendo to do something about these games prices.
This pricing discrepancy with RIME has put me firmly in the "will not buy ever" camp, which is thankfully easier than ever to justify and not feel like I'm missing out since so many great games have been and continue to be released in quick succession. Plus, BOTW is so stellar that I'll probably got a solid 300+ hours out of it, and that's before the expansion content. Even were
SpacePirate Ridley
Member
As an indie game designer I still think what they are doing is BULLSHIT. And as a spanish game designer that knows how we work and do shit im zero surprised they are trying to do this bullshit and see if people still bite.
Look, I know how harsh gamers can be not understanding the hurdles and problems of developing a game, and its really hard to hear some uninformed opinions that seem like if some people thought changing some small thing is just like a button switch and doesnt have any difficulty.
But this is not the case.
Tequila and Greybox are just trying to see if people still buy their game, a port that they probably think it deserves charging more becuase it was a late port that was done after the other versions (and thats more time developing the game, but I can assure you thats not how it works), and because they also probably think they can pass this shit through as its "like having two versions of our game".
And if it sells like shit on switch, that I really hope it does until they price it accordingly, they would just say games dont sell on Nintendo platforms.
But this time that shit will not fly because other indies will be selling pretty well.
And thats my point as someone who develops games in Spain like them.
Used is perfect. No money from that sale goes to the devs. I think I'll do this.
Not at all to single you out because (a) I like you and always enjoy your posts and avatar and (b) I've seen a lot of people saying this so this is really not directed at you specifically, but I don't understand the mindset of waiting to get the game used. So I don't ask this to call you out at all, but just to understand better (and please don't hesitate to let me know if I'm misunderstanding):
If I understand correctly, you want to play the game, but not pay the dev/pub directly for it, because of the $10 surcharge. But if you like the game, you'd want them to make more games, right? Wouldn't the best way to do this to be to decide you care more about them making more games than you do about the $10, and as such to just pay the $10?
In that sense it would seem to come down to if this $10 uncharge is offensive enough (and I am no fan of it either) that it is a more important issue than supporting the dev (who didn't set the price to begin with, necessarily) in a scenario where you do like the game and want them to make more games. I understand not wanting to support the publisher, but I kinda feel for the dev who didn't necessarily make the pricing decision and may have the greatest stake in the game's success.
(And I say all this as someone displeased about the $10 surcharge on the digital in particular.)
Who is buying 12 Switch and Bomberman?
UnemployedVillain
Member
Nintendo gives 3rd parties freedom: Why isn't Nintendo enforcing pricing limits?!
Nintendo imposes restrictions on 3rd parties: Why isn't Nintendo letting publishers/devs do what they want to, price wise?!
There's no winning
Thanks for taking the time to write this.
If the digital price was on par with the PS4/Steam/Xbox prices, I'd buy it day one digitally. I'm also likely to buy this on a sale if the price dips down at least ten dollars sometime after the initial launch.
But the arrogance from the pub/dev on charging extra for the Switch version makes me not want to support them at all. Buying used gives me both worlds: I don't support this shady nonsense of them charging extra because they don't get my money directly, AND I don't pay extra for the game, the main source of my gripe.
Ultimately, I don't even know if I'll like the game. What if I spend the extra ten dollars and I hate the game? What if there's some major flaws that I won't know about until I've played it? It's risky playing a game from an unknown dev, and it's their job to convince me to buy their game. I was convinced already to take the plunge until I found out about this price gouging. Now I don't trust them anymore.
It's not my duty to support developers. I'm the consumer. I get to decide what products I buy and where from. I have no idea if this game is even worth supporting at this point, but I do know I don't support these pricing strategies, so I will vote with my dollar as I will.
On the other hand, I may love the game! But I'm not willing to pay ten extra dollars to support it sight unseen (or I guess game unplayed). Used is a good compromise. Not the best option, but the least bad one at this juncture.
Ok, I see where you're coming from. Thanks for breaking it down for me like that.
Then, I guess I have a follow-up question. Why is the dev being blamed in any way for this? You're absolutely right that it's not your duty to support developers but you also wrote about the arrogance of the pub/dev. You know? So I completely get not wanting to give the pub the money, it's just the dev I don't know if I understand. I also completely understand about how like if you don't know the quality of the game going in it's a risk, and it's the dev/pub's job to make you a palatable sale. I totally agree! But like let's say the game gets very good reviews across the board, 8.5/10 or so? From sources you trust. Then might you split the difference and get it on sale so you're throwing the dev a bone at least since you then would expect to like it and have less monetary risk going in?Ok, I see where you're coming from. Thanks for breaking it down for me like that.
I mean, as it stands I'm willing to buy it on sale, or if the pub comes around and lowers the price. But it's no longer a priority. By the time a sale happens, other games will be out and my attention will be elsewhere.
As for blaming the dev, that's simple. Gamers like me with a limited understanding often conflate devs and pubs. It's a meaningless distinction to me, they're both companies that are faceless entities to me and I have no awareness of the difference between them. All I know is, this game I want is priced differently on different platforms, and I don't know why. So it may be unfair for me to blame the dev, if they aren't setting the price. But the average gamer couldn't tell you the difference. Ultimately, I am just frustrated by this and want it fixed.
What do you mean? Of course they're being blamed for this. Who else is there to blame but them? They decide the pricing of their own game. Therefore they accept the responsibility when it fails (or succeeds). They can change the pricing. Honestly, it would be in their best interest to do so.
The publishers typically make the decisions regarding pricing, dates, release format etc, not the Devs.
Ah. I misunderstood. Still, the devs can speak up for their game, too. But you're right, the pubs will ultimately make that decision and sometimes these guys aren't interested in making the players happy.
The issue though is this wasn't originally developed with the switch in mind. When they bought the rights back, there was almost nothing known at the switch. I doubt they budgeted for releasing it there. Additionally, they had to hire an outside company to do the port, which is a cost exclusively on switch. In addition to the fact that carts cost more than discs. So, yes I'm okay with them passing on switch costs to switch users. I doubt it will be the only time it happens.
Oh, I see. I thought you meant you were set only on used, that's part of where I was initially getting tripped up. But I get where you're coming from, and I respect it and basically feel the same. I think a sale would create the least amount of cognitive dissonance for me insofar as I could support the dev but not support the high price. Basically, like you I want it fixed and I think this is a serious PR issue that they still have an opportunity, I hope, to get in front of in some way. Even if it means charging $40 and just making it more worth Switch players' while somehow. Like if they absolutely cannot lower the price, I understand they can't raise the other platforms' prices at this point because that would create even more bad press, so then I would want them to throw in something more for Switch, like some kind of free content. That would be not the ideal solution, but definitely better than where we're at now. Anyway, thanks again for chatting with me. I think we're definitely on a similar page about this! (and FWIW my understanding of the dev/pub distinction isn't amazing either, especially since often dev self-publish these days and often there are additional studios involved in porting and the like, so it's thorny to parse out for sure!)
Yeah, I just meant the pub as I understood it in this case is the one we think (or know?) is setting the price, vs. the dev who is making the game or Tantalus who is porting it. The dev probably can't/shouldn't speak out against the pub, though, no matter how they may feel about the pricing, right? That would likely create even more problems for them and for the game, and for the studio's place in the industry, I'd imagine. Or wait, maybe you meant speak up in the sense of suggesting a price - if so, yeah, I assume they might suggest a price but I imagine it differs from case to case but is ultimately the publisher's decision. I'm just speculating here though.
I meant within the company. They have a more direct line to the publisher and can make suggestions. Unless they straight up don't care about the NS version. Since it was farmed out, that might be the case, too.
I was referring to BoI which is cheaper digitally than physically. Didn't know that Europe won't get the cheaper digital version of Tetris. That means the cheapest digital version for me then. Be it Mexico, US or otherwise.
Yeah we're on the same page. It's a shame. I was genuinely looking forward to this game. It's a terrible PR move to do this and they'll definitely lose sales. I feel the most bad for Tantalus since they do a good job with their porting work.
I can be a bit hyperbolic and overly passionate sometimes so I know I come across harsh or intense. It's a problem in real life, it's a problem on GAF hahaha, but thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.
BobbyColtrane
Member
I have a PS4 and XBone, and a PC hooked up to my TV and I will wait and pay a little more for the Switch version.
The portability means that much to me. Fire away....
The portability means that much to me. Fire away....
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
I wouldn't be surprised if they lower the price due to backlash.
OK i'm out. I'm not supporting this kind of BS.
DeuceGamer
Member
Personally I could buy it on PS4 but I'm not going to support these types of decisions. Whether I like the game or not isn't a reason to allow a dev to take advantage of me as a consumer and in the end if this is how they choose to do business I could honestly do without their game. Their are a ton of great indie developers who offer the same game at the same price across multiple formats without trying to take advantage of one consoles install base.
One of the reasons I planned to get this day one initially was to support the developer. There was little chance I would actually get to play it significantly at launch with several other games releasing around that time.
EternalDarko
Member
But isn't the fact that they get to sell on switch to a new userbase which can potentially be quite big, due to the newness and lack of a sprawling library of games to compete against - even at the price of $30 - completely new money that they would not have gotten otherwise - why can't that $30 per sale account for the additional dev/manufacturing costs?
Based on your assumption and their initial outlay, they would never have got those sales in the first place...and they certainly won't have to put in the same amount of costs that were put in to produce the PS4/XBO versions of the game in order to create the Switch variant, in fact, it would be pretty small additional costs for them.