Is Pokemon getting too easy?

[Bittersweet]

First off, I am going to say that making a game easier is a way to kill the time spent for many people. Next, they don't care whether you keep playing it. All they care is that you buy their game. Considering the massive sales of the series even after smartphones came into play, so there's no real need to compete with them. No other franchise, Nintendo or otherwise, is doing that as far as I'm aware. Third, as I said before, forty bucks is a lot of money for a mobile game (or a game intended to be used as one). If you're going to spend forty bucks on a game, then you want it to be a game with actual depth. If you try to sell a mobile-esque game for forty bucks, few will be willing to buy it. And considering console gamers and mobile gamers are far different crowds (sure, many console gamers have smartphones, but that doesn't mean that they use it to play games). Many console gamers don't want games that are needlessly easy and nothing but positive feedback. They want games with depth and difficulty to justify a purchase of a 200-500 dollar console and 40-60 dollar games. Try to make console games reminiscent of console games, you lose that crowd, which is the majority of the consumers. GAMEFREAK/Nintendo/whoever is making some idiotic business decisions that could lead to the Pokémon series either being killed or moving to smartphones, neither possibility of which excites me.

Like I said, Nintendo isn't trying to compete directly against phones in terms of sales; they are competing for your time so as to get product exposure and justify game sales for the consumer. It is easy to justify spending $3 for a new game on a phone if you are on your phone a lot already, but a lot harder to justify spending $40 on a new game for a handheld you don't use that often or only really play for an hour or so at a time at home; this is why they are introducing push notifications and StreetPass and stuff. They encourage checking your 3DS every so often. As the creators of the games have said in interviews, they do care whether people keep playing the games after buying, and they know they are competing with smartphone apps now in the market of on-the-go games. There is a lot of crossover in those demographics.

Everyone knows what an iPhone is, and what an Android phone is when they see it. Comparatively, just last week I was playing Pokémon in the break room at work and a co-worker asked me "Is that a phone?", pointing to my 3DS. Compared to smartphones, Nintendo products seem to have some branding/public perception issues, which is, from a business standpoint, kind of bad.
Nobody asks what an iPhone is when they see one because smartphones have a very clearly defined place in consumers' minds. The 3DS, not so much (unless you're a Nintendo gamer already).

forty bucks is a lot of money for a mobile game (or a game intended to be used as one)

As I wrote earlier, Pokémon and a lot of Nintendo games for 3DS sort of fall into both categories of mobile apps and console games. They compete with mobile apps as "time passers" but also work as "proper" RPGs, depending on when and where you're playing and what you're doing at the time.
Just because the game is competing with mobile apps in some aspect does not mean that the are making the game into a mobile app. Pokémon works well as both.

I feel like this "problem" could be solved if you just switched the Exp Share off, since that seems like the main complaint. Just saying...

 

[BigBadButterfree]

Why the hell do they want to cater to the mobile crowd anyway? The mobile crowd does not want to pay 40 bucks for a game, they will spend 5 bucks on the game at most (not counting the "freemium" bullshit). The guys like me who buy a console like a 3DS want to play games with lots of depth and aren't scams (like Candy Crush) nor the same thing over and over again (like Flappy Bird). And we don't want a ridiculously easy game, either. When we spend forty bucks on a game, we want it to have challenge so we get time out of the game. Easy games feel like a waste. If they continue on this path, they will end up losing their current audience while failing to gain a new one.

There is no "we" and "they". It's not a case of people who own a smartphone vs. people who own a portable gaming device; almost all people who own a gaming device, handheld or otherwise, also own a smartphone with a couple of games on it. (I know most "hardcore" gamers like to think in an "us and them" mentality, but bare with me for a sec)
I'd hazard a guess that most people over 14 on this forum also have a smartphone.

Once you have actually sold somebody the game or console, the challenge then is to make sure that they are actually seen playing it. A huge part of electronics marketing is actually having your product be visible by people, ideally on an almost daily basis. I'll admit that this kind of "social" marketing is what convinced me to buy an iPhone; so many people seemed to have phones that could do more than my small flip phone. I was constantly being exposed to the product(s) wherever I went.

The same problem applies to portable gaming devices; they have to "compete" with phones, not necessarily for market share (they are not marketing like "Buy our product instead of a phone!"), but rather for your time and attention (as in, "Pass your time with me instead of with your smartphone!"). The time you spend on a device also helps justify new purchases for it.

The 10-tag-limit for StreetPass isn't actually because of any software or memory limit, I would assume. It's an arbitrary limit that ensures you have to check your 3DS every so often lest you miss out on one of those sweet sweet puzzle pieces.

So now if you're out and about, they need to motivate you to get your 3DS out and be seen with it. Say you're waiting for a friend outside of a store or missed your bus and need to fill in 20 minutes; do you check Twitter and play a few rounds of Peggle on your phone? Or do you check your StreetPass tags and get a few Pokémon battles in?
The more "grind-y" a game feels, the less likely you are to pick it over a game or app that can give you positive feedback, flashing graphics, and power-ups near constantly. In comparison to Candy Crush or Qiktionary (which is a really cool game btw, I recommend it) and all the other phone apps we "real gamers" consider low brow, training Pokémon can often feel like a chore, and getting your team knocked out and being sent back to the last Pokémon Centre can be a huge drag (emphasis on "in comparison").

Hence the apparent "need" for a quicker levelling system and faster game pace.

The problem with Pokémon being "too easy" is not that they are trying to steal part of the smartphone user demographic, but rather they need to make it easier than ever to convince people to begin playing a game and keep playing it, and the easiest way to do that is by speeding up the amount of progress the player can make in a shorter time.

That said, I'm totally up for a better implementation of the Exp. Share, and an option to increase the game's difficulty should the player so desire; a simple "HARD MODE" like in B2W2 which increases all Gym Leaders/Rival's teams by 5 levels or something would be good enough for me...

Either that or just overhaul how experience/levelling up works, eliminating the need for the Exp Share in the first place.

I definitely see what you're saying about fighting for your time. However, for those of us (gamers and time-wasters alike) that buy a game to really immerse and enjoy it, this has the opposite effect. The only time I've ever played a Pokemon game in a setting such as waiting in public, or sitting on a bus, or anything like that, it's ONLY for grinding purposes. The opposite of what you suggest. I never advance through the story or get to big moments in the game unless I am at home, uninterrupted, with headphones on. If I'm gonna pay forty bucks for this game, I'm gonna enjoy every bit of art, every piece of music, and every little sound that comes up. In a public setting that's just not possible, which is why I'd be more likely to pull out my phone and play a game like flappy bird, where there's nothing to immerse yourself in except for the frustration and time-wasting capability.

 

[Bittersweet]

I definitely see what you're saying about fighting for your time. However, for those of us (gamers and time-wasters alike) that buy a game to really immerse and enjoy it, this has the opposite effect. The only time I've ever played a Pokemon game in a setting such as waiting in public, or sitting on a bus, or anything like that, it's ONLY for grinding purposes. The opposite of what you suggest. I never advance through the story or get to big moments in the game unless I am at home, uninterrupted, with headphones on. If I'm gonna pay forty bucks for this game, I'm gonna enjoy every bit of art, every piece of music, and every little sound that comes up. In a public setting that's just not possible, which is why I'd be more likely to pull out my phone and play a game like flappy bird, where there's nothing to immerse yourself in except for the frustration and time-wasting capability.

This is exactly the same for me.
I suppose perception is everything...

For a veteran fan of the series, story and character development would probably take priority over the gratification of levelling up your team and would prefer to play with the Exp Share off.

For a first-time-player who got a 3DS after a friend recommended it, they probably picked up a Pokémon game because it's one of Nintendo's flagship series, and enjoys single player battling against NPC's more than anything.

 

[The Outrage]

First off, I am going to say that making a game easier is a way to kill the time spent for many people. Next, they don't care whether you keep playing it. All they care is that you buy their game.

Its easier to keep an existing fanbase than to build one up each game. They obviously care that you keep playing it--how many people would watch a movie, hate it, and then go to the sequel? More objectively, they create leagues and tournaments for Pokemon TCG and the video games. That's not the action of a franchise that doesn't care whether you keep playing it.

 

[Bittersweet]

First off, I am going to say that making a game easier is a way to kill the time spent for many people. Next, they don't care whether you keep playing it. All they care is that you buy their game.

Its easier to keep an existing fanbase than to build one up each game. They obviously care that you keep playing it--how many people would watch a movie, hate it, and then go to the sequel? More objectively, they create leagues and tournaments for Pokemon TCG and the video games. That's not the action of a franchise that doesn't care whether you keep playing it.

Exactly. Smart companies are in it for the long game, not immediate return.

 

[The Outrage]

Exactly. Smart companies are in it for the long game, not immediate return.

I forgot to add this to the previous post, but Pokemon has direct competition with Yokai Watch stealing the younger fanbase away. Pokemon could try to get the younger fans back, or play on the perceptions that Pokemon "is for older kids" that the new generation has invariably created and open a door for lateral movement for those kids. Not to mention that some current fans are old enough to be parents, or have nieces and nephews. Having a game surround a new target makes it more likely that target will pick up the game.

Fan retention isn't just about keeping older fans. Its about using them as a way to get new fans into the series. How many other shows or games have you played because you saw posts on tumblr or other social media websites by fans? I know I picked up Awakening and Golden Sun because its existing fanbase liked the series. Pokemon itself became a sleeper hit in the late 90's and prolonged the Game Boy's lifespan because of word-of-mouth. What are potential customers going to think of a series that has no one in the fandom talking about it because they bought the game but didn't want to keep playing it? They'll think the games aren't worth their time or money.

To be honest though, I've argued this in other threads but the "easiness" of the main campaign has facilitated competitive battling (e.g., easier level ups, EV training, IV breeding, getting good items etc.). With that respect, Pokemon's built a good balance between its casual and competitive fanbase, but at the same time with a lack of any sort of challenge or reward, the main campaign comes off stale. That's why if they plan on streamlining the games, then they should focus on the stronger story telling that a streamlined experience allows.

 

[Jolty94]

It's definitely gotten easier since VI came in... But I think that's what is keeping the younger fans interested for the minute. I gave my little brother (who's 6) White version to play, and he got bored in a few minutes, I gave him XY and my megas into one team, and let him run around in the grass, he wouldn't put it down, he adored the graphics and the "big red dragon" (Charizard), but even at that age he isn't going to invest in doing a playthrough, he's more of a "pick up smash bros and play a few fights" kinda kid. I feel it's only when you get to around 9/10 that you invest time into a game, and want to build teams ect...

Whoever their target audience is, it definitely is not appealing to anyone under 8 at this moment in time, so when people say "the younger fans" what age group are you referring to? Because once you get to 13, if you start shouting Pokémon around the playground, you'd surely and quickly be judged, it is not 2002 anymore.

 

[PaulTheProtist]

First off, I am going to say that making a game easier is a way to kill the time spent for many people. Next, they don't care whether you keep playing it. All they care is that you buy their game.

Its easier to keep an existing fanbase than to build one up each game. They obviously care that you keep playing it--how many people would watch a movie, hate it, and then go to the sequel? More objectively, they create leagues and tournaments for Pokemon TCG and the video games. That's not the action of a franchise that doesn't care whether you keep playing it.

The fact is, the existing fanbase still buys the games, as evidenced by the huge sales of Gens IV and V. They don't need to make it a mobile-esque game, since all evidence shows that conpetition from smartphones isn't hurting the series. If it was, and they needed a last-ditch attempt to save the series, I'd understand their strategy. But as I said, all evidence suggests the series is successful without the need for a difficulty drop.

 

[Stella Vermillion]

I beat the e4 and champion underleveled without a single mon fainting or healing in between each of them. ORAS Being able to primal evolve groudon made the e4 and champion way to easy as he single handedly defeated the e4 without any prior training due to his massive bulk and good typing/ability. I think the games are getting easier due to the creators putting more focus into the competitive aspect of Pokemon. Take gen 6 for example. A lot of mons from this gen turns out to be really good in the meta game. If they aren't in OU they are near the top part of their respected tiers. I can not say anything about gen 5 as i skipped that gen due to disliking the anime. Then again i am a 17 year old girl who played pokemon since Pokemon Green came out. The only game i found difficult was Pokemon Colosseum due to that Pre-gym leader's gligar. Its aerial ace literally wrecked everything on my team. I had to train up a quagsire just to beat it. Not to mention beating the final boss in Colosseum and even the 4 fights before him even when i had all 3 legendary dogs. The handheld games were never really hard to me but then after colosseum Gale of Darkness came out and i beat that in 2 weeks only playing the game 2 hours per day. It took me a whole year just to beat colosseum.

 

[godiego]

The fact is, the existing fanbase still buys the games, as evidenced by the huge sales of Gens IV and V. They don't need to make it a mobile-esque game, since all evidence shows that conpetition from smartphones isn't hurting the series. If it was, and they needed a last-ditch attempt to save the series, I'd understand their strategy. But as I said, all evidence suggests the series is successful without the need for a difficulty drop.

problem: generation IV was before the rise of mobile phone gaming, let alone smartphones. that generation sold a grand total of approximately 40 million units of Diamond, Pearl, Platinum, HeartGold, and Soul Silver combined. generation V occurs during the general proliferation of smartphones and smartphone gaming. how much did it sell? about half of generation IV with approximately 20 million units of Black, Black 2, White, and White 2. true, generation V lacks one game, the remade region, however that doesn't excuse the fact that BW sold 3 million units less than DP (and 1 million less than Ruby and Sapphire) and BW2 sold only about 200,000 more units than Platinum. most critics said BW and BW2 were the best DS Pokemon games, if not the best DS games. many fans lauded (and still do) BW and BW2 as some of the best Pokemon games. and yet, it is the second generation to not outsell its predecessor (Gen II is the first).

though generation VI has outsold generation V, it has still failed to outsell generation IV, with XY selling ~14 million units and ORAS selling ~10 million units. the Kalos-remake game could potentially help reverse this, however it's still not likely to catch up to generation IV. smartphone competition hasn't put the nail in the coffin for console gaming and their respective series, but it does pose a legitimate threat to the industry. this can be seen in the sales for DS games versus 3DS games, virtually every 3DS game has not sold nearly as much as their DS counterparts (XY is still the best-selling 3DS game).

that being said, i doubt Pokemon is going anywhere any time soon anyways and so long as they don't completely shake up the series it's likely to remain "easy" for veteran fans.

 

[Norzan]

@godiego; You also have to take into account the aumont of Nintendo DS units and Nintendo 3DS units sold. The DS sold around 154 million units, while the 3DS so far has sold 53 millions units, i'd say selling 14 million units (XY) and 10 millions units (ORAS) on a system that sold 53 millions units is much more positive than a game selling 18 million copies on a system that sold 154 million units.

So yeah, the smartphone business isn't going to take out Pokemon anytime soon.

 

[Zweilous]

I have a couple nitpicks with that. Gen 4 only outsold Gen 5 by a bit more by 2 million rather then 3 based on this data. I'm assuming you got it from Wikipedia as that lists 18.23, but that data is incorrect as the source they use (which is the one above) instead has 17.63, so somehow the data was misrepresented.

Also, on the note of sales data, I disagree with how you compared Gen 2 and 5 to 3 and 6's sales respectively. Both of the former two generations do not have remakes, so evidentally that comparison ignores that important part of the data for them and improperly skewers it. A more apt comparison would be the Gen 4 vs. 5's comparison when you brought up BW/2 vs. DP/Pt, since in that case both have the games that can be properly compared and show what the difference in data is. That way we see how Gen 5 really stood up to 4 since both are on level ground rather then one having an advantage the other doesn't have.

Having said that, while you are right that the mobile market does likely have an effect, there also has to be other factors considered. What is the install base of the console that the games are on? What are the reception of the games? When are the games releasing (ex. some games releasing with a new system on the horizon can lose sales as a result)? and so on. There has to be a proper consideration for what else could be causing the issues with these games sales, it's usually not just one thing, there are multiple factors that can and will influence how well a game can do.

 

[godiego]

You also have to take into account the aumont of Nintendo DS units and Nintendo 3DS units sold. The DS sold around 154 million units, while the 3DS so far has sold 53 millions units, i'd say selling 14 million units (XY) and 10 millions units (ORAS) on a system that sold 53 millions units is much more positive than a game selling 18 million copies on a system that sold 154 million units.

So yeah, the smartphone business isn't going to take out Pokemon anytime soon.

an investor doesn't give a rat's ass if proportionally XY/ORAS is selling better than most other generation (currently about half of 3DS owners own XY/ORAS compared to about a third to a fourth of DS owners owning DPPt). all they see is that it's selling less.

then you have the issue that XY directly contributed to a lot of 3DS and 2DS sales so naturally it would have an inflated relationship. proportionality also does not factor in players who own multiple copies of the game. proportionality also does not measure success: over three-fourths of Wii owners own Wii Sports. does that mean it's an incredibly successful game? no because Wii Sports was bundled with most Wii purchases. take the original RBY which sold a combined total of 31 million. proportionally, just like generation IV that meant around one in four GameBoy owners owned Pokemon RBY as well. does that mean RBY was unsuccessful? no because it launched Pokemon into a global phenomenon regardless of how many GameBoy owners owned Pokemon as well.

of course, then the next question would be: why isn't anyone buying a 3DS? per annum, it's doing poorly compared to the DS at about 13.25 million per year (DS sold about 17-22 million per year depending on whether you cut it off at 2011 when the 3DS came out or in 2013 when it was officially discontinued).

I have a couple nitpicks with that. Gen 4 only sold a bit more then Gen 5 by 2 million rather then 3 based on this data. I'm assuming you got it from Wikipedia as that lists 18.23, but that data is incorrect as the source they use (which is the one above) instead has 17.63, so somehow the data was misrepresented.

that doesn't drastically change the story, so i have to say i don't care all that much.

Also, on the note of sales data, I disagree with how you compared Gen 2 and 5 to 3 and 6's sales respectively. Both of the former two generations do not have remakes, so evidentally that comparison ignores that important part of the data for them and improperly skewers it. A more apt comparison would be the Gen 4 vs. 5's comparison when you brought up BW/2 vs. DP/Pt, since in that case both have the games that can be properly compared and show what the difference in data is. That way we see how Gen 5 really stood up to 4 since both are on level ground rather then one having an advantage the other doesn't have.

and remakes notwithstanding, generation V still undersold compared to generation IV, and generation VI is the least-selling generation right now (excluding third versions).

Having said that, while you are right that the mobile market does likely have an effect, there also has to be other factors considered. What is the install base of the console that the games are one? What are the reception of the games? When's are the games releasing (ex. some games releasing with a new system on the horizon can lose sales as a result)? and so on. There has to be a proper consideration for what else could be causing the issues with these games sales, it's usually not just one thing, there are multiple factors that can and will influence how well a game can do.

that presents a distinct disadvantage for mobile console gaming as smartphones don't have that console issue. the fact that many consoles (both home and mobile) are reliant on planned obsolescence, especially Nintendo's, is going to have negative impacts for sales in the long-run.

critical reception seems not to matter for games since BW/BW2 undersold DPPt despite more praise and acclaim. player reception is difficult to track: you can go to places like reddit or Bulbagarden and find "VI sucks, all hail V" or go to Amazon and find that while both XY and BW have 4.5 stars, XY has proportionally higher ratings (94% are 4-5 stars for, 87% are 4-5 for BW). while i agree that there are multiple factors, i don't think they may have either equal impact or even as big of an impact as you may think. let's not forget that XY spurred many people to buy 3DS/2DS. (hell, i even bought one just for XY and my DS had been broken so i missed BW.)

 

[MissingNo. 1]

I would say that Pokemon was at its all-time low (in terms of game-play difficulty) in GSC (and then HGSS). I mean, I didn't grind, I had a full team of equally-trained Pokemon and I ran away from wild battles after the experience points yield became marginal (yes, I did battle every NPC for 100% completion but those experience points eventually became marginal too) but my team was always 10 levels above the major bosses (like Archer/Rocket executives, rival, Gym Leaders, Elite Four and Lance). Then again, there was the greatest super-boss at the end of the post-game so I suppose that makes up for how laughably easy the rest of the Johto games were before that.

And then there's the competitive aspect. It used to be literally impossible to have hexaflawless Pokemon on your team (the best one could hope for were 31 IV's in the three stats that mattered the most and around 25-30 in the rest). Now, it takes merely a couple hours (minutes, if you're not unlucky) to breed a hexaflawless Pokemon with a guaranteed desired nature. And with horde battles, it takes 10 minutes to max out EV's on one stat. Oh, and unless you're not trying to max out the EV's for a stat, you don't even have to keep count of where you're at with the EV amount so you don't exceed 252 by accident. I remember back when I spammed the Poketch for hours, only to realize at one point that I didn't remember if I inputted for that battle or not so I had to reset the EV's with the stat-reducing berries (which weren't terribly common if I remember correctly) to be safe.

 

[The Outrage]

@Norzan;
I agree with @godiego that using proportional sales to measure success is a misleading statistic. There is one single objective way to measure game success relative to the other, and that's in the net income (accounted for inflation) that the games generate. After all, even if a game sells a billion copies, but cost of production means that the company barely broke even, then it was a financially a failure. Of course, such statistics aren't available, and all we have to go by is raw sales of the games.

I guess you'd argue that accounting for proportional sales of the 3DS is equivalent to accounting for inflation but if we were to look at the gaming scene as a whole since Gen I, video gaming has gone from a niche interest to a wide market (thanks to both the Wii and DS). In that respect, Pokemon's numbers are even worse because they have a much wider market available to them now.