We were having issues with another customer using our site data against us and being completely wrong but telling people it was fact so we made changes a long time ago to combat that. We used to put reports out of what actually was produced but that was something we had to take time out of our day to do (on top of other stuff) and it just became a bit unmanageable. I'd like for us to do that again someday though...
I'm not a fan of WATA personally but there is nothing wrong with VGA. I don't personally enjoy having things graded but if someone wants to that's on them, but there is no plan to do anything with graded stuff expect maybe a charity here and there.
That's not okay, I hope you realize this, right? You are saying you actively manipulate the sales quantities data on your site and are not denying it.
You need to change this right now.
You are not Walmart or Amazon nor are you EA or Activision; you specialize in collectible, limited print titles. Not knowing how many exist in the wild is bad. Knowing that you manipulate the figures is even worse.
I don't think you realize you're saying you won't take the time to do the ethical thing in this circumstance. Yet you made it a priority to make time to skew numbers? That's bad news.
That's not okay, I hope you realize this, right? You are saying you actively manipulate the sales quantities data on your site and are not denying it.
You need to change this right now.
You are not Walmart or Amazon nor are you EA or Activision; you specialize in collectible, limited print titles. Not knowing how many exist in the wild is bad. Knowing that you manipulate the figures is even worse.
I don't think you realize you're saying you won't take the time to do the ethical thing in this circumstance. Yet you made it a priority to make time to skew numbers? That's bad news.
Wait, how did you get "they actively manipulate sales data" out of this response, though? Didn't he just say they simply don't provide any quantities anymore? I mean, it's not manipulating figures if there aren't any figures, right?
I've been a regular customer of Limited Run since they started out — I still own my "Breach & Clear" for Vita. As the company has grown so shockingly huge and changed how it operates over the years, I've understood some of the shifts in the model; doing pre-orders ahead of production means we have to wait a lot longer, yes, but it ensures that nobody has to get left out in the cold because everything is snapped up in seconds of its availbility like in the old days. And the ever-increasing delays in production/shipping? With both Limited Run's massive increase in size and the recent global choke points in supply chain, I suppose those were somewhat inevitable side effects. Hopefully those can be overcome, and y'all can get back on track eventually.
But there's one thing I really, really miss, and I don't think it'd be a huge undertaking to bring it bck. You guys used to actively provide updates on each game's status — telling people what games were in active printing, what games were currently shipping out, what was just now being packed up, etc. There's even still a page for that on the website! But sadly, all it's good for now is telling you what isn't out yet (everything forthcoming is listed as "in production" regardless of whether it's even started to be printed, and games just vanish from that section when they're shipped out... that's all it's good for). This means that we have no way of knowing when a game will be delayed past its projected release date.
I most recently received my order of "Valis: The Fantasm Soldier" last week. It was originally stated to be out by the end of summer, and instead it arrived at the end of October. I had no way of knowing this delay was coming because I never knew what the status of the game was! I never had any idea a game was even finally coming our way until I saw someone else who ordered a copy had received theirs. As it stands, the only way to check up on "where are we at in the production cycle, are we getting a delay, etc" is to contact customer support individually - and that's a drag on your own CS resources that you could easily bypass if those updates were provided on the site again.
I REALLY hope you'll consider bringing back these updates in the future. Let us know the status of the games in the pipe. What's still in the queue? What's being put through the process of being created right now? What's currently shipping? Have there been new delays? It'd be hugely helpful to have that info again... somewhere. Anywhere, really!
It sounds like they really need one single person whose sole job is to update progress on game production (enter data into the system so it shows up in purchase history on accounts) as well as put together production lists so it's known how many copies of games exist.
That is assuming everything has been above board. Early days everything was pretty obvious since it was one production run and what was on hand is what was on hand. But later games we had stuff like Golf Story where the game had an initial production run and then the rest of the orders were produced based on sales. So multiple manufacturing orders which would need to be added up. Later we saw other complex situations where it wasn't clear if later variants came from the original production or subsequent productions.
But the benefit of having someone responsible for these things is to preemptively answer a lot of support questions without needing to expand support. Hopefully this helps retain support personnel if that's been an issue.
But this is all food for thought.
It's cool that they are seeing the need to limit collectors editions to just top tier stuff. That will help on all fronts.
That's not okay, I hope you realize this, right? You are saying you actively manipulate the sales quantities data on your site and are not denying it.
You need to change this right now.
You are not Walmart or Amazon nor are you EA or Activision; you specialize in collectible, limited print titles. Not knowing how many exist in the wild is bad. Knowing that you manipulate the figures is even worse.
I don't think you realize you're saying you won't take the time to do the ethical thing in this circumstance. Yet you made it a priority to make time to skew numbers? That's bad news.
I think you are taking this in the opposite intended direction. The numbers weren't meant to be public, you aren't supposed to know how many we produced. We stopped sharing that information years ago because we'd have to spend time explain what promo copies, marketing, replacements, etc were for. The only thing people need to know is on # titles it's a one and done deal. Once orders close there are no more printed.
I've been a regular customer of Limited Run since they started out — I still own my "Breach & Clear" for Vita. As the company has grown so shockingly huge and changed how it operates over the years, I've understood some of the shifts in the model; doing pre-orders ahead of production means we have to wait a lot longer, yes, but it ensures that nobody has to get left out in the cold because everything is snapped up in seconds of its availbility like in the old days. And the ever-increasing delays in production/shipping? With both Limited Run's massive increase in size and the recent global choke points in supply chain, I suppose those were somewhat inevitable side effects. Hopefully those can be overcome, and y'all can get back on track eventually.
But there's one thing I really, really miss, and I don't think it'd be a huge undertaking to bring it bck. You guys used to actively provide updates on each game's status — telling people what games were in active printing, what games were currently shipping out, what was just now being packed up, etc. There's even still a page for that on the website! But sadly, all it's good for now is telling you what isn't out yet (everything forthcoming is listed as "in production" regardless of whether it's even started to be printed, and games just vanish from that section when they're shipped out... that's all it's good for). This means that we have no way of knowing when a game will be delayed past its projected release date.
I most recently received my order of "Valis: The Fantasm Soldier" last week. It was originally stated to be out by the end of summer, and instead it arrived at the end of October. I had no way of knowing this delay was coming because I never knew what the status of the game was! I never had any idea a game was even finally coming our way until I saw someone else who ordered a copy had received theirs. As it stands, the only way to check up on "where are we at in the production cycle, are we getting a delay, etc" is to contact customer support individually - and that's a drag on your own CS resources that you could easily bypass if those updates were provided on the site again.
I REALLY hope you'll consider bringing back these updates in the future. Let us know the status of the games in the pipe. What's still in the queue? What's being put through the process of being created right now? What's currently shipping? Have there been new delays? It'd be hugely helpful to have that info again... somewhere. Anywhere, really!
It sounds like they really need one single person whose sole job is to update progress on game production (enter data into the system so it shows up in purchase history on accounts) as well as put together production lists so it's known how many copies of games exist.
That is assuming everything has been above board. Early days everything was pretty obvious since it was one production run and what was on hand is what was on hand. But later games we had stuff like Golf Story where the game had an initial production run and then the rest of the orders were produced based on sales. So multiple manufacturing orders which would need to be added up. Later we saw other complex situations where it wasn't clear if later variants came from the original production or subsequent productions.
But the benefit of having someone responsible for these things is to preemptively answer a lot of support questions without needing to expand support. Hopefully this helps retain support personnel if that's been an issue.
But this is all food for thought.
It's cool that they are seeing the need to limit collectors editions to just top tier stuff. That will help on all fronts.
We sold a lot of those units in other places, the overall sales you see when you look into Shopifys code isn't always 100%. We also mess with numbers there due to post like these and have since we started.
Wait, how did you get "they actively manipulate sales data" out of this response, though? Didn't he just say they simply don't provide any quantities anymore? I mean, it's not manipulating figures if there aren't any figures, right?
I am not certain how else to take the statement "we almost mess with the numbers there" as anything but manipulating sales figures.
Not posting population reports on collectibles is bad news. Actively manipulating the figures because people wanted to track that data (which again, is very important to some collectors), is even worse.
Again, dumbfounded that someone running a limited-anything shop doesn't understand the value of population reports, that omitting data is a bad look, but fudging data is the worst.
I think you are taking this in the opposite intended direction. The numbers weren't meant to be public, you aren't supposed to know how many we produced. We stopped sharing that information years ago because we'd have to spend time explain what promo copies, marketing, replacements, etc were for. The only thing people need to know is on # titles it's a one and done deal. Once orders close there are no more printed.
We are trying to be more on top of doing production emails going forward. The team finally has a process down to make that more regular.
I agree and we are trying to do that now. The process is in place.
That's even worse; why are we not supposed to know how many are produced for a limited run product?
Your answer is that you'd have to have a dialog with your customers?
The process obviously is not in place and you actively committed resources to obfuscate the numbers. I cannot speak for others, but that's a wholly bad look.
Produce population reports of every LRG numbered release, at this point. Other folks are going to need to know.
That's even worse; why are we not supposed to know how many are produced for a limited run product?
Your answer is that you'd have to have a dialog with your customers?
The process obviously is not in place and you actively committed resources to obfuscate the numbers. I cannot speak for others, but that's a wholly bad look.
Produce population reports of every LRG numbered release, at this point. Other folks are going to need to know.
We plan to put out a document at some point showing the total for games like we used to, but again that is a process. Not every unit on Shopify is the actual amount which is why I was saying using Shopify code to find out is bad. The products that say "Limited to X" are that number but open preorder stuff we don't share.
That doesn't make it the correct thing to do. Your defense of doing this is just making it look worse.
If you didn't report numbers, that's one thing, which is still bad. But to make sure, you are saying that you have messed with the sales numbers on your site for years? And that was publicly stated when?
To not share quantities is specifically unethical and ensures you're trying to deal in FOMO/manipulation, whether explicitly or unintended. This is a bad look.
Edit: To be clear, if your sales numbers aren't really a secret, why are you both not reporting them, but also messing with them on your site?
Wouldyoupublish/shareyourfinalsoldfiguresforyourSwitchtitles? We typically announce those numbers every so often, it's not really a secret. - Doug, 3 years ago to Switchwatch -Link
That doesn't make it the correct thing to do. Your defense of doing this is just making it look worse.
If you didn't report numbers, that's one thing, which is still bad. But to make sure, you are saying that you have messed with the sales numbers on your site for years? And that was publicly stated when?
To not share quantities is specifically unethical and ensures you're trying to deal in FOMO/manipulation, whether explicitly or unintended. This is a bad look.
Edit: To be clear, if your sales numbers aren't really a secret, why are you both not reporting them, but also messing with them on your site?
I don't mean to be a dick but like...you're just now catching onto the fact that this stuff is not truly "limited edition" in any respect?
Yeah, they print lots of extras. They're needed for damaged replacements, missing packages, and other problems. Yeah, they will do additional runs on different consoles. There are leftovers; they fill blind boxes every year. Extras and variants are also sold at trade shows. The high-selling, in-demand titles can coax rights holders into doing additional runs on their own, with other companies. The aftermarket is being manipulated in a multitude of ways. So is the ordering market. I mean we've seen these guys slangin 'early edition' and variant copies of these games months in advance at trade shows when paid customers have been waiting 12+ months for their items. That wasn't an eye-opener to you, as a blatant display of their integrity and intentions?? LRG opened up a store. How does a store have any inventory if everything was made-to-order + paid upfront in a singular run you should be asking yourself? They have as much extra inventory as they want to order. All that matters is that they pay studios/pubs for the correct number of discs printed. (yesiree, that means they do indeed know the # amount they made.) The bottom line is that you have no idea how much supply they're holding and it's all been purposely obfuscated from the start, as soon as the stated run #'s went away, the actual limited runs. Everything now is more about supporting a company you love, and paying the premium to get a disc / cart copy of a game.
LRG strayed from their original mission statement long ago, after their second year of operations. These games are not limited edition collectables anymore. There is no stated edition size or serialization.
A company with the type of 'limited, numbered edition' integrity that you're talking about would not interfere in their own secondary markets. You can't look at these items that way. It's more about paying extra to get physical copies of the games you love, but then it stops there.
Don't ever forget. Small time Indie releases and independently published games could ALWAYS put a numbered LE sticker on the box, making their games serialized. We've seen it with Bamco, VGP, various CEs and all kinds of published games I'm probably not familiar with. LRG has never operated that way.
No, I fully understand how production models work; which is more so why if they have stock on the physical store shelves, it should be sold online. I also know that overstock is expensive to store, thus they are working on interesting margins.
Not releasing data, already knew that, too.
But people have been going around in other spaces and places using the Shopify data as a heuristic. If Doug is right about "messing" with the data, that's a new development, which is much more unethical than just simply not publishing data.
And I am well aware that pre-negotiated quantities with vendors exist, thus either their inventory management is atrocious or they know exactly how many of each title is manufactured and is an easy to produce quantity. It shouldn't take a significant amount of additional effort to package that up routinely, even as a simple database report, to the PR department (or person) for release.
I am no stranger to manufacturing in general, in the least.
@Doug, there's no "digging up" quotes when its your own messaging. As you said, you don't want to explain to people the publication and manufacturing process, something your die hard fans would probably be super interested in as we likely follow a ton of industry news. Some things are likely under contractual NDA, more so I would bet with those large publishers, like Ubisoft, who want to control messaging, but I cannot imagine the indie stuff is under such limitation.
It's just poor form to come in and say you actively obfuscate data and that its not worth your time to communicate with your customers. It's pretty patronizing, IMO.
You can correct me if I am wrong, but you haven't yet.
"It's just poor form to come in and say you actively obfuscate data and that its not worth your time to communicate with your customers. It's pretty patronizing, IMO."
Never said it's not worth our time. I said it would take some work to get caught up at this point and we will get to it once we are able. You are right on the money with a LOT of our bigger projects the amounts are under NDA. I even personally got yelled at once for telling people about one...
Never said it's not worth our time. I said it would take some work to get caught up at this point and we will get to it once we are able. You are right on the money with a LOT of our bigger projects the amounts are under NDA. I even personally got yelled at once for telling people about one...
I am sorry, but you did say "We stopped sharing that information years ago because we'd have to spend time explain what promo copies, marketing, replacements, etc were for." (emphasis mine)
Perhaps I am a little rusty on reading comprehension, but saying you didn't do something because you'd have to spend time on it is saying its not worth your time; that you prioritized something else over informing your customers.
And perhaps if you understand that I am pretty understanding of business interests, practices, and processes, trust me when I say it's pretty rotten to mislead customers by fudging those numbers in your sites code.
I am pretty well into the story that is LRG for many years now. It's not really a shocking revelation, more of just another in a series of inevitable let downs.
I am sorry, but you did say "We stopped sharing that information years ago because we'd have to spend time explain what promo copies, marketing, replacements, etc were for." (emphasis mine)
Perhaps I am a little rusty on reading comprehension, but saying you didn't do something because you'd have to spend time on it is saying its not worth your time; that you prioritized something else over informing your customers.
And perhaps if you understand that I am pretty understanding of business interests, practices, and processes, trust me when I say it's pretty rotten to mislead customers by fudging those numbers in your sites code.
I am pretty well into the story that is LRG for many years now. It's not really a shocking revelation, more of just another in a series of inevitable let downs.
We used to lock the code out, customers were never meant to look at our code but the site re-design showed it again.
I feel like this is getting argumentative and I don't have anything else to say on the matter. I already made it clear we would like to share stuff again but it's not just a simple button press, it requires some work.
I'd rather just have a regularly updated site that lets me check on current status at any time... which also seems like it'd take less work than the email thing? But maybe not. I don't know. I'm not on that site of the fence. Maybe when that feature existed, customers were just ignorant of it and only read the emails or something?
I am sorry, but you did say "We stopped sharing that information years ago because we'd have to spend time explain what promo copies, marketing, replacements, etc were for." (emphasis mine)
Perhaps I am a little rusty on reading comprehension, but saying you didn't do something because you'd have to spend time on it is saying its not worth your time; that you prioritized something else over informing your customers.
And perhaps if you understand that I am pretty understanding of business interests, practices, and processes, trust me when I say it's pretty rotten to mislead customers by fudging those numbers in your sites code.
I am pretty well into the story that is LRG for many years now. It's not really a shocking revelation, more of just another in a series of inevitable let downs.
I think what I'm learning from this interaction is that some customers, such as yourself, view LRG's releases primarily as collector's items/investments because of their "limited" nature. But LRG, in contrast, has shifted away from focusing on the "limited"-ness and is focused more on the fact that these are games that they want people to play rather than collect, with them now having minimal interest in the "collector's investment" side of it beyond the special "Limited Collector's Editions" they sometimes put out.
They're basically any other publisher of physical games now, albeit with a large delay between digital and physical releases. At least that's how it seems to me? After all, it's not like publishers typically tell us how many copies of any given game are floating around in the wild. By becoming as big as they have and no longer worrying about the size of each run, they are essentially more of a traditional publisher than they were before.
I'm really sorry this happened to you. I can say with the change in management a few months ago in CS the policies are much more reasonable and relaxed. I wanted to make sure that we just took care of everyone going forward and the shit in tone on CS seems to have had a positive reaction so far.
While the response from CS wasn't satisfactory, my larger concern was the damaged items getting packed in the CE; that the damage happened before the CE was even shipped. But I appreciate the direct response.
Actually surprised that some Chinese company hasn't decided to go the LRG route and make bootleg CIB copies of those games. They already make the bootleg carts, can't imagine it'd be hard for them to make some bootleg boxes and manuals.
Even for Dreamcast, many Dreamcast models can be burned discs, can't imagine it'd be hard to make bootleg DC games.
Weird how he just disappeared after those string of games on the PSP (Class of Heroes 2), PS3 (Class of Heroes 2g) and PS4/Vita (Summon Night 6). I'm also curious if someone owns those US masters of WD's games...?
I think what I'm learning from this interaction is that some customers, such as yourself, view LRG's releases primarily as collector's items/investments because of their "limited" nature.
I don't actually believe that about LRG; or rather, I dislike the collectors and limited perspective of these game sales. I believe everyone who wants a physical copy at a fair price should have it. I am actually the anti-investor and support other gaming groups with the "more killer, less filler" mindset for game collecting.
Something LRG needs to adhere to, as well.
However, I dislike that they play up the limited aspect, prey on folks with marketing manipulation, and then admit to fudging data that people actively track.
I do not collect games for shelf trophies or investments, I buy them to play. I just have a real certain perspective on abusing FOMO and the like to make money. The product sells itself, you can be honest to people and it'll still sell. I hate manipulative marketing and tactics.
If LRG really moved past the taking advantage of the collectors/investors market, they'd have dropped all the numbering pretenses and never made promises for completing sets. I still see plenty of people buying up everything just because it was released, not because of it being a game they want. Many still chase the next "Pirate's Curse" or "Celeste;" they know that bubble would likely burst if folks saw that these contemporary releases were far larger than previously estimated.
Aside, it's also why I dislike all "grading" of these mass produce consumer goods and think less of LRG for using any of them, to include VGA, and for charity. Just donate directly, or have a special sale where a portion of the proceeds are donated, just don't feed that pump and dump market.
The problem is the name. They used to say that only a limited amount of copies would be printed such as 5,000 so you would know it's actually a limited run. Now they're just another publisher like any other company so the name is misleading now. Personally I don't understand why Doug said you were being argumentative which is pretty rude considering you bring up a good point there. Maybe they can have cover art that is numbered for a first run that is really a "limited run" and then do cover art variants down the line. Personally I think different cover variants for new prints is the best if they don't want to actually number the games. But I also don't see a problem with telling us how many copies are printed in total for each print run, it's just transparency and of course your fanbase is interested in this sort of thing.
And that's all anyone really can ask for in this. We aren't owed any games nor data, but they aren't owed loyalty nor sales.
Usually building a strong community around a good brand is how smaller gaming companies stay afloat. Whether its board, card, tabletop, or video games, smaller publishers and developers live on the edge of good will.
Not saying Doug is antagonistic, just think they're making a bad play in an easy(ier) win within their community and supporting it versus appearing to be allowing a "lie" (lie implies maliciousness, which I am not saying, I just don't have a better word) to continue.
Definitely not trying to be rude, there just isn’t anything for me to add. I agree and want to be able to share the numbers. I think once we are caught up on more pressing things we should go back to doing it.
No one ever believes me because the truth if boring but there really isn’t any wide conspiracy or maliciousness going on behind the scenes. We are gamers/collectors ourselves who just want to make cool things.
Anytime anyone has ever even joked about doing something fishy I’ve threatened to leave. I don’t want to be somewhere where we actively do morally bankrupt things.
I literately hired someone with a strong moral compass earlier this year just to make sure I had someone that would keep the company from ever accidentally slipping into the dark side. They wouldn’t still be here if we were corrupt like their previous employer.
I've had a broad career and only met true malice and/or spite a select few times; most of the time its ignorance or lack of motivation that causes most errors, issues, etc. etc.
I argue from the perspective of how I would like to see it since I'm a customer first, and also "do some business-like stuff myself, just not in games" second.
Definitely like some of the answers, such as steering away from bulky CEs and focusing on faster products (geopolitics and pandemics notwithstanding), which is great.
I hope LRG is keeping an eye on the big ticket Steam indies. I would have to say a cart of Vampire Survivors for Switch would be worth it's weight in gold from a publishers perspective. One of the few $3 $5 digital games I'd buy a $35 cart.
Out of all the things people have had to complain about, I can't believe that "not disclosing sales numbers" is now dominating this thread as soon as Doug shows up. What in the world does it matter? I sure don't recall there being many (if any) complaints when people stopped having a 1-10 minute window at 10am and 6pm on Friday to get something. They say it's an open pre-order with the date range the pre-order is available. What does knowing the number of orders give anyone? Do people want a counter to help them speculate and if the order level is low they will order on the last day? It has been so long since gauging the speed stock levels dropped at 10am would trigger FOMO and cause a panic buy.
Someone suggested the "Limited Run" name carries some expectation. I would get that anywhere but here (well....ok, maybe not even then). Nobody here is expecting these to be numbered and knows they are as "limited" as the number they had to order to fulfill pre-orders. I don't know if anyone has a justifiable complaint even considering the name. They are still limited because there is one print run, whether that's 1,000 copies or 10,000 copies. It's been YEARS since buying LRG games to flip should've been a thing and a look at Ebay sales for non-CEs should give anyone an indication that buying most standard LRG games as "investments" is probably not worth one's time.
I have no idea what the print runs are for any other indie retail release and never thought to demand them. NIS isn't sharing. Nicalis isn't sharing. Merge isn't sharing. The only possible purpose it could serve would be to stick it in an Ebay listing. Don't worry - saying "OOP" will suffice and the number isn't going to make it any more or less valuabe at that point. The number of copies on Ebay and the demand will take care of that.
Out of all the things people have had to complain about, I can't believe that "not disclosing sales numbers" is now dominating this thread as soon as Doug shows up.
It's the matter of purposely misleading people by fudging the numbers that do exist, not just a matter of not disclosing sales.
There are people who still care about that and follow each sale of each title to track how rare they are; I vehemently disagree with that perspective, but its a likely a significant chunk of LRGs customer base that is potentially being misled by LRGs action. Given that the gross majority of posts I see regarding LRG products (not on CAG) are featuring sealed product months or years after release, I am guessing a good lot of their customer base isn't actually playing these games. Also, I can provide a link to a spreadsheet that gets actively used and updated for folks to track estimated quantities of titles sold.
You can disagree with their perspective (i.e., LRG products are investments), but its still on the company to be open, honest, and transparent with its customer base. Anything but that is unethical.
And to be clear, just because other companies are not doing a thing doesn't make it right; someone like NIS isn't out there saying their products are specifically limit release nor do they have self-imposed restrictions on reprints. NIS routinely puts out surveys on demand for reprints of highly sought titles.
Rather, this post is about LRG and LRG is doing a thing I and other would disagree with and I would hope most would be upset that they're actively messing with their sales numbers, which is worse than not reporting.
Aside, I am interested in sales data, but not in a "I want to invest in commercially mass produced product" sort of way. I like seeing the background information, sales data, decision process, and how a business operates. I am not owed that data, for the record, but billing yourself as a collectibles company and putting out fudged data is not a good look.
Out of all the things people have had to complain about, I can't believe that "not disclosing sales numbers" is now dominating this thread as soon as Doug shows up. What in the world does it matter?
To cling onto the hope that something they sell is actually legitimately "rare" when nothing they sell is.
No offense to Doug (lol did that enough earlier in the thread and boy are my arms tired), but even if something like Double Switch on the Switch is probably the legitimate rarest game on the system at 2,000 copies, when you target dumb collectors/resellers as your demographic, the games will always be available and rarely get the value they deserve. There will always be copies in play.
With LRG, print runs don't matter. What matter is if the game is actually good. That's where the value will be. The actual numbers are meaningless so no, it doesn't matter.
I don't actually care about the numbers for each title when they are going on sale. Let that stay obfuscated. What would be interesting to know (IMO) is the number after the dust settles.
I have no idea what the print runs are for any other indie retail release and never thought to demand them. NIS isn't sharing. Nicalis isn't sharing. Merge isn't sharing.
Vblank, where this started, touted print run sizes. Back in the day, the folks working at Wayforward made it clear to us posting on IGN at the time in the GBA General Board how limited Shantae's physical run was. Which was fully true and why I got my copy at launch before it sold out everywhere.
NIS, Nicalis, Merge, nor other indies are here posting with us to ask. I'm sure folks would ask given the option. But the big thing is LRG did this for the first couple years before they flipped to preorders (which I much preferred and wanted as I hated the battle to get games against the bots). But it would still be interesting info how "limted" a purchase from "Limited Run Games" is. Like I didn't even buy Scott Pilgrim on Switch (have the ps3 version... didn't play it enough to need another source) but it was impressive when Doug leaked that they had sold 25K copies in the first three hours it was on sale.
Other industries do provide production numbers pretty much across the board. Like car manufacturers are well known for this. While they are (I believe) required to provide numbers ... it's really common for these numbers to actually be used in the resell market for the more limited vehicles (like sports cars). Additionally knowing how common a vehicle is can be great for the parts support long after the manufacturer is required to support a vehicle.
But usually products produced by companies touting "Limited" in their name or product name... will have some form of info to say how limited something is or ended up. Records are big on this as are books and other media. Though those are mostly manufactured limited to begin with (like LRG used to be) rather than being sold as a limited time production (which is what LRG has turned into).
Not looking to argue, just really interested in the subject in general.
Right now the limited time production market reminds me a lot of the 1990's Comic Book production market. Lots of special covers but most of them were not limited at all but mass produced while only some were truly limited. Though many of these mass produced comics were in limited series with only a handful or so of issues. So lots of speculation purchases and comics going from store to bag and board then into a comic box.
tbh i wish things weren't limited run and were rather print on demand. PoD is a more tenable service. It would fix all of the issues people have with LRG.
tbh i wish things weren't limited run and were rather print on demand. PoD is a more tenable service. It would fix all of the issues people have with LRG.
Print on demand is definitely friendly for the consumer, but it doesn't make sense for the publisher or in many cases the developer and certainly not for the platform owner which generally controls replication. Warner Bros. struggled for years to make it work for physical releases of more obscure films and has slowly started to wind down that business as the overhead and logistics are high and the economic return is low.
It's the matter of purposely misleading people by fudging the numbers that do exist, not just a matter of not disclosing sales.
There are people who still care about that and follow each sale of each title to track how rare they are; I vehemently disagree with that perspective, but its a likely a significant chunk of LRGs customer base that is potentially being misled by LRGs action. Given that the gross majority of posts I see regarding LRG products (not on CAG) are featuring sealed product months or years after release, I am guessing a good lot of their customer base isn't actually playing these games. Also, I can provide a link to a spreadsheet that gets actively used and updated for folks to track estimated quantities of titles sold.
You can disagree with their perspective (i.e., LRG products are investments), but its still on the company to be open, honest, and transparent with its customer base. Anything but that is unethical.
And to be clear, just because other companies are not doing a thing doesn't make it right; someone like NIS isn't out there saying their products are specifically limit release nor do they have self-imposed restrictions on reprints. NIS routinely puts out surveys on demand for reprints of highly sought titles.
Rather, this post is about LRG and LRG is doing a thing I and other would disagree with and I would hope most would be upset that they're actively messing with their sales numbers, which is worse than not reporting.
Aside, I am interested in sales data, but not in a "I want to invest in commercially mass produced product" sort of way. I like seeing the background information, sales data, decision process, and how a business operates. I am not owed that data, for the record, but billing yourself as a collectibles company and putting out fudged data is not a good look.
Honestly, you've completely lost me with your argument. You're claiming that they are somehow fudging the numbers but you're also saying they stopped providing them? Why does it matter? Why not just assume that every game is printed in the tens of thousands of copies and act accordingly? There are a lot of things that LRG could do to improve the customer experience, but I've gotta imagine that updating print run data is among the lowest priority on that list and I certainly wouldn't waste employee time on something that doesn't matter to the overwhelming majority of their customers. Businesses don't owe customers complete transparency into their operations and frankly, it would be impossible to operate most businesses in that manner.
I also don't understand why it matters if LRG continues to number their releases. Lots of collectibles companies do that, but most collectors only buy what they are interested in. They don't try to buy every item ever released by a particular company. I'm starting to get the impression that maybe there is some uncontrolled compulsiveness or other personality traits that are driving your comments.
tbh i wish things weren't limited run and were rather print on demand. PoD is a more tenable service. It would fix all of the issues people have with LRG.
wait..... isnt this how LRG does it now??? I remember back then they would tell you the amount they were going to be printed, like lets say 3,000 copies for the game.
But then they moved to a more pre-order basis where they PoD rounded to to the nearest thousand. So lets say they sell 1,250 copies, they would then print 2,000(nearest thousand rounding up). I assume there would be exceptions like if 1,999 copies were sold be too close to the nearest thousandth, they would instead do print 3K instead of 2K
Has this changed??? Or was my understanding of the new pre-order method wrong?
wait..... isnt this how LRG does it now??? I remember back then they would tell you the amount they were going to be printed, like lets say 3,000 copies for the game.
But then they moved to a more pre-order basis where they PoD rounded to to the nearest thousand. So lets say they sell 1,250 copies, they would then print 2,000(nearest thousand rounding up). I assume there would be exceptions like if 1,999 copies were sold be too close to the nearest thousandth, they would instead do print 3K instead of 2K
Has this changed??? Or was my understanding of the new pre-order method wrong?
That term generally means that a consumer at any time can order a copy of some physical media and then within a week or so it will be delivered. Warner Bros. for example literally allows consumers to order obscure films on DVD from its Warner Archive program and those stay available for years at a time because they are printed on an as needed basis. The movies are essentially pressed in super small batches in only enough quantity to meet current orders.
That term generally means that a consumer at any time can order a copy of some physical media and then within a week or so it will be delivered. Warner Bros. for example literally allows consumers to order obscure films on DVD from its Warner Archive program and those stay available for years at a time because they are printed on an as needed basis. The movies are essentially pressed in super small batches in only enough quantity to meet current orders.
Honestly, you've completely lost me with your argument. You're claiming that they are somehow fudging the numbers but you're also saying they stopped providing them? Why does it matter? Why not just assume that every game is printed in the tens of thousands of copies and act accordingly? There are a lot of things that LRG could do to improve the customer experience, but I've gotta imagine that updating print run data is among the lowest priority on that list and I certainly wouldn't waste employee time on something that doesn't matter to the overwhelming majority of their customers. Businesses don't owe customers complete transparency into their operations and frankly, it would be impossible to operate most businesses in that manner.
I also don't understand why it matters if LRG continues to number their releases. Lots of collectibles companies do that, but most collectors only buy what they are interested in. They don't try to buy every item ever released by a particular company. I'm starting to get the impression that maybe there is some uncontrolled compulsiveness or other personality traits that are driving your comments.
Humans are irrational beings; if you understand behavioral economic theory, you can draw a line between how LRG behaves, what information they provide, and how they provide it. Withholding information is bad, putting out manipulated numbers is worse.
You appear to believe that everyone within the gaming community is rational actor (i.e., see the rational actor theory of economics), which is far from the case.
The fact you don't think businesses owe customers transparency means we are probably only going to disagree further; I would see transparency a requirement in all business, otherwise customers cannot make truly informed decisions. Obfuscation only helps profit-seekers, to be clear. I find that undesirable and has negative outcomes. You seem to disagree.
The "lots of companies does a thing," is also a valueless argument. If every company pollutes, it doesn't matter if they all did it, your water and air are still scuffed. Same thing with other unethical practices; we just accept it without any pushback because we are intended to believe there is "no other way" to conduct business.
Aside, for rational actor theory to work, meaning every customer makes the best economic action, transparency would have to be 100% required, otherwise you would be making decisions with only a sliver of information. See nightc1's post on how data such as quantities produced has a direct impact on perceived value in the current and after market.
This mindset also strongly correlates to those who get mad when a publisher, like Devolver, makes retails copies of a title after an initial limited print run. We all know its going to happen, but people still feel shorted on their perceived value of an item due to the FOMO and psychologically manipulating matter of making things "limited."
You would say that's fine, or it's there fault, but I know, historically, doing it by your perspective typically leads to negative outcomes. Empathy is hardly profitable, as it were. Customers can and do influence many things, to include expectations. Doug is free to take the feedback and act on it, or not, but if he's truly thinking about "doing good" per his own posts, I'd come clean about the quantities quickly.
But, just my opinion...
... I doubt most people on CAG care about socioeconomic theory enough cause it's just vidja, afterall...
Humans are irrational beings; if you understand behavioral economic theory, you can draw a line between how LRG behaves, what information they provide, and how they provide it. Withholding information is bad, putting out manipulated numbers is worse.
You appear to believe that everyone within the gaming community is rational actor (i.e., see the rational actor theory of economics), which is far from the case.
The fact you don't think businesses owe customers transparency means we are probably only going to disagree further; I would see transparency a requirement in all business, otherwise customers cannot make truly informed decisions. Obfuscation only helps profit-seekers, to be clear. I find that undesirable and has negative outcomes. You seem to disagree.
The "lots of companies does a thing," is also a valueless argument. If every company pollutes, it doesn't matter if they all did it, your water and air are still scuffed. Same thing with other unethical practices; we just accept it without any pushback because we are intended to believe there is "no other way" to conduct business.
Aside, for rational actor theory to work, meaning every customer makes the best economic action, transparency would have to be 100% required, otherwise you would be making decisions with only a sliver of information. See nightc1's post on how data such as quantities produced has a direct impact on perceived value in the current and after market.
This mindset also strongly correlates to those who get mad when a publisher, like Devolver, makes retails copies of a title after an initial limited print run. We all know its going to happen, but people still feel shorted on their perceived value of an item due to the FOMO and psychologically manipulating matter of making things "limited."
You would say that's fine, or it's there fault, but I know, historically, doing it by your perspective typically leads to negative outcomes. Empathy is hardly profitable, as it were. Customers can and do influence many things, to include expectations. Doug is free to take the feedback and act on it, or not, but if he's truly thinking about "doing good" per his own posts, I'd come clean about the quantities quickly.
But, just my opinion...
... I doubt most people on CAG care about socioeconomic theory enough cause it's just vidja, afterall...
Again, you've completely lost me. Perhaps it's because you are not being clear about what the danger is that you are seeking to protect the rest of us from and why any of us need that protection.
The primary reason for most businesses to exist is to make profit. Sure, businesses can have secondary goals as well and Josh has certainly made it clear over the years that he wants to produce a lot of "cool stuff" so that he can own it himself. He has also said that it's important for him to treat his employees well and provide them with a living wage. That is an admirable goal and something I personally support, but I also purchase products and services from many other companies that do not follow that philosophy and probably do harm in some way or another either on a micro or macro level. I suspect most other consumers are in a similar position and most people don't have the bandwidth or desire to evaluate every single business they deal with on a daily basis to assure that it is not doing something that might result in harm, big or small.
To be clear, I didn't say that businesses don't owe customers transparency. They do not, however, owe customers complete transparency as you have suggested. There are numerous legal and operational reasons why that is just not possible. In this instance, the benefit of providing the type of insight you are asking from the business appears very low as there is just not a large constituency of customers demanding this form of transparency from LRG and it is unclear what those asking for the transparency would even do with the information.
The reality is that most of LRG's unhappy customers are concerned about poor communication on delivery timelines, slow delivery of product and in some cases poor quality control. Given that quite a few customers have stopped buying from them completely as a result of these issues (or at least have claimed to do so publicly), it seems reasonable that those are the things that LRG should focus its resources on. Focusing on disclosing actual print runs and redesigning product packaging to eliminate numbering just doesn't seem very important compared to those other issues. Of course, as you point out, LRG is free to decide how to operate and can choose what it deems important and not. As a consumer, you have a similar ability to make choices, one of which includes just not buying their products.
There are people who still care about that and follow each sale of each title to track how rare they are; I vehemently disagree with that perspective, but its a likely a significant chunk of LRGs customer base that is potentially being misled by LRGs action.
Significant chunk? I'm interested and I don't know where to look in the site code for number of units ordered, or where other interested people are posting the numbers.
We fundamentally disagree on how business should operate, Bojay. That's all that needs to be said.
Here's the spreadsheet; the rest of the discussion involves Facebook groups, one with 20.0k members.
I have zero affiliation or input into the spreadsheet. I just know there's a good chunk of people into LRG stuff for, what I feel, are the wrong reasons, and that's partially contributed to by LRG themselves.
Humans are irrational beings; if you understand behavioral economic theory, you can draw a line between how LRG behaves, what information they provide, and how they provide it. Withholding information is bad, putting out manipulated numbers is worse.
You appear to believe that everyone within the gaming community is rational actor (i.e., see the rational actor theory of economics), which is far from the case.
The fact you don't think businesses owe customers transparency means we are probably only going to disagree further; I would see transparency a requirement in all business, otherwise customers cannot make truly informed decisions. Obfuscation only helps profit-seekers, to be clear. I find that undesirable and has negative outcomes. You seem to disagree.
I mean nothing is a better example of irrational consumers than the number of people that buy the blind boxes every year chasing 1 or 2 ‘holy grails’ (which LRG seems to have copies of every year).
A rational consumer would see that their money would be better spent paying for the 1 item they want on the secondary market (even though it is above MSRP) vs rolling the dice and buying 10, 20, etc of the blind boxes chasing it.
But consumers aren’t rational and you see posts of people getting 4 copies of some shovelware from the blind boxes.
I mean nothing is a better example of irrational consumers than the number of people that buy the blind boxes every year chasing 1 or 2 ‘holy grails’ (which LRG seems to have copies of every year).
A rational consumer would see that their money would be better spent paying for the 1 item they want on the secondary market (even though it is above MSRP) vs rolling the dice and buying 10, 20, etc of the blind boxes chasing it.
But consumers aren’t rational and you see posts of people getting 4 copies of some shovelware from the blind boxes.
So, it's now LRG's responsibility to protect consumers from themselves? That's a pretty paternalistic view and I suspect one that wouldn't be welcomed by most consumers.
