Well that's unfortunate, but I'll likely be skipping this now.
This is what it comes down to with me as well.
This is what it comes down to with me as well.
-
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
I'll be skipping this now as well. The Switch announcement excited me as that's now my console of choice for most non-exclusive games, but the price increase is actually and totally unacceptable. I don't care about your increased manufacturing costs or development time. This is a case where transparency won't help. This is some bullshit regardless of the cost and I'm completely unsure as to why Nintendo hasn't cracked down on it.
This is bullshit and just makes you seem greedy, my dudes. It's a bad look. Especially to your average consumer.
This is bullshit and just makes you seem greedy, my dudes. It's a bad look. Especially to your average consumer.
Woah. Is that true? I guess I missed that. I need to pre-order....
I don't understand why the Switch's price is above the other systems but I'm really astonished about all the people that without watching a single screen/video of that version were to buy it until this news.Including people with others systems that can run the game without compromises.
With this said, the game should have the same price in all the systems.
With this said, the game should have the same price in all the systems.
MadClacker
Member
Why not just do retail for $40 and digital for $30?
Problem solved. :|
Problem solved. :|
Open price discrimination sucks and as this thread shows, pisses people off.
AcademicSaucer
Member
They shouldn't have even bothered with the Switch version if this really was the only way.
Yup. I really hope that people remain outspoken about this so other developers know better than to try it.
I've never wanted a game to bomb but this game should bomb. Poor business practices should be awarded with poor sales.
If the devs are reading this, I am interested in your game. Price it along with all the other platforms and you may have regained my purchase. I could buy it on PC or PS4 but fuck that, I'm not supporting what you're doing and will be sure to discourage anyone else from supporting it.
Getting the game to run on the switch through unreal is not a huge endeavor, I mean the engine is completely compatible. Now I'm sure optimization would take months, but from a technical standpoint, it should not take very long.
BTW I'm literally your future customer and I would buy a reasonably late port at the same asking price as other platforms, if cartridges cost $2 or $3, there is no reason that price should inflate to $10 and there is further no reason that you can't price the digital version in line with other platforms based on that.
Seriously, you guys have to be more specific as to what's going on, you're turning off your potential customers and indies thrive on good will, you'll lose sales beyond the switch platform. Cool game, don't let it leave a sour taste in our mouths.
No reason to think that Tantalus would do a bad job on the game, so I imagine there's some confidence there in how the game will turn out in the end. Of course, have we seen any video of the game running on any of the platforms so far? I give the Snake Pass guys credit for throwing the NS version front and center so people can see that game running and make a proper judgement on the game based on actual gameplay.
The other thing I noticed is that people just want games for the system and things that look interesting. Which works for this game. I thought this one looks pretty interesting and so after watching some trailers, I was willing to give it a shot. I won't be buying it for a premium, though. If it's the same price as all the other versions, I'll give it a try. If carts are the problem, then they need to at least have the digital version the same price as all the others.
It's all good that they wanted to get an NS version out the door fairly quick, but the logistics of this have nothing to do with the end user. All they want is the game to be the same across the board (or as close as they can get) at the same price. Because they aren't even adding anything new for NS owners, there's this idea that they're trying to take advantage of the userbase somehow. Maybe that's not the case, but that's how it comes across. At the end of the day whatever issues they had in developing the game doesn't matter to us. They're trying to pass the "cost" onto the NS player in a very open way and that's just not going to go over well unless they can justify it in some real way...which they haven't been able to do so far.
Simple, the Switch has not many adventure/action/story-driven games at launch.
People will be finishing or will have finished Zelda by then, meaning that they will be craving for more games like that on the console.
...Meaning that they are way more inclined to pay $40 for something like Rime than people on the other consoles and PC who are having an avalanche of games and may pass on Rime if they see it at $40.
Competition is hard on other consoles, hence the lower price.
This is what happens when there is not enough competition in a sub-market.
I understand their point of view but I still don't approve their practices. It should be the same price for all consoles unless they bundle a lot of extra content that could justify the increase in price.
If the costs were too high for them to develop a Switch version at the same price, then don't do it. Wait for the cashflows to come in from the other consoles and develop a Switch version at a lower pace that will warrant a $30 price tag on that console as well.
People will be finishing or will have finished Zelda by then, meaning that they will be craving for more games like that on the console.
...Meaning that they are way more inclined to pay $40 for something like Rime than people on the other consoles and PC who are having an avalanche of games and may pass on Rime if they see it at $40.
Competition is hard on other consoles, hence the lower price.
This is what happens when there is not enough competition in a sub-market.
I understand their point of view but I still don't approve their practices. It should be the same price for all consoles unless they bundle a lot of extra content that could justify the increase in price.
If the costs were too high for them to develop a Switch version at the same price, then don't do it. Wait for the cashflows to come in from the other consoles and develop a Switch version at a lower pace that will warrant a $30 price tag on that console as well.
If the game is really good I don't mind paying $40 for it. But I would just wait for an e-shop sale or try to find it discounted at retail somewhere most likely.
It all comes down to the reviews though. The game looks great but we shouldn't be blindly buying it because it reminds us of ICO. I think I read somewhere that it's estimated at 10-15 hours of gameplay which translates to "definitely wait for a sale" if they absolutely can't price it lower than $40.
It all comes down to the reviews though. The game looks great but we shouldn't be blindly buying it because it reminds us of ICO. I think I read somewhere that it's estimated at 10-15 hours of gameplay which translates to "definitely wait for a sale" if they absolutely can't price it lower than $40.
DeuceGamer
Member
It's a GameStop exclusive. If it costs so much to manufacture these Switch carts then how can they sell their game for $20? I can't believe there are people defending this.
gingerbeardman
Member
If it's not the dev decision, then they need to grow some balls and let their publisher know they're not happy with this
SomedayTheFire
Member
Come on man, that's a fucking stupid question. Has Been Heroes may have cost less to develop, that's why that's selling at $20 and can justify eating the cost of the cart production. Pointing out that carts are expensive isn't defending them raising the price, it's simply showing a reason that they did raise the price.
simple fact is the return on investment for physical switch games is lower than the disc based games. Again, I think it's wrong that they did this, but from a business point of view that's a big reason.
I'll just add I can go on PSN right now and finds plenty of iOS/Android games that were not only late ports but multiple times the price found on those platforms. If the game isn't worth $40 to you don't pay the price but I don't see what the cost on other platforms has to do with that. Especially since most seem to think if it was $40 across the board it would be OK.
Also when PC games are cheaper than console games I don't see an uproar. And the game being an inferior version has nothing to do with the developer so I don't get why that keeps getting brought up.
Finally puyo puyo is one game out of thousands and no that key chain did not cost $10 to manufacture. So why aren't they charging $29.50?
Games aren't sold at cost they are sold with profit in mind.
Also when PC games are cheaper than console games I don't see an uproar. And the game being an inferior version has nothing to do with the developer so I don't get why that keeps getting brought up.
Finally puyo puyo is one game out of thousands and no that key chain did not cost $10 to manufacture. So why aren't they charging $29.50?
Games aren't sold at cost they are sold with profit in mind.
You're comparing apples and oranges here, they're two completely different types of devices/marketplace. A switch is the same sort of device as a PS4/Xbox One, a gaming console, so it's easy to see why people expect parity of price across devices.
I think most here accept that physical switch releases will eb charged at a premium for the forseable future, however, Puyo Pop does the right thing by having a cheaper digital price in line with the physical release on other platforms.
RichiRamjag
Member
It wasn't a definite day one for me, but if the buzz was good enough and the price was $30, I'd likely give it a try just to have it on the go. Some of you really don't seem to understand that. I love indies, but i don't play as many of them as I'd like. Having the ability to take a game on the go can make it very appealing to people such as myself. Docked mode just icing on the cake for when I do feel like sitting around.
This price though kills it for me on all platforms. Not suporting such behavior.
Exactly. It's not my responsibility to worry about the internal factors nor anyone else's. The fact remains that I'm expected to pay more for the privilege of a late port and their reasoning is weak.
http://www.develop-online.net/press...ash-preorders-now-available-in-europe/0229129
In Europe it's the same as with Rime.
This.
RichiRamjag
Member
Pretty much. I can accept a price hike for physical. I don't get why people are defending this or bringing up puyo puyo. This is a thread on Rime and their pricing practices.
The beautiful part about this is that they can buy the North American version if they want to...which is cheaper.
People keep bringing up Puyo because other people keep saying "Games have to be released the same price physical and digital" and Puyo has 2 different price points so it disproves that statement. Then the next page comes and people make the claim that them must be the same price again, and then someone brings up Puyo .. and so on and so on.
And I agree I am willing to pay more for physical. It's only fair. That digital can't be the same price as the other versions is the sticking point for a lot of people.
.
Optimizing a game for a platform shouldn't cost more money either, why aren't other games doing this?.
As you're bringing up beautiful parts, light green is a very pretty colour.
In other words, your point doesn't change that this isn't an isolated case.
Not a good look. Not terribly surprising either. I think the standard pr in the past for this kinda thing is, "Fuck you Nintendo fans. You should be happy to get the game in any state."
So they'll get those early cats and after that they'll lower the price. Business as usual on Nintendo consoles.
So they'll get those early cats and after that they'll lower the price. Business as usual on Nintendo consoles.
As a UK person, I know, and I have contacted all parties involved for an explanation, but it has never been given. Makes no fucking sense.
I'll likely buy the US version digitally.
The physical version of HBH is only being sold direct from the same company that is publishing it. Its hardly the same situation
primasaurus
Member
It's BS that it's late and $10 more on the Switch, period. Though it would be sweet to have it on the go, so disappointing
You're right, but my point was that the game can be purchased cheaper if someone wants to get around it. It still sucks all kind of ass, though. I don't deny that. I think companies trying to take advantage of NS owners is total bullshit and needs to be fixed. Of course, if they're game doesn't sell, they'll blame it on the players....
Eolz
Member
Wow.
I guess that no media cares about this because they look only at us versions of games?
shadow2810
Member
Yes but it's not the same in NA.
They have a few fair points though. Porting the game to a weaker console, smaller user base, more expensive media - taking all of that into consideration, it may be necessary to remain profitable. This is a fairly small publisher/developer here.
Other publishers like Ubisoft and Koch Media aren't doing it any differently.
Yeah, but in Europe it is that way.
DeuceGamer
Member
The point is it's the same price on PS4/X1. If the manufacturing costs were that significant like others are claiming then how can this indie dev sell their game at the same prices as the other consoles?
It's a very valid point, especially if they are trying to claim that the price difference is $10 dollars. If the costs for Switch carts were that high, there is no way that Has Been Heroes could afford a Physical version to be $20 if half of that went to manufacturing prices for the Switch version.
Edit: To be clear, carts may cost a bit more, but there is no way the difference is $10
Again, none of that matters to the end user. They don't care whether or not it was hard or easy to do. And they shouldn't. It's the developer/publisher's job to convince us that it's worth paying the price for this. If they can't do that, then it'll fail. I just think that they need to accept the fact that this is a real possibility, because right now they're not doing a good job of convincing and it's probably going to hurt them in the long run. If they weren't going to be able to get the game out in time or for the same cost as other versions, they should have avoided it all-together. All they're doing it pushing the dev costs onto the player and in this case it's not good PR for them.
If I was them, I'd dial it back and at least make the digital version the same price as the others. Saves face, and kills this topic before it gains a whole lot of traction. People can be reasonable, but this whole situation just isn't good. It's gonna be late, with no extras, and costs more. Yeah, not a good way to go.
DeuceGamer
Member
Agree. If they can't release a port on Switch at the same price and be profitable, they probably shouldn't waste their investment as it's just bad all around PR. If it skipped Switch I would have picked it up on PS4, now I will skip it completely.
Yup, the end user doesn't care about that, I agree. But I think we're not just discussing about the position of the end user here - we're also talking about potential reasons for why they are charging a higher price. If you're not interested in that discussion, you can feel free to ignore points brought up with regard to that.
From a sales perspective, you are right. Yet I believe it's just a minority on online forums comparing prices of different platform's versions. If you go to retailers, you often see the same game at different prices for different platforms.
In the end I also wouldn't buy Rime on Switch at a higher price despite preferring the Switch's portability. Then again, as it's a retail game I could wait for a discount or coupon code to get it cheaper later on.
Nonetheless, naming purely "greed" for the higher price (as users some do) seems questionable when other publishers are also making their Switch versions more expensive, and that's why I that discussion remains relevant.
I genuinely don't know what they thought was going to happen.
Phillips455
Member
I just can't believe that companies are doing this with switch games, first with puyo puyo tetris (in Europe), then USF2HD turbo xd plus alpha whatever,and now this...
If the switch has extra costs to port to it, I'd rather it gets left with the switch owners, and not spread to other systems
.
They farmed out development of the Switch version out to another developer in order to get the NS version out in time.
Tons of devs do that without adding another cost.
It's not even out in time, it's releasing later.
I think you're overstating this. I searched for several keywords (Rime, Tequilaworks, Rime Switch) and it didn't seem to generate a lot of buzz. Those stating they aren't buying it on any platform now may exist, but I doubt that they would've bought the game at launch anyway. If the game is good, it's their loss. If it's bad, they did everything right anyway.
Even if the devs have good intentions I don't see myself getting this on my switch when I can save 10 bucks by getting it on PC.
Seems counter-intuitive to go through the extra cost and effort to port it to switch if you're just going to disincentivize getting it there with a higher price point.
I don't really see Switch users going for this unless they're uninformed, for some reason don't have any other console, or they really want to play it on the go, I am not sure if it's worth $10 extra dollars for a portable version, it isn't to me.
But then again I don't really know anything about the business and costs of game development so what do i know.
Seems counter-intuitive to go through the extra cost and effort to port it to switch if you're just going to disincentivize getting it there with a higher price point.
I don't really see Switch users going for this unless they're uninformed, for some reason don't have any other console, or they really want to play it on the go, I am not sure if it's worth $10 extra dollars for a portable version, it isn't to me.
But then again I don't really know anything about the business and costs of game development so what do i know.
I searched on Twitter "latest" and it's mentioned a lot, articles about it retweeted regularly etc. we probably just have different b definitions of what being discussed a lot are. This thread is up to a thousand posts. It's very discussed news here.
Well, that's certainly a bullshit practise. If it's more expensive to do a physical version, there is precedent to only make that one more expensive and the eShop version cheaper.
If the port's more expensive - tough luck, if you don't think it's feasible to release the game on the platform, you're free not to.
This is a practise that has put me off the game entirely though. I had mild interest before, but there's enough to play anyway to not support this. I'll put my money elsewhere and not even buy this on PC.
If the port's more expensive - tough luck, if you don't think it's feasible to release the game on the platform, you're free not to.
This is a practise that has put me off the game entirely though. I had mild interest before, but there's enough to play anyway to not support this. I'll put my money elsewhere and not even buy this on PC.