There is no physical release of Ray Gigant in English other than Limited Run Games release. There is no Asian English release of Ray Gigant.
-
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.
Limited Run Games - Putting digital games into your hands
- Thread starter dallow_bg
- Start date
- Status
There is no physical release of Ray Gigant in English other than Limited Run Games release. There is no Asian English release of Ray Gigant.
i was using it as an example when comparing the $5 sale price for a game that has been out over 12 months to a newly released physical version of the game for $40
Dramatic Create's turn today - it's The House in Fata Morgana, Ozmafia, A Clockwork Leyline and Chusingura 46+1! All games have english localizations.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
Yeah, man, no worries. Ray Gigant was one of the bigger titles from a legit publisher that skipped retail in the west for no good reason. I personally wasn't too excited about it, but if you were, then there's no reason it would bother you. Plus, who knows? I did open it, but haven't gotten around to playing it (half my burn out is from backlog). I might like it and then have to eat my words.
I'm willing to pay a premium for the stuff I'm into, like Dariusburst CS, so I can't knock it. The LRG Vita cart will technically be the 4th time I've paid for it.
The thing about a normal $40-60 retail release is that you don't have to buy it day 1 or else it's gone. You can get it when it's convenient for you to do so, whether that's still at full price or heavily discounted down the line. Feeling pressured to buy *right now* with a $25 title isn't so bad, but feeling pressured to spend $40, $50, $60, or $25+$25 *right now* or forever hold your peace? That's when people start to get more conscientious about price, personal budget, and whether or not any given game is something they really want.
Grim Patron
Member
It is more to do with the fact that a lot of games that get released dont interest me.
Like I dont care abotu sword art online games after getting bored af with hollow fragment.
Pellegri Testament
Member
No Switch releases for the foreseeable future.
Noooo. Was afraid of that after not hearing anything for a bit. Lots of games are probably going to end up with their only release on the wrong platform (for me).
Risk of Rain is still available for PS4, I thought that one would sell out in minutes
https://limitedrungames.com/products/limited-run-58-risk-of-rain-ps4?variant=36285466179
https://limitedrungames.com/products/limited-run-58-risk-of-rain-ps4?variant=36285466179
Grim Patron
Member
I wonder if i should order 1 PS4 + 1 Vita for my friend.
I already ordered the PS4+V+Vinyl for myself.
otaku-asia
Member
I've ordered it for Vita but I personally don't understand the appeal of it. I get it, apparently it's done very well, at least on Steam, but it really doesn't look like the kind of game I'd ever play. I guess I'm getting too old to understand what kids like nowadays. :-D
I would say the opposite. Its aimed towards a "hardcore" audience. It takes time to master but when you do its super fun. Also probably one of the best soundtracks ever
eXistor
Member
Holy shit, finally! Great news.
eXistor
Member
Fake, though
Oh come on! I got really excited for this. Goddammit.
Kresnik258
Member
Both versions still around 25%. Eep?
iirc New 'n Tasty lasted until Sunday morning and look at that now, i'm not saying it'll turn out that way but seeing it back then and now really confuses me how it's one of the more expensive games on PS4 to buy now
Surprised by this too. Risk of Rain is generally very well liked and I see it frequently recommended in Vita discussions as one of the best indies on the system. I don't really hang around PC and PS4 communities as much but I'm under the impression that it's a very well liked game there too. I think it's a fantastic game myself.
Kresnik258
Member
The conversation Josh has been having about producing limited runs for Switch is fairly interesting. He's very complimentary of PlayStation while hinting that Nintendo are being kinda difficult:
https://twitter.com/LimitedRunJosh/status/868309751863685120
https://twitter.com/LimitedRunJosh/status/868309751863685120
Nachtfalke
Member
By the surprise of no one. It's still Nintendo after all.
He also mentioned that Microsoft have some legit reasons why they can't lower the minimum order quantities. Would love to know more about it.
But it's nice to read that Sony gives them and small developers/publishers in general the support they need. For me it's a huge image boost. All these nice limited run games, not just from LRG themself, are only possible thanks to them. And as a physical collector I can't thank them enough for that.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
Oh shit I didn't know Risk of Rain was still in stock. Some stuff came up yesterday and I couldn't order it and I just assumed it sold out right away. Hopefully it's still in stock for a bit longer until I get home.
They were supposed to open up a bit to indies but they seem as rigorous as ever.
I almost wish it was just a technical difficulty like with Microsoft :/
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Nintendo and Microsoft are so shitty with this. Both need games so I don't understand it at all.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
Managed to grab a copy of Risk of Rain thanks for the heads up. Trying out the hold shipping for the first time.
foobarry81
Member
Honestly, I really believe this is more a matter of perception.
Nintendo does support indie developers, e.g. by pushing them in their Nintendo Directs etc. I think that kind of exposure can be priceless for indie devs.
Nintendo just don't seem to be interested in physical releases of those types of games at this point. They've been pushing their eShop for quite a while now (they had to do some catching up compared to their competitors after all), so maybe it just doesn't make sense for them right now to do the sort of stuff LRG wants to do. It sends out the wrong message, i.e. buy digital.
Microsoft, I don't know, because I don't own any of their consoles and don't follow them up as closely. But I assume they have their own ways to lure indie devs in (e.g. technical support with their dev kits or whatever)
As for Sony, I feel like they've always been sort of inconsistent in their policies. Right now, they've been really lenient to these kinds of low budget projects like the stuff LRG does. But that hasn't always been the case in my understanding. Early on in the PS3 era, they were not as pleasant to deal with from what I can tell.
Also, y'all seem to have forgotten already that they put next to no effort in keeping the Vita a viable platform. It's one thing to allow for small quantities printed, but if the Vita had been a success, maybe some games could've sold a lot more copies on the platform. Surely this is benefitting indie devs and smaller publishers, but if the Vita were a commercial success, it could've benefitted them a lot more.
Kresnik258
Member
I don't really see what this has to do with anything. The twitter conversation Josh was having was saying that Sony treated LRG like they were an AAA publisher. The fact they're doing that and hell, didn't treat many AAA publishers like they were anything special, surely goes well in their favor.
I understand what you're saying with the last line but it's all relative. Could they have pumped billions into Vita to make it sell better which may have benefited indies? Sure, but that's one hell of an ask. They didn't do that, but that doesn't mean they can't still be at the top of their game for treating what's left of dev's on Vita with respect, which apparently is what they're doing according to Josh.
foobarry81
Member
Billions, lol.
Strong first party support is key for any platform and it ultimately benefits all involved. My take is that it would likely support third parties more than allowing them to print small quantities on the platform. Bigger install base = more potential sales = more potential income.
I'm not sure where I supposedly implied that they aren't treating LRG right...? I'm just saying that this whole idea that Nintendo and/or Microsoft are useless when it comes to dealing with indie devs and/or publishers may be a matter of perception.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
This isn't even the first time this gen already. The CSH devs also got turned down by Nintendo for the same reason: that they're looking for bigger games, this is not their priority right now or whatever the fuck.
Your statement about what they did historically is totally irrelevant. Nobody cares about history. It's about what they are doing now.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
I'd say companies are more open when they or a platform are doing worse, like with the Vita, but X1 and WiiU never opened up with lower minimum order quantities for LRG either, despite both platforms being in a tough spot at times, and despite fan requests since LRG's inception.
foobarry81
Member
You were right when you said earlier that you don't understand it at all. History is important. Always. I will explain below.
But first: all these companies are in the business of making money. Nintendo doesn't think allowing low quantities is a winning strategy - for them - to get to that goal. Every company has limited resources They probably don't want to spend time and money dealing with these smaller physical release projects. It likely isn't very profitable, maybe it would even cost them money. Money they don't want to leave on the table right now, after a not very profitable era with the Wii U. Or maybe, as I said earlier, they are not interested in physical releases, and mainly want to get those indies on their eShop? Indie devs can still publish digitally on their platforms, right?
Meanwhile, I can't imagine Sony making lots of money off of LRG's dealings. Maybe their strategy is a bit more long term, building relationships now at a minor cost, that could turn out profitable in the future. Who knows?
That doesn't mean that either of them treats indie devs or publishers better or worse, or that indie devs can only make money on Sony platforms and not on Nintendo platforms. Some policies of Nintendo might actually be more interesting to indie devs. Likely those are policies you personally don't care for at all. But that doesn't mean Nintendo are "shitty" with indie devs.
Thing is: it's their platform, so they decide what the rules are and what they think is the best strategy to make it financially interesting for themselves and for third parties.
As for history: companies prefer stable investment environments. If Sony's history is any indication, it could mean that they could end the support indies are *currently* enjoying at any point. Right now, LRG is heavily relying on Sony allowing them to print limited quantities on Vita and PS4. If Sony decides tomorrow to entirely stop supporting the Vita in the West, that would be a major problem for LRG's business.
So history IS important, not just the present. Sony needs to be a reliable partner to LRG, and going by their history Sony hasn't always been a reliable partner. Meanwhile, Nintendo is not a company that changes their policies lightly. They are more predictable, and thus more reliable to partners.
foobarry81
Member
Correct. Meanwhile, not being reliable is generally shitty in a business environment.
"You reliably cannot publish in our platform"
Of course, yeah, Vita selling more would profit indies...and Nintendo is thinking profits and do what they want with their ressources. Nobody disputes that.
It's just Nintendo specifically advertized they'd be more indie friendly since the end of the Wii U, and proofs are rare. SteamWorld and FAST Racing Neo were the two first and only Indieshop Retail games. Binding of Isaac will have a physical retail...and that's all. I don't recall them doing much marketing for digital indie games.
Them not working with LRG does not mean they're not pro indies ; it's however not the proof we're waiting that they are
It's just Nintendo specifically advertized they'd be more indie friendly since the end of the Wii U, and proofs are rare. SteamWorld and FAST Racing Neo were the two first and only Indieshop Retail games. Binding of Isaac will have a physical retail...and that's all. I don't recall them doing much marketing for digital indie games.
Them not working with LRG does not mean they're not pro indies ; it's however not the proof we're waiting that they are
foobarry81
Member
Har har.
Of course, yeah, Vita selling more would profit indies...and Nintendo is thinking profits and do what they want with their ressources. Nobody disputes that.
It's just Nintendo specifically advertized they'd be more indie friendly since the end of the Wii U, and proofs are rare. SteamWorld and FAST Racing Neo were the two first and only Indieshop Retail games. Binding of Isaac will have a physical retail...and that's all. I don't recall them doing much marketing for digital indie games.
Them not working with LRG does not mean they're not pro indies ; it's however not the proof we're waiting that they are
Being "indie friendly" is not necessarily the same as catering towards the physical collector market.
The "proof" you're looking for is the effort Nintendo puts in facilitating indie developers to publish for their platforms, be it the 3DS or their home consoles. The proof is not in the number of physical releases
"Facilitating indie developers" can mean a lot of things. It can include exposure through Nintendo's own marketing efforts, it could mean technical assistance, it could mean a tailored fee or payment programme, ... etc.
And they always include indie releases in their Nintendo Directs. They've been doing that for a while now.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, btw: I don't care for digital releases. I only have a very limited number of them on consoles myself. Nintendo or Sony or whoever don't get my money with those. I'll pay more for a physical release any time. Being in Europe, I refuse to buy SMT IV on 3DS for example. (Imported the US release and will need an American 3DS at some point. Thanks a lot, Atlus!)
But the reality is that even though there clearly is a market for indie retail releases, it's a small one and not the type of market those large companies want to invest in heavily. People on here tend to forget about that once in a while. What LRG does is not the norm, and it will never be. It's "Limited" for a reason.
You'll notice I said I didn't see Nintendo supporting much digital indie games either. I'm not just talking about retail, so your point is moot :x
foobarry81
Member
It is moot only if you lack nuance.
Please read again:
"Facilitating indie developers" can mean a lot of things. It can include exposure through Nintendo's own marketing efforts, it could mean technical assistance, it could mean a tailored fee or payment programme, ... etc.
Where does it say anything about the amount of digital indie games in the eShop, which apparently is "proof" to you of them being indie friendly or not?
Let me return to that point I made about history some posts ago. It's in Nintendo's DNA to be picky about what they allow on their platforms. There are historic reasons for that (the game industry crash in the late 1970s, early 1980s). Likely, they are still being picky today. I don't know their inner workings. But that doesn't mean they didn't open up their platforms to lower budget efforts.
In YOUR interpretation should them advertising they are indie friendly mean that they allow whatever on their platform (or at least a whole lot more), like Steam does. Well, the way Steam does it, is arguably not ideal. Nintendo seems to think so too. So in THEIR interpretation being indie friendly seemingly means that they select indie projects they think are an asset to their market place (e.g. for Switch you got releases such as Shovel Knight, Binding of Isaac, Tumbleseed, Has-Been Heroes, ...), and then help out those devs to get the game in the eShop. It likely means that they adjusted their internal processes and procedures to cater them more towards small studios who can't afford expensive procedures.
A platform holder can be "indie friendly" in the sense that they let their market be flooded with whatever. Or they can be "indie friendly" in the sense that they work closely with a type of companies that they would previously not work with before, and adjust their processes to those new partners. Nuance.
Like I said early on: it's all a matter of perception. You don't think they're indie friendly, because you don't like what they have to offer on their market place (or you dislike the lack of physical releases).
Kresnik258
Member
I mean, I'm assuming we're talking successful in the traditional 60-80m range? Considering Vita ended up at 15m, it'd take some major investment to turn that around (and the games Sony publishes or would need to buy to get it to that number isn't gonna be cheap
)Tssk. No need to go full-on relativism. Ok I "think" they're not super indie friendly, and I "think" they haven't become much indiefriendlier since they advertized they'd actually become indiefriendlier.
I don't feel like writing walls of text to argue anyway
I'll be hoping LRG eventually manages to do business with them, though.
Grim Patron
Member
Dont hate on nindies!
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Damn that's the worst yet
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Both need games? all LRGs releases are games that already exist so wtf does that even mean lol
Olengie
Member
nope.
- Status