Jump to content


* * * * * 1 votes

Limited Run Games - "You're Limited, No You're Limited" Discussion Thread

limited run games train wreck here we go well alright then discussion please help us josh please help us doug derailment abound

#31 Squarehard   Nyaa~ CAGiversary!   20382 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Posted 14 August 2017 - 04:20 PM

It's okay.

 

Josh did it in two paragraphs.

 

That's good enough for me too. :D


gjDkeqL.gifv3llIct.gif

Spoiler

#32 romeogbs19   Henshin A Go-Go Baby! CAGiversary!   2174 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

romeogbs19

Posted 14 August 2017 - 11:02 PM

Thank you Squarehard and Josh for putting an end to frolow's condescending rants.

HENSHIN A GO GO BABY!

161803_s.gif   200.gif


#33 frolow   Official /v/ ambassador CAGiversary!   479 Posts   Joined 4.8 Years Ago  

Posted 14 August 2017 - 11:17 PM

Real quick I just want to thank Squarehard and Doomsink for being reasonable and engaging in discussion, I'll respond to Squarehard's post when I have the time later. Leaps and bounds better than most everyone else in this thread acting like children in a clique.

 

I mean, the reprint discussion starts and ends with the fact that we could be sued for false advertising. There's not really much discussion beyond this.

To be honest, I think that's a cop-out answer. I fail to see how it's false advertising in the first place. Yes, the main releases are marketed as "limited", but not in the sports card style when they're so purposefully rare, they're individually numbered with that being their main draw. It's not like you're printing more copies of a CE that's purposefully marketed as having only X in existence and is numbered to say so.

The reprints would still be considered "limited" in the same sense as every other main release. In the example I provided before, the Dariusburst reprint would have a run limited to 2000 copies. It would still be a "limited run", LRG would profit for less work than a main release, people get the opportunity to own a release they missed out on, and it undercuts scalpers. That's a win for everyone.

 

And honestly, do you legitimately believe someone will sue for doing reprints? Some elitist collectors and scalpers might get upset, but not even close to the degree of a lawsuit. Considering all the actually shady shit the video game industry at large pulls with legitimate false advertising in trailers, and the fact that nobody has tried to sue them, I find it hard to believe.
 

Even if we wanted to reprint games, we said we never would and we advertised that fact. I'd rather not get sued.

Do you guys advertise that fact? There's a small blurb on the website's about page, but nothing on the pages for game releases (which is what the majority of people click on). Only a plain message stating "Standard edition is limited to X copies available worldwide". No extravagant details about this release being your only opportunity to buy the game from LRG ever (and likely the only opportunity to buy a physical copy of the game ever). Nothing parading the purposeful lack of reprints. The lack of them definitely isn't a large part of the marketing (unless you want to get into semantics about the name of the company itself).

 

That leads into my next point: I honestly doubt most hardcore collectors would even get upset at reprints in the first place. If I were to give a list of demographics of people who buy from LRG, it would look something like this:

  1. Collectors who buy every release because they're going for a complete collection
  2. People who legitimately want to play the game and/or own a physical copy of a game they like. (Can be mixed with the first group depending on the release)
  3. Scalpers.

The vast majority of people aren't buying from LRG because only so many copies exist. It fuels the speculative nature behind releases sure, but it's not close to being the main reason why people buy.

 

 

There's also a matter of trust - if customers can't trust what we say or the promises we make, our business will quickly crumble. We gave customers our word and we have to stick to that. There are plenty of other routes for our partners to take to do their own reprints.

Like I said before, the lack of reprints isn't exactly paraded around as a big marketing thing besides the name. You can't exactly break a promise when it barely exists in the eyes of most in the first place. LRG would probably gain more positive PR from reprinting sought-after games and undercutting scalpers than any potential blowback from doing reprints.

 

To sum up, I don't think you risk significant pushback from doing reprints. I think you are constraining yourself by keeping to this uber-limited mantra in regards to reprints instead. Adhering to this rule so diligently only serves to fuel the speculative market and give more ammunition to scalpers (who people constantly complain about). Catering primarily towards crowd goes against why me and many others supported this LRG in the first place; to own and preserve digital games through physical media. And I think you risk losing customers if this push towards the speculative side continues, or at the very least the customers who helped LRG grow into what it is today



#34 chimpmeister   Hates gimmicks CAGiversary!   3957 Posts   Joined 12.0 Years Ago  

chimpmeister

Posted 15 August 2017 - 12:11 AM

Real quick I just want to thank Squarehard and Doomsink for being reasonable and engaging in discussion, I'll respond to Squarehard's post when I have the time later. Leaps and bounds better than most everyone else in this thread acting like children in a clique.

To be honest, I think that's a cop-out answer. I fail to see how it's false advertising in the first place. Yes, the main releases are marketed as "limited", but not in the sports card style when they're so purposefully rare, they're individually numbered with that being their main draw. It's not like you're printing more copies of a CE that's purposefully marketed as having only X in existence and is numbered to say so.
The reprints would still be considered "limited" in the same sense as every other main release. In the example I provided before, the Dariusburst reprint would have a run limited to 2000 copies. It would still be a "limited run", LRG would profit for less work than a main release, people get the opportunity to own a release they missed out on, and it undercuts scalpers. That's a win for everyone.

And honestly, do you legitimately believe someone will sue for doing reprints? Some elitist collectors and scalpers might get upset, but not even close to the degree of a lawsuit. Considering all the actually shady shit the video game industry at large pulls with legitimate false advertising in trailers, and the fact that nobody has tried to sue them, I find it hard to believe.

Do you guys advertise that fact? There's a small blurb on the website's about page, but nothing on the pages for game releases (which is what the majority of people click on). Only a plain message stating "Standard edition is limited to X copies available worldwide". No extravagant details about this release being your only opportunity to buy the game from LRG ever (and likely the only opportunity to buy a physical copy of the game ever). Nothing parading the purposeful lack of reprints. The lack of them definitely isn't a large part of the marketing (unless you want to get into semantics about the name of the company itself).

That leads into my next point: I honestly doubt most hardcore collectors would even get upset at reprints in the first place. If I were to give a list of demographics of people who buy from LRG, it would look something like this:

  • Collectors who buy every release because they're going for a complete collection
  • People who legitimately want to play the game and/or own a physical copy of a game they like. (Can be mixed with the first group depending on the release)
  • Scalpers.
The vast majority of people aren't buying from LRG because only so many copies exist. It fuels the speculative nature behind releases sure, but it's not close to being the main reason why people buy.

Like I said before, the lack of reprints isn't exactly paraded around as a big marketing thing besides the name. You can't exactly break a promise when it barely exists in the eyes of most in the first place. LRG would probably gain more positive PR from reprinting sought-after games and undercutting scalpers than any potential blowback from doing reprints.

To sum up, I don't think you risk significant pushback from doing reprints. I think you are constraining yourself by keeping to this uber-limited mantra in regards to reprints instead. Adhering to this rule so diligently only serves to fuel the speculative market and give more ammunition to scalpers (who people constantly complain about). Catering primarily towards crowd goes against why me and many others supported this LRG in the first place; to own and preserve digital games through physical media. And I think you risk losing customers if this push towards the speculative side continues, or at the very least the customers who helped LRG grow into what it is today
Quoted to preserve post from altering/deletion. Sad that some people self-destruct like this, and just continue to beat the dead horse.

#35 reaperztoll  

reaperztoll

Posted 15 August 2017 - 12:12 AM

"At Limited Run Games our releases truly are limited. Once a game sells out, it will never be available from us again! We believe that as collectors and consumers you should be able to trust when we say our games are limited. They are!"

 

 

Literally word for word from the about us page. Holy shit you are dense kid.


Too much real life, not enough time for video games


#36 frolow   Official /v/ ambassador CAGiversary!   479 Posts   Joined 4.8 Years Ago  

Posted 15 August 2017 - 12:31 AM

"At Limited Run Games our releases truly are limited. Once a game sells out, it will never be available from us again! We believe that as collectors and consumers you should be able to trust when we say our games are limited. They are!"

 

 

Literally word for word from the about us page. Holy shit you are dense kid.

Maybe if you read the post you would know I mentioned this.

 

Quoted to preserve post from altering/deletion. Sad that some people self-destruct like this, and just continue to beat the dead horse.

If you have nothing to contribute you should step away from this discussion, adults are speaking.



#37 reaperztoll  

reaperztoll

Posted 15 August 2017 - 12:34 AM

Maybe if you read the post you would know I mentioned that.

It's a statement that clearly makes a promise that they won't reprint titles which you are ignoring conveniently saying it's "a small blurb". That is a textbook example of false advertising, they would be facing exposure regardless of the fact it's not printed in 30" tall letters. I'm calling you dense because you read it yourself, mentioned it, then completely dismissed it.

 

Part of running a business is being intelligent, whether someone would win the case or not it costs money to defend and the stress associated is never worth it. I'd guess you are probably 20ish years old and very full of energy and righteousness but that isn't how the real world works.


Too much real life, not enough time for video games


#38 frolow   Official /v/ ambassador CAGiversary!   479 Posts   Joined 4.8 Years Ago  

Posted 15 August 2017 - 01:01 AM

It's a statement that clearly makes a promise that they won't reprint titles which you are ignoring conveniently saying it's "a small blurb". That is a textbook example of false advertising, they would be facing exposure regardless of the fact it's not printed in 30" tall letters. I'm calling you dense because you read it yourself, mentioned it, then completely dismissed it.

 

Part of running a business is being intelligent, whether someone would win the case or not it costs money to defend and the stress associated is never worth it. I'd guess you are probably 20ish years old and very full of energy and righteousness but that isn't how the real world works.

It does make that promise, I'm not arguing with you there. It still is a small blurb though, it's on an about page which, realistically, 95% of people aren't going to read or know about. The point is LRG doesn't go out of their way to shout this fact from the high heavens, it's not a big reason people buy their releases. There would be little blowback because of this.

 

You're also ignoring the point I brought up about the game industry at large committing actual false advertisement with trailers and never getting sued. If something that's legitimately and blatantly illegal has resulted in zero game companies getting sued, then LRG can easily (and legally) back away from a small mission statement on their website. They are at no credible risk of getting sued. If you are absolutely and utterly avoidant of the most minuscule amount of risk, then change the mission statement and only apply the reprint policy to games released after the fact.



#39 reaperztoll  

reaperztoll

Posted 15 August 2017 - 01:14 AM

It does make that promise, I'm not arguing with you there. It still is a small blurb though, it's on an about page which, realistically, 95% of people aren't going to read or know about. The point is LRG doesn't go out of their way to shout this fact from the high heavens, it's not a big reason people buy their releases. There would be little blowback because of this.

 

You're also ignoring the point I brought up about the game industry at large committing actual false advertisement with trailers and never getting sued. If something that's legitimately and blatantly illegal has resulted in zero game companies getting sued, then LRG can easily (and legally) back away from a small mission statement on their website. They are at no credible risk of getting sued. If you are absolutely and utterly avoidant of the most minuscule amount of risk, then change the mission statement and only apply the reprint policy to games released after the fact.

The game industry at large isn't a tiny company with minimal resources. EA can say whatever they want, you want to sue them? They will swat you like a gnat in a heartbeat. No offense to Josh but unless they became wildly capitalized sometime in the recent past I'd bet they don't have major liquidity to defend against a suit or suits. Nor do most small businesses for that matter.

 

I really don't think you are grasping the tenacity(maybe ferocity would be a better word?) that people have about rare items. Look at how angry people are getting that they missed out on the shiny...now imagine that six months from now LRG says "whoops, JK we are making 10,000 more!". You would have an equally violent reaction from the people who bought it and now consider it to be worthless. Manufacturers have been sued for things like this in the past by the way, it's not a unique situation.

 

Most importantly though, Josh already said no in this very thread. Let's ignore the lawsuit point, Josh said he feels it's a breach of trust. Can you posit a counter argument to that based on anything but your own opinion and feelings? Because if it's yours against the boss, the boss always wins...


Too much real life, not enough time for video games


#40 Squarehard   Nyaa~ CAGiversary!   20382 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Posted 15 August 2017 - 01:29 AM

To be honest, I think that's a cop-out answer. I fail to see how it's false advertising in the first place. Yes, the main releases are marketed as "limited", but not in the sports card style when they're so purposefully rare, they're individually numbered with that being their main draw. It's not like you're printing more copies of a CE that's purposefully marketed as having only X in existence and is numbered to say so.

The reprints would still be considered "limited" in the same sense as every other main release. In the example I provided before, the Dariusburst reprint would have a run limited to 2000 copies. It would still be a "limited run",

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a cop out answer, but more just stating it is what it is.  When you say "a cop-out answer", is that referencing that it's not the answer to a problem, or saying that it's a inadequate response to your question?  Mainly just trying to get clarification so I can understand exactly what you mean.  I mean, I do understand that you like to compare this to other things as you've done so previously, but while it's fine to use things as examples, I don't believe it's fair to equate apples to oranges, mainly in reference to your collector cards comparison.  I mean, I understand it too as I used to collect cards quite religiously back in the early 90s when they were still the shit, but I still have large hesitation to use that as an example.

 

I think a more comparable, or more recent example I can think of is something like the Retro City Rampage DX reprint from months ago.  That was a title that was reprinted with what you are noting, and more comparable than trying to match it to a completely different product line, and collector's community.  Now, yes that RCR DX reprint also sold out eventually, so in this example it does show that it can be done without too much backlash, and all the other caveats I have mentioned before in regards to outcry.  However, it's a bit different in that case because one of the main things is that the structure of the development/publishing are different.  With the way LRG have things in place on paper, it'd be a bit harder for them to have to go back and forth on the decision making with the developers to work things out again.  Could it be easy?  Maybe.  Could it be difficult?  Maybe as well.  Here are the things they know.  It's in the contract.  That's what they advertised.  Everything else is more assumption than based on evidence, so I feel in this case they're trying to err on the side of caution, other than going through with it.

LRG would profit for less work than a main release, people get the opportunity to own a release they missed out on, and it undercuts scalpers. That's a win for everyone.

But the real question here I believe is do they need to?  And I feel this is really important too.  What are the repercussions if they don't do it?  Are there any significant ones that's going to be a problem to them, or still more of a problem for the consumer?  I feel if we take the idea of LRG making more money out of this comment, the underlying issues that are present doesn't really seem like much of an issue to LRG from a business standpoint, and it just does not feel like a necessity to me.

And honestly, do you legitimately believe someone will sue for doing reprints? Some elitist collectors and scalpers might get upset, but not even close to the degree of a lawsuit. Considering all the actually shady shit the video game industry at large pulls with legitimate false advertising in trailers, and the fact that nobody has tried to sue them, I find it hard to believe.

I mean, people can sue for anything, so I wouldn't necessarily say that so concretely as it'd never happen. ;D  Of course, it probably wouldn't, but the real question here is why would they need to risk it to do this?  Just as I mentioned above, if we continue to work under the assumption that LRG does not need to make more money outside of what they already have in place; what is really left?  I'm not sure I'm really down with the analogy you used again either, comparing LRG to video game industry trailers, and what they advertise.  I'm not sure if you have an actual example you can give of false advertising for a video game though, so if you have one you can think of off the top of your head that might be helpful in understanding you what you're trying to say, just to clarify that is because I can't think of one myself.  If any of the examples you give are from larger companies, I think one thing that could be argued for that as well is the difference between LRG's operation size, compared to some of the larger companies. 

 

And even though this is not something I have personal experience, I am not sure it's correct to claim that video game companies have not been sued as a result of the videos/trailers they've posted on games.  Companies can get sued without the actual case going public.  There are undisclosed settlements that can be done, and because they are undisclosed, we don't know.  There's just a lot we don't know about whether or not this does happen in the industry, so I don't think it's fair to make this claim without adequate evidence to support it.

Do you guys advertise that fact? There's a small blurb on the website's about page, but nothing on the pages for game releases (which is what the majority of people click on). Only a plain message stating "Standard edition is limited to X copies available worldwide". No extravagant details about this release being your only opportunity to buy the game from LRG ever (and likely the only opportunity to buy a physical copy of the game ever). Nothing parading the purposeful lack of reprints. The lack of them definitely isn't a large part of the marketing (unless you want to get into semantics about the name of the company itself).

They may only have a small blurb of that on their website, but as well all know in this current age, what they've said publicly can easily be seen as evidence of them "advertising" the fact that things are truly limited.  Even though it's not stated on their website, they've stated it on a multitude of forums they wouldn't, they've stated it on Twitter extensively that they wouldn't, they've stated it at conventions and conferences that they wouldn't, and they stated it in their contracts that they wouldn't.  While there is only a small blurb on their website, their range of advertising is much more far reaching than just what is listed on their website.

 

I mean, isn't this one of the strengths of LRG, and that is in the accessibility of its owners, staff, and others that are so readily, and willing to be as transparent as they can be on these matters?  Although, in this particular scenario you've mentioned, it may have hurt them from that particular aspect, more so than helped.

That leads into my next point: I honestly doubt most hardcore collectors would even get upset at reprints in the first place. If I were to give a list of demographics of people who buy from LRG, it would look something like this:

  1. Collectors who buy every release because they're going for a complete collection
  2. People who legitimately want to play the game and/or own a physical copy of a game they like. (Can be mixed with the first group depending on the release)
  3. Scalpers.

To be honest, I feel that two out of those three groups would actually be upset for a variety of reasons.

 

Collectors themselves can be upset for a couple of reasons.  Personally, as I've stated before about my own feelings of reprints, I don't really like them, particularly when the item was advertised as limited.  Sort of reminds me of the way NISA has been sneaking in reprints of their Limited Editions, and also more mainstream, the way that Nintendo have been doing it for awhile now with their standard edition games, and making them the same.  Of course, these aren't the perfect comparisons, as the one above on RCR DX would probably be the closest comparison, but just the idea in it of itself irks me for sure, and I'd assume others as well.

 

There is also something that collectors like to complain about, which doesn't happen as often, but is still a complain I've seen from time to time so I'll just put it here even if it may not be the most applicable, but it's the idea of making it difficult for collectors to have a complete collections when they keep coming out with different editions of games, including different cover variants, and what not.  I mean, even in the thread now, we always seem people complaint about cover variants, and in many of these cases it's not even a valid complaint since the variant is just the sealed version of the game with the cover art flipped inside out.  If collectors will get irked by something like that, this will more than likely just add on to that as well.

 

Scalpers, well, clearly they wouldn't like it because of the decrease in value of their flips.

 

The group of people that just want to play the game and own it is a bit more hazy from my perspective, because those who would really want to play it, would probably be less inclined to need to own it, as many of these games are already available digitally, and if they really want to play it, they can just go that route.  Many of the people who want to own it may also start to fall under the collectors group, which seems to be a better fit.

 

So two out of the three groups you mentioned would have cause to be upset with the reprints.  One of the groups that will probably not be upset is unclear as to what proportion they actually make up from the total number of customers of the potential pool of people.  If we were do just do this as a majority, it'd be easier to say more people would have cause to be upset, over people who might not be, so in this case, it would not be worth it for them to do so.

 

Of course, all hypothetical anyways, and lot of assumptions, so take it as you will. :P

The vast majority of people aren't buying from LRG because only so many copies exist. It fuels the speculative nature behind releases sure, but it's not close to being the main reason why people buy.

Still feels more like assumption than fact.  I don't know the answer whether this is true or not, nor if I'm even able to argue for the other point.  The only thing I know is that LRG has a model, and they're selling out the games.  Who the people that are buying them shouldn't be relevant to their final sales number.  It would be nice to have demographics behind their sales number, but since there is no way to actually figure this out, it's hard to understand the main reason (there could be several) why LRG games are so desirable.  Even LRG wouldn't have these numbers, but what they do have is the business model they've created, and promoted, and as long as that is helping to drive the sales they've made, they can make the connection that the majority of their sales are because of their model, unless proven otherwise with concrete evidence to the contrary.

 

Like I said before, the lack of reprints isn't exactly paraded around as a big marketing thing besides the name. You can't exactly break a promise when it barely exists in the eyes of most in the first place. LRG would probably gain more positive PR from reprinting sought-after games and undercutting scalpers than any potential blowback from doing reprints.

Much of what I've said above at several points, and the previous post I feel can be applied to this as well.  The PR could go both ways, and depending on which way it goes, it may or may not work out for them.  I don't believe many people don't buy games from LRG just because there are scalpers.  They don't buy their games from a multitude of reasons, some of the reasons you have included as well in the past, but there are also other reasons we are just not privy to that we can claim as fact.  No matter how much PR they gain for doing something right, there's a continuum of things that they can do, or can happen that can quickly put them back in the red.  It's really a battle of showing contrition to the issues that have occurred, rather than selling themselves down the river to fix the issue, and I believe this is what LRG has done quite adequately with the way they interact with us here, and others elsewhere.  Checks and balances, that's what's important.

 

To sum up, I don't think you risk significant pushback from doing reprints. I think you are constraining yourself by keeping to this uber-limited mantra in regards to reprints instead. Adhering to this rule so diligently only serves to fuel the speculative market and give more ammunition to scalpers (who people constantly complain about). Catering primarily towards crowd goes against why me and many others supported this LRG in the first place; to own and preserve digital games through physical media. And I think you risk losing customers if this push towards the speculative side continues, or at the very least the customers who helped LRG grow into what it is today

No need to continue to drone on as I've already done that quite a bit above.  Just to close, from my perspective, I just don't feel they need to do it.  Could they do it?  Yes.  Will they do it?  Probably not.  Do they have to do it to stay in business?  Nothing right now indicates this is the state they are in.  Even using the RCR DX example, it's just a different structure from a developer/publishing perspective, and isn't a perfect translation to a system such as LRG, even if they could try to emulate, they wouldn't need to for now.

 

I do remember there were many conversations in the previous thread that you did state that the reasons you brought many of these things up was due to the worry that it could not be sustained.  However, from what we've seen in the past, and what we've seen recently, it is being sustained, and there is nothing to say that it can't be other than assuming it can't.  I think it's always good to plan ahead, but it's easier to plan ahead with things that you have evidence of that has been successful, than to plan ahead with evidence from other companies that may or may not fit your own plans.  I mean, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt too that they have something else planned as well if things do start to look unsustainable, but it doesn't have to necessarily be this plan.  I don't really remember why this popped up in my head from that last conversation, but thought I just put my two cents in on this as well since I'm already starting to become delirious from all this text on my screen.

 

Anyways....DONE...for now... :P


gjDkeqL.gifv3llIct.gif

Spoiler

#41 romeogbs19   Henshin A Go-Go Baby! CAGiversary!   2174 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

romeogbs19

Posted 15 August 2017 - 01:37 AM

Seriously, this debate is over. Like reapertoll said, you have the rare instance here of the actual company coming on here to say they won't breach their promise. End of argument.

Also, frolow, if you think the promise on their about us page is a "small blurb," you know nothing about the law. As an attorney, I can tell you companies get sued for a lot less than even that. Given the broad liabilities under most states' consumer fraud laws, and the sheer number of lawyer sharks and predatory lawsuits, I could almost guarantee LRG would be sued if they started doing reprints.

It's just the kind of world businesses live in. It's not new, and Josh and most sensible, practical people know this. Get with the times, man.

Most companies like the size of LRG are one lawsuit away from bankruptcy. Being conservative and risk adverse in that environment is smart business.

Rather than continue to pontificate like some know it all, if you think you know better, do the business yourself. You're not persuading anyone here.

What you are doing, however, is affirming everyone's negative characterization of you as "dense" and frankly, at this point, just trolling for desperate attention.

HENSHIN A GO GO BABY!

161803_s.gif   200.gif


#42 frolow   Official /v/ ambassador CAGiversary!   479 Posts   Joined 4.8 Years Ago  

Posted 15 August 2017 - 01:41 AM

 

The game industry at large isn't a tiny company with minimal resources. EA can say whatever they want, you want to sue them? They will swat you like a gnat in a heartbeat. No offense to Josh but unless they became wildly capitalized sometime in the recent past I'd bet they don't have major liquidity to defend against a suit or suits. Nor do most small businesses for that matter.

 

Class-actions exist for a reason. Obviously EA has significantly bigger resources, doesn't prevent from getting sued. This is a moot point regardless, I already said LRG is at no credible threat of being sued. And if you're absolutely avoidant change the statement and only apply it to releases after.

 

I really don't think you are grasping the tenacity(maybe ferocity would be a better word?) that people have about rare items. Look at how angry people are getting that they missed out on the shiny...now imagine that six months from now LRG says "whoops, JK we are making 10,000 more!". You would have an equally violent reaction from the people who bought it and now consider it to be worthless. Manufacturers have been sued for things like this in the past by the way, it's not a unique situation.

Perhaps I am underestimating it a bit, but I still don't believe it's enough to cause blowback significant enough to impact their business. I don't recall people getting upset when PlayAsia did a more plentiful release of Söldner-X and subsequently complaining that their copies would now be worth less.

Fact is, big releases sell out in minutes and smaller ones over the course of a day/few days. If this potential backlash causes big releases to last a few minutes longer and smaller ones to last a few more days before selling out, I think that's acceptable. Especially considering the money from reprints themselves would mitigate.

Most importantly though, Josh already said no in this very thread. Let's ignore the lawsuit point, Josh said he feels it's a breach of trust. Can you posit a counter argument to that based on anything but your own opinion and feelings? Because if it's yours against the boss, the boss always wins...

Well of course not because that's impossible, an argument is inherently tied to someone's opinion.

It is my opinion that this push towards the speculative side of the market is not the right direction for the company. I think they would be much better off if they didn't pander to this crowd as much as they do and instead were more liberal with aspects such as reprints. I'm arguing for this opinion.



#43 reaperztoll  

reaperztoll

Posted 15 August 2017 - 01:48 AM

Class-actions exist for a reason. Obviously EA has significantly bigger resources, doesn't prevent from getting sued. This is a moot point regardless, I already said LRG is at no credible threat of being sued. And if you're absolutely avoidant change the statement and only apply it to releases after.

Perhaps I am underestimating it a bit, but I still don't believe it's enough to cause blowback significant enough to impact their business. I don't recall people getting upset when PlayAsia did a more plentiful release of Söldner-X and people bitching their copies would not be worth less. Fact is, big releases sell out in minutes and smaller ones over the course of a day/few days. If this potential backlash causes big releases to last a few minutes longer and smaller ones to last a few more days before selling out, I think that's acceptable. Especially considering the money from reprints themselves would mitigate.

Well of course not because that's impossible, an argument is inherently tied to someone's opinion.

It is my opinion that this push towards the speculative side of the market is not the right direction for the company. I think they would be much better off if they didn't pander to this crowd as much as they do and instead were more liberal with aspects such as reprints. I'm arguing for this opinion.

And Josh's opinion is that it won't happen.So what's the point when he told you his opinion is that it's unworkable? Do you honestly believe you know the business and industry better than he does, or just his business to the point you can change his mind?

 

That's a real question by the way, I'm not trying to put you down.


Too much real life, not enough time for video games


#44 Squarehard   Nyaa~ CAGiversary!   20382 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Posted 15 August 2017 - 01:56 AM

Perhaps I am underestimating it a bit, but I still don't believe it's enough to cause blowback significant enough to impact their business. I don't recall people getting upset when PlayAsia did a more plentiful release of Söldner-X and subsequently complaining that their copies would now be worth less.

Not going to write too much again since I need a break, lol.

 

I don't feel this is a great example though since the Soldner release from Play-Asia is not a NA release, so from a collector standpoint, that would take a lot of people out of the equation, or at least a fair portion as the majority of the collectors are likely in the US, and does care to have a completely full Vita English set, and just the full NA release set.

 

I'm not sure how often you visit the Vita thread itself, but in that thread while people do buy other releases, the bulk of the collectors that want a full set are mainly interested in just the NA releases.

 

The ones who want to buy Soldner from PA are mainly the ones that fall into your category of just wanting to play the game, which I think why there wasn't that backlash from collectors, but appreciation from regular gamers.  I think RCR DX is probably still the closest example I can think of recently.

 

Just to play devil's advocate though, Soldner still have some stock left even though it's been out for awhile (albeit it sold out of the main stock, and the remaining looks like the extra stock that were marked for replacement), so if we used this to gauge if the reprint would sell adequately, it would be no.  Of course, in my opinion this was not a good example anyways, so just food for thought, lol. ;P


gjDkeqL.gifv3llIct.gif

Spoiler

#45 frolow   Official /v/ ambassador CAGiversary!   479 Posts   Joined 4.8 Years Ago  

Posted 15 August 2017 - 03:33 AM

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a cop out answer, but more just stating it is what it is.  When you say "a cop-out answer", is that referencing that it's not the answer to a problem, or saying that it's a inadequate response to your question?  Mainly just trying to get clarification so I can understand exactly what you mean.  I mean, I do understand that you like to compare this to other things as you've done so previously, but while it's fine to use things as examples, I don't believe it's fair to equate apples to oranges, mainly in reference to your collector cards comparison.  I mean, I understand it too as I used to collect cards quite religiously back in the early 90s when they were still the shit, but I still have large hesitation to use that as an example.

 

I think a more comparable, or more recent example I can think of is something like the Retro City Rampage DX reprint from months ago.  That was a title that was reprinted with what you are noting, and more comparable than trying to match it to a completely different product line, and collector's community.  Now, yes that RCR DX reprint also sold out eventually, so in this example it does show that it can be done without too much backlash, and all the other caveats I have mentioned before in regards to outcry.

I referred to it as a cop-out because I think it's (primarily) a excuse dancing around the issue. That issue being LRG doesn't want to openly admit they pander to and rely on the speculative/scalper side of their market to get those instant sellouts for big releases and sellouts for smaller games within a day or two.

 

The Retro City Rampage release is a good point, it completely slipped my mind somehow even though I own the damn game lol.

 

However, it's a bit different in that case because one of the main things is that the structure of the development/publishing are different.  With the way LRG have things in place on paper, it'd be a bit harder for them to have to go back and forth on the decision making with the developers to work things out again.  Could it be easy?  Maybe.  Could it be difficult?  Maybe as well.  Here are the things they know.  It's in the contract.  That's what they advertised.  Everything else is more assumption than based on evidence, so I feel in this case they're trying to err on the side of caution, other than going through with it.

 

But the real question here I believe is do they need to?  And I feel this is really important too.  What are the repercussions if they don't do it?  Are there any significant ones that's going to be a problem to them, or still more of a problem for the consumer?  I feel if we take the idea of LRG making more money out of this comment, the underlying issues that are present doesn't really seem like much of an issue to LRG from a business standpoint, and it just does not feel like a necessity to me.

The structures are different and I'm not going to say I know the details of their contracts. I do think most developers and companies LRG has worked with (smaller, indie and AA devs) are friendly and open enough to the point where they'd be receptive towards working out a new contract allowing reprints. Again, at the end of the day it's more copies of their game being sold. I doubt more companies would be against that

 

You're right in some aspects. Their current business model is definitely successful. I'm not sure if it can be sustained though. If they don't change anything, they currently risk driving away customers who are getting upset at instant sellouts (due to the catering towards the speculative) and then seeing the same games on eBay being scalped for 2x the MSRP. Reprints would be a good solution to this problem.

 

I mean, people can sue for anything, so I wouldn't necessarily say that so concretely as it'd never happen. ;D  Of course, it probably wouldn't, but the real question here is why would they need to risk it to do this?  Just as I mentioned above, if we continue to work under the assumption that LRG does not need to make more money outside of what they already have in place; what is really left?

 

I'm not sure I'm really down with the analogy you used again either, comparing LRG to video game industry trailers, and what they advertise.  I'm not sure if you have an actual example you can give of false advertising for a video game though, so if you have one you can think of off the top of your head that might be helpful in understanding you what you're trying to say, just to clarify that is because I can't think of one myself.  If any of the examples you give are from larger companies, I think one thing that could be argued for that as well is the difference between LRG's operation size, compared to some of the larger companies.

I can't guarantee that it would never happens, as you said people can sue for literally anything. I just don't think it's a credible risk.

 

I linked a few of them before with Watch Dogs and No Man's Sky. Obviously games like Watch Dogs are from huge, billion dollar companies. But No Man's Sky was made by a small indie team of 16 people.

 

And even though this is not something I have personal experience, I am not sure it's correct to claim that video game companies have not been sued as a result of the videos/trailers they've posted on games.  Companies can get sued without the actual case going public.  There are undisclosed settlements that can be done, and because they are undisclosed, we don't know.  There's just a lot we don't know about whether or not this does happen in the industry, so I don't think it's fair to make this claim without adequate evidence to support it.

 

They may only have a small blurb of that on their website, but as well all know in this current age, what they've said publicly can easily be seen as evidence of them "advertising" the fact that things are truly limited.  Even though it's not stated on their website, they've stated it on a multitude of forums they wouldn't, they've stated it on Twitter extensively that they wouldn't, they've stated it at conventions and conferences that they wouldn't, and they stated it in their contracts that they wouldn't.  While there is only a small blurb on their website, their range of advertising is much more far reaching than just what is listed on their website.

All court filings are public in the US to my knowledge. Any lawsuit of this kind would be class action, which are inherently public.

 

They might have done all those things, but most people still aren't buying LRG releases primarily because of the fact they're limited to X amount of copies.

 

I mean, isn't this one of the strengths of LRG, and that is in the accessibility of its owners, staff, and others that are so readily, and willing to be as transparent as they can be on these matters?  Although, in this particular scenario you've mentioned, it may have hurt them from that particular aspect, more so than helped.

To be honest, I feel that two out of those three groups would actually be upset for a variety of reasons.

 

Collectors themselves can be upset for a couple of reasons.  Personally, as I've stated before about my own feelings of reprints, I don't really like them, particularly when the item was advertised as limited.  Sort of reminds me of the way NISA has been sneaking in reprints of their Limited Editions, and also more mainstream, the way that Nintendo have been doing it for awhile now with their standard edition games, and making them the same.  Of course, these aren't the perfect comparisons, as the one above on RCR DX would probably be the closest comparison, but just the idea in it of itself irks me for sure, and I'd assume others as well.

Your view on reprints is valid, but I don't think this mentality makes up the majority of LRG's buyers for reasons I've already explained.

 

There is also something that collectors like to complain about, which doesn't happen as often, but is still a complain I've seen from time to time so I'll just put it here even if it may not be the most applicable, but it's the idea of making it difficult for collectors to have a complete collections when they keep coming out with different editions of games, including different cover variants, and what not.  I mean, even in the thread now, we always seem people complaint about cover variants, and in many of these cases it's not even a valid complaint since the variant is just the sealed version of the game with the cover art flipped inside out.  If collectors will get irked by something like that, this will more than likely just add on to that as well.

Wouldn't that mean the opposite? Collectors get mad at stuff like variants making it harder to have complete collections. Therefore, wouldn't something like reissuing games please people by making it easier to get complete collections?

 

Scalpers, well, clearly they wouldn't like it because of the decrease in value of their flips.

 

The group of people that just want to play the game and own it is a bit more hazy from my perspective, because those who would really want to play it, would probably be less inclined to need to own it, as many of these games are already available digitally, and if they really want to play it, they can just go that route.  Many of the people who want to own it may also start to fall under the collectors group, which seems to be a better fit.

Disagreed. For many people, buying digital is a last resort. Ace Attorney 5 and 6 are goods example of this. Capcom made the series digital-only outside of Japan with 5, and tons of fans still bought them day 1 because they like the series and wanted to play the games. To this day the fanbase lambasts Capcom for making the series digital only and would to buy physical versions of the newer games in a heartbeat, solely because they like the games and prefer physical media.

 

This is also why LRG got support from people in the first place. Immediately from their inception people begged them to do physical versions of popular games that were digital only such as Fatal Frame, Yakuza 5, and Ace Attorney. These were fans of these franchises who simply want to own the games physically.

 

Of course, all hypothetical anyways, and lot of assumptions, so take it as you will. :P

Still feels more like assumption than fact.  I don't know the answer whether this is true or not, nor if I'm even able to argue for the other point.  The only thing I know is that LRG has a model, and they're selling out the games.  Who the people that are buying them shouldn't be relevant to their final sales number.

 

Like I said before, they risk alienating customers who feel burnt up by the instant sellouts and scalpers.

 

It would be nice to have demographics behind their sales number, but since there is no way to actually figure this out, it's hard to understand the main reason (there could be several) why LRG games are so desirable.  Even LRG wouldn't have these numbers, but what they do have is the business model they've created, and promoted, and as long as that is helping to drive the sales they've made, they can make the connection that the majority of their sales are because of their model, unless proven otherwise with concrete evidence to the contrary.

 

Can make educated guesses at least. I feel like I have a good sense of their demographics from following LRG since their existence and reading various forums/social media for years.

 

-snip-

Not going to respond to the rest of this since I feel like I would just be repeating myself, but I do want to thank you for replying. Definitely a discussion worth having.



#46 Squarehard   Nyaa~ CAGiversary!   20382 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Posted 15 August 2017 - 03:57 AM

Fair enough.

 

I think I'm satisfied with where the discussion is at this point, so good place for me to bow out here.

 

First day of classes is tomorrow, and I'm kind of burnt out from preparing for the semester, so just going to save my long winded discussions for my students. ;D

 

Pok%C3%A9mon-anime-gif-fun.gif


gjDkeqL.gifv3llIct.gif

Spoiler

#47 Dashey10  

Posted 15 August 2017 - 04:02 AM

Heh, I start next Monday.

Get $15 credits from Tokyo Otaku Mode with you sign up with my referral link here


#48 needler420   car title is lost CAGiversary!   2258 Posts   Joined 7.1 Years Ago  

Posted 16 August 2017 - 10:13 AM

You can see the few hardcore supporters of lrg trying to say it's not possible to reprint. You can tell it's a collectors market trying to protect it's intrinsic and monetary value.

Those people don't care about game play they don't care about others getting to experience the game, which is not like console exclusive titles which actually fuels creativity by a proprietary market.

These people don't want reprints for monetary purposes, egotistical purposes. They want to be select few to own the item. Many of them don't open the games. They collect them is all.

Happyconsolegamer said it best yesterday.



When your purpose is to sell scarcity it's going to close in on itself.

You end up with a low number of produced items with a high demand. Then everyone realizes the games are crap and the all the demand drops.
The only ones that stay collectible and rare are the few good games that will stand the test of time and stay in demand.

It's a business practice that will get more haters in the longrun then more followers because more people won't be getting anything yet have followed.

How so few people can predict that actualization is beyond me.

needler420.png

 

 


#49 chimpmeister   Hates gimmicks CAGiversary!   3957 Posts   Joined 12.0 Years Ago  

chimpmeister

Posted 16 August 2017 - 03:10 PM

You can see the few hardcore supporters of lrg trying to say it's not possible to reprint. You can tell it's a collectors market trying to protect it's intrinsic and monetary value.

Those people don't care about game play they don't care about others getting to experience the game, which is not like console exclusive titles which actually fuels creativity by a proprietary market.

These people don't want reprints for monetary purposes, egotistical purposes. They want to be select few to own the item. Many of them don't open the games. They collect them is all.

Happyconsolegamer said it best yesterday.
https://youtu.be/gFF_K5gDYEc


When your purpose is to sell scarcity it's going to close in on itself.

You end up with a low number of produced items with a high demand. Then everyone realizes the games are crap and the all the demand drops.
The only ones that stay collectible and rare are the few good games that will stand the test of time and stay in demand.

It's a business practice that will get more haters in the longrun then more followers because more people won't be getting anything yet have followed.

How so few people can predict that actualization is beyond me.

Lay off the pipe dude, it's frying your brain.

#50 needler420   car title is lost CAGiversary!   2258 Posts   Joined 7.1 Years Ago  

Posted 16 August 2017 - 05:11 PM


needler420.png

 

 


#51 chimpmeister   Hates gimmicks CAGiversary!   3957 Posts   Joined 12.0 Years Ago  

chimpmeister

Posted 16 August 2017 - 05:30 PM

Nothing to see here folks, just a baked troll trying to stir things up.

#52 JoshTX   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2170 Posts   Joined 7.9 Years Ago  

Posted 08 September 2017 - 12:36 PM

Goddammn, Squarehard wrote a freaking novel a few posts back. Screw the arguments, that wall of text was so epic I had to revive this thread to acknowledge it. 


joshTX.png


#53 ihadmail  

ihadmail

Posted 09 September 2017 - 12:00 PM

I came in here all ready to read up about LRG stuff.

Wouldn't that guy just stop if everyone stopped validating his stale argument over and over again?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: limited run games, train wreck, here we go, well alright then, discussion, please help us josh, please help us doug, derailment abound