• ME fishes up some trouble in Mt. Coronet. Watch here as he slogs his way through the snowy Routes 216 and 217.
  • All content from the former Roleplaying Games forum has been merged into the Writers' Workshop forum. You can find more information in this thread.

    We hope to see you roleplaying away soon!
  • The World Beyond Restructure is now finished! Check out the update here!
  • The 2020 staff drive for Bulbagarden is now live! If you're interested in joining the Bulbagarden staff team (whether it be forums, social media, or more!) then you're encouraged to apply!
  • Hey everyone! The Writer's Workshop is hosting an exciting event, Trainers of Fanfiction! It's a community event focused around your characters!

June 24th Pokemon Presents Discussion

What do you think the new project will be?

  • Sinnoh Remakes

    Votes: 11 21.2%
  • Let's Go Johto

    Votes: 12 23.1%
  • Something else

    Votes: 29 55.8%

  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now with Mega Evolution
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
5,118
Reaction score
5,133
We don't, but we do know the relative value compared to other games. More assets takes more time to create, each additional Pokemon they add also adds additional development time modeling and coding them into the game. Same with each new area, each new character, each new feature.



That's usually due to either human error in trying and failing to accomplish the task or wanting to enjoy the game at their own pace. They can be objectively compared based on the optimal time it would take to complete the task, i.e. if you were to speedrun those tasks which would be longer or shorter?



No, no it's not. Higher quantities of products are always priced higher than lower quantities. This is because it costs more to produce higher quantities and because customers are more likely if not guaranteed to enjoy more of what's being provided. Let's say you pick any given pool of 200 Pokemon vs. any given pool of 100 Pokemon. Are you more likely to find more Pokemon you like from the pool of 200 or the pool of 100? Of course the answer is 200, and this should be common sense. More Pokemon means a higher chance of finding one that fits your personal tastes. Now is it going to be 100% the case that you'll like the pool of 200 every time? No, depending on which ones you do like it's entirely possibly you could like the pool of 100 better. But in general, on a macroeconomic level (meaning looking at the fanbase as a whole vs. personal opinions), overall fans are going to value 200 Pokemon more than 100 Pokemon. And businesses tend to operate on the macroeconomic level when making these types of decisions, so a higher quantity is always going to be priced more than a lower quantity with all else equal. I shouldn't need to explain this to you, this is something everyone should instinctively understand.



Well yeah, there's always that factor where every game could always have more content that it does. Still, whether or not they're priced correctly based on quantity depends on several factors:

1. How much money it cost to develop the game.
2. How much it offers relative to past games.
3. How much it offers relative to competing games of other IPs.

Now 1 you're right, we don't know for sure, but based on the lack of assets and content in the games, it's unlikely they need to price the games at $60 to turn a profit. The games were likely made on the cheap and so many people buy them that they should easily profit on these games even if they were at a lower price. 2 I've addressed with the Sinnoh vs. Galar comparison, and there's definitely less assets in SwSh than past games. As for 3, look at other Switch games such as BotW, Mario Odyssey, Smash Ultimate, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Splatoon 2, Super Mario Maker 2, the list goes on and on. All of these games are going all out to include as many areas, as many characters, and as many features as possible. Pokemon is not.

This isn't an exact science, but just by eyeballing the games you can tell there's less to them. It's like looking at a mansion and then looking at a trailer and trying to figure out which is bigger (without a measuring tape or any other tools to help you). You don't know the exact size, but you don't need to because you can already compare the relative sizes with your eyes. Just because you can't exactly measure them doesn't mean it's an opinion.
I wish you the best of luck with your opinion on the game and I will continue to hold mine! =]
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
2,607
This is speculative. No one except those who worked in the game has any idea exactly how much time and resources went into the game.

This is subjective. Everyone can take a different amount of time to do things.

Again, subjective. The “worth” of more Pokémon to less is up to the consumer.

Just because an alternative would be valued more, doesn’t mean this one should be valued less. They could have included 20 more Pokémon introduced in Gold and Silver. That doesn’t mean they weren’t priced correctly as they are.


Your points are:
  • Sword and Shield are factually overpriced meaning anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong.
  • I and anyone else who purchased them should feel bad because we’re harming the fan base.
I’m not sure how you can read that and not immediately see how ridiculous it sounds. Passing off everything you say as fact while telling everyone who disagrees that they should feel bad and that they’re being harmful is not a great way to get people to agree with you.

I am going to continue to hold my opinion on the worth of the games and I am going to continue to purchase the games where I see fit. If you personally lose sleep over that, that’s on you. But I still love and support this community.
While I don't agree with his notion that we shouldn't have bought this product, the essence of his posts is crystal clear:

We've gotten less content than an older generation; Engaging, multi-faceted content at that.
 
Young Battle Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
6,093
Reaction score
7,006
While I don't agree with his notion that we shouldn't have bought this product, the essence of his posts are crystal clear:

We've gotten less content than an older generation. Engaging, multi-faceted content.
But still, that does not mean that those who purchased Sword and Shield are actively harming the fanbase.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
2,607
But still, that does not mean that those who purchased Sword and Shield are actively harming the fanbase.
As I said, I don't agree with that sentiment of harming the fanbase if you buy the game. I've bought it myself, as did my friends. All of us are critical about it, but we knew what we bought.

I think the enormous amount of backlash has certainly come across at Gamefreak's offices, even if the titles sold well. A succesful product needs to take feedback into account, too. Especially if the matter at hand is very divisive. They surely have marketing and/or customer departments monitoring the internet.

They can't possibly be that blind. Feedback has been taken into consideration before.
 
Young Battle Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
6,093
Reaction score
7,006
As I said, I don't agree with that sentiment of harming the fanbase if you buy the game. I've bought it myself, as did my friends. All of us are critical about it, but we knew what we bought.

I think the enormous amount of backlash has certainly come across at Gamefreak's offices, even if the titles sold well. A succesful product needs to take feedback into account, too. Especially if the matter at hand is very divisive. They surely have marketing and/or customer departments monitoring the internet.

They can't possibly be that blind. Feedback has been taken into consideration before.
They probably are. They possibly might think that they can get away with putting in the bare minimum content because it will sell tens of millions of copies on the Pokemon name alone.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
2,607
They probably are. They possibly might think that they can get away with putting in the bare minimum content because it will sell tens of millions of copies on the Pokemon name alone.
I think, by the end of the day, most of the people at Gamefreak are still passionate.

Their jobs would be excruciatingly boring otherwise.

Plus, I don't think Sword/Shield is the bare minimum, it just misses some key-parts like a better story, difficulty and more post-game opportunities. The new 'mons are amazing, for example, and not minimal. Those missing parts don't feel like a huge financial input to me. Even bigger dungeons are something they're more than capable of with this budget.

So, missed opportunities, yes, quite a few of them actually. Bare minimum? Neh, there's still plenty to do, just not enough engaging content.
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
124
Reaction score
76
Your points are:
  • Sword and Shield are factually overpriced meaning anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong.
  • I and anyone else who purchased them should feel bad because we’re harming the fan base.
To be sincere, i feel that pratically any main series Pokémon Game is/was Overpriced.

If you compare, for instance, Quantity/Quality/Develop Cost and Time x Price, Pokémon Games fall short to the Witcher 3. Yet, the witcher 3 is sold for less money. Furthermore, The Witcher 3 was developed almost entirely from scratch. Pokémon Games always reuse or already has built several assets. Maybe, or not, that's because pokémon is Nintendo exclusive.

Thus, i believe that a common criticism of the Game franchise is that the investment and the develop cost looks shabby, while the sales and the profit is enviable, and that comes from a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
Now with Mega Evolution
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
5,118
Reaction score
5,133
To be sincere, i feel that pratically any main series Pokémon Game is/was Overpriced.

If you compare, for instance, Quantity/Quality/Develop Cost and Time x Price, Pokémon Games fall short to the Witcher 3. Yet, the witcher 3 is sold for less money. Furthermore, The Witcher 3 was developed almost entirely from scratch. Pokémon Games always reuse or has already built several assets. Maybe, or not, that's because pokémon is Nintendo exclusive.

Thus, i believe that a common criticism of the Game franchise is that the investment and the develop cost looks shabby, while the sales and the profit is enviable, and that comes from a long time ago.
That’s totally fair, but I don’t personally believe SwSh are particularly worse offenders of this than other games. The point is that it’s subjective, and if people feel that the games are worth $60, they should feel welcome to purchase them for that amount. Otherwise: don’t. No one should feel bad or that they are harming the community either way =]
.
.
.
Also, I apologize for any derailing of this thread I contributed to. The proper place to have discussions on Sword and Shield is here. Any further discussion in this thread should be limited to the June 24th announcement.
 
Last edited:
Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
8,235
Reaction score
10,044
@FelipePR
I think a better comparison would be Pokken and Tekken Tag Tournament 2. One has 70+ characters and the other less than twenty. Can you guess which one was the more expensive?
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
2,607
That’s totally fair, but I don’t personally believe SwSh are particularly worse offenders of this than other games. The point is that it’s subjective, and if people feel that the games are worth $60, they should feel welcome to purchase them for that amount. Otherwise: don’t. No one should feel bad or that they are harming the community either way =]
.
.
.
Also, I apologize for any detailing of this thread I contributed to. The proper place to have discussions on Sword and Shield is here. Any further discussion in this thread should be limited to the June 24th announcement.
Just a small note, I think we have far too many threads, to be honest. All those subjects are related, we aren't talking about the anime, for example. There's nothing to speculate on anymore, regarding the 24th.

All of this controversy has to do with Sword/Shield, as well.
 
Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
124
Reaction score
76
@FelipePR
I think a better comparison would be Pokken and Tekken Tag Tournament 2. One has 70+ characters and the other less than twenty. Can you guess which one was the more expensive?
No, I am not familiar with fighting games. I never played any these games, although I watched some Pokkén Tournament gameplay. Besides that, Pokkén Tournament is an spin off, therefore I wouldn't be surprised at a low budget. However, i also don't know how successful is the Tekken franchise.

Lastly, Pokémon is a major Franchise and, at least i, as a fan, wish i could compare it with a major game.
 
Last edited:
Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
8,235
Reaction score
10,044
No, I am not familiar with fighting games. I never played any these games, although I watched some Pokkén Tournament gameplay. Besides that, Pokkén Tournament is an spin off, therefore I wouldn't be surprised at a low budget. However, i also don't know how successful is the Tekken franchise.

Lastly, Pokémon is a major Franchise and, at least i, as a fan, wish i could compare it with a major game.
Tekken is a big franchise too, and I was more or less supporting your point about Pokémon games being kind of overpriced, since in the example I posted, Tekken Tag Tournament 2 is three times cheaper than Pokken, even though TTT2 has close to four times as much content.
 
Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
124
Reaction score
76
Tekken is a big franchise too, and I was more or less supporting your point about Pokémon games being kind of overpriced, since in the example I posted, Tekken Tag Tournament 2 is three times cheaper than Pokken, even though TTT2 has close to four times as much content.
Yeah, i have the impression that Pokemon Games and other Nintendo Franchises devalue less with respect to time too. Square Enix, likewise, sales old games for quite a price.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
8,235
Reaction score
10,044
Yeah, i have the impression that Pokemon Games and other Nintendo Franchises devalue less with respect to time too. Square Enix, likewise, sales old games for quite a price.
Not exactly what I was saying, since I'm comparing two Wii U games (the Switch didn't exist back then).
 
PinkIceTales!
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,975
Reaction score
4,868
The tekken pokken comparison reminded me of lego. Regular lego are pretty pricey but if you want a big disney themed lego the price is jacked up further because DISNEY. Pokken more pricey because POKEMON YERP

That said, I always knew that when pokemon became a main console title instead of a handheld game title that the price would double even if the content didn't. :| Because console games are more expensive than handhelds' more often than not.
 
Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
5,055
Reaction score
3,144
That said, I always knew that when pokemon became a main console title instead of a handheld game title that the price would double even if the content didn't. :| Because console games are more expensive than handhelds' more often than not.
The price doubling was practically a given. Most retail games on handhelds and consoles cost the same price, so there wasn't much of a chance that Pokemon would be less than $60. But I fully expected in the jump to console, Game Freak would have the business sense to see that everyone else was providing high end, open ended, content rich experiences like Xenoblade and BotW and think that they needed to step up their development to compensate. And I think this is what a lot of people expected when the idea of a console Pokemon game was brought up, those types of experiences are closer to what most people probably envision a console RPG being like. Unfortunately, Game Freak is going in the opposite direction in some ways and scaling down their features instead of scaling up their development.

To bring it back to the main topic, this is what people were most likely expecting out of the presentation as well (disregarding how likely it would've been). You hype up a separate presentation like this and people think it's a big AAA game. Because again, based on what everyone else is doing with their IPs on console, this is where the market's expectations are set. This is what most console developers have decided is worth selling for $60, and as a result, customers have been conditioned to expect this much for $60. So when Pokemon isn't meeting those same sorts of expectations, of course you're going to get toxicity and hatred towards the developer. This makes them appear greedy and/or incompetent, and either way is certainly deserving of criticism and pressure to improve.
 
Blast Turtle
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
2,485
Reaction score
4,502
Seeing as the presentation has passed, I have removed the speculation prefix and changed the title to "June 24th Pokemon Presents Discussion." Probably should have done this right after the presentation, sorry about that.
 
Looking for a way to be whole again.
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,894
Reaction score
5,038
In terms of Chinese digital companies, I would try to avoid them all. I didn't know Zoom belonged to one.
 
I'm a funny bug.
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
451
Reaction score
993
I guess I'll give some thoughts about the Poke-Mess...

Pokemon's biggest problem is that it has turned into the new Hello Kitty of the entertainment industry. And it's a result of much of the industry becoming cowards to try new things and create new icons. "Why take all the time to do that, when we can utilize Pokemon and its nostalgia to sell our product?"

This has become apparent in many of the new spinoffs in the Mobile world. Look at Cafe-Mix: If they took the time to swap Pokemon with their own icons in a very similar cutie-anime style, would it ever gain ground? And look at GO: Ninantic originally had its own collection game of a similar nature to it, and it was quite niche. Adding Pokemon ==== Billions in profit for them!

And now at look at UNITE: Basically, they merged MOBA-style gameplay and money making tactics with the branding power of Pokemon. Sounds like a capitalist's dream... What could go wrong?! The same thing that happened to other Poke-mobile games, like Duel and Rumble Rush: It will become dismantled after 1 mere year. Why? Because the fans get burned out by the Gameplay, as well as the psychological tactics mobile games put on them to bring in money. It's a sign that 'Pokemon' alone just doesn't cut it these days - and fans become weary of it.

After that, think about what happens to Pokemon as a brand. So much bombardment of merchandise, good and bad, all with a sense of serving fans in hopes of gaining profit. Too much conjestion, too much exposure... Pokemon feels so much like cheap junk food now - Little about it feels inspiring because so many have invested into it just to make a buck.

And when we go back to Gamefreak now... Think about what the fans feel and want in the main series games after all the exposure they they get of the spinoffs and merchandise. ...And think of what Gamefreak must do to deliver it. It's such a dilemma that I wish more people should think about, and why just slapping Pokemon on something for the sake of capitalism can be problematic.
 
Blast Turtle
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
2,485
Reaction score
4,502
And now at look at UNITE: Basically, they merged MOBA-style gameplay and money making tactics with the branding power of Pokemon. Sounds like a capitalist's dream... What could go wrong?! The same thing that happened to other Poke-mobile games, like Duel and Rumble Rush: It will become dismantled after 1 mere year. Why? Because the fans get burned out by the Gameplay, as well as the psychological tactics mobile games put on them to bring in money. It's a sign that 'Pokemon' alone just doesn't cut it these days - and fans become weary of it.
I think it's a little too early to make a call on whether or not UNITE will go the way of the dodo. While Duel and Rumble Rush have become discontinued, I'd like note that GO is still highly successful. And judging by how UNITE was presented, it really seems like TPCi wants this game to be the next GO in terms of success. I don't recall Duel and Rumble Rush getting such flashy reveals. Therefore, I don't think TPCi will let UNITE die like they did with other mobile spin-offs. And that's not even getting into the fact that Tencent is the developer of this game, who have apparently had success in this genre before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top