Spoilers Official Let's Go Pikachu/Let's Go Eevee Discussion Thread

[Twilight-Kun]

$20 for an entire flippin' year is a freakin' STEAL

+$5 for Bank, I guess, because some people for whatever reason want to have over 800 pokémon they'll never ever use stored...why?

Get a basic job that lets you rake in, what, over a hundred a week, and you're all set for the next decade or so of pokémon and Switch material

 

[BlueWaves]

Does anyone know what happens when you face a Legendary and the timer runs out?

 

[EmpoleonProd]

I know every company is taking this route... But Pokemon never has before now. That's why I always preferred them. Yes, you had to pay extra if you wanted both versions. You had to pay extra if you wanted features exclusive to certain consoles/handheld systems. But that stuff was all optional.

As it was, anybody and everybody who had the game, the system, and WiFi could complete the Pokedex, train a great team from the available pool, breed for IVs, etc. The World Champion could be anyone at all; they just needed the game and a drive to put the work in.

But now they need the game... and they also need to sign up to pay $3 to $5.95 a month indefinitely. For a feature that was free before and formed a core aspect of Pokemon's concept as a game.
I'm not mad at them charging more money for version exclusives, or Game Boy eShop titles (in fact, I always buy both versions, and I bought 8 eShop copies of all the Gen I and II games so...) because that stuff was all optional add-ons. Having to pay for the ability to trade is not introducing a brand new online feature and charging a small fee for it; it's taking what was always a basic free feature and putting a price-wall on it.



Battling and trading online has been free since it launched in the mid 00s. It's not like Pokemon data has increased in load such that it makes sense to now charge for it. Pokemon are the same bits of digital information they've always been, as are Pokemon battles. If there were some truly new online aspect that you had to pay for, it would be a completely different story and I probably would pay for it no question.

You’re literally advocating for an anti-consumer practice which is a literal regression from the previous experiences?
I know you like LGPE, but I don’t think blindly advocating for previously free, and now almost essential features being paid now should be advocated by consumers.

It is impossible to return to the offline times of Generation 4 and before- the world is connected more by online than ever before, people have friends all over the globe, and there were literally region exclusive forms with Vivilion.
A lot has changed since those times, and GameFreak has literally aimed their latest games at children who weren’t even born when Generation 4 was released.

Also there’s no guarantee that Generation 9 will support Go transfers.

Lol wow you two just totally missed the point.

1. As I have already said multiple times but one of you refused to listen, this is NOT a Pokemon Company or Gamefreak call, their hands are tied, so blame Nintendo, not Pokemon.

2. In no way am I advocating anything, quote me where I said "this is a great addition", I dare you.

3. I'm not defending anything either, all I did was ever so kindly inform both of you of WHY this is happening, not my defense for why it's happening. It's happening because the entire gaming industry is taking this direction, mobile, console, and PC alike, they're all putting DLC and bonus features behind paywalls.

4. Now I'm going to very less kindly inform you both that $20 a year equates to 5 cents a day so if you can't afford 5 cents a day I think you have bigger issues to worry about in your actual life instead of what features you can and can't access on a video game that you're, to put it bluntly, wasting your time on.

I tried to be nice but you guys shoved words in my mouth and misinterpreted everything I said so now you get the cold, hard truth. If you can't afford a 5 cent a day subscription, you're currently failing at life.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

$20 for an entire flippin' year is a freakin' STEAL

Not when you compare it to the previously-standard 0$.

+$5 for Bank, I guess, because some people for whatever reason want to have over 800 pokémon they'll never ever use stored...why?

Maybe because it's the only way to transfer up Pokemon now?

Get a basic job that lets you rake in, what, over a hundred a week, and you're all set for the next decade or so of pokémon and Switch material

That'd leave someone spending three week's wages on the Switch, and over half a week's paycheck per game, plus whatever their internet bill costs. (The average is reportedly 60$, so that's another over half week spent) And that's looking purely at gaming costs, not any of the standard bills. Why is it more reasonable to expect someone in that position to pay even more money for online play than it is for Nintendo (who made 9 billion in a year) to handle it themselves?

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

@EmpoleonProd you literally defend the practice in your Point 4 and the last paragraph, including use of personal jabs.
"Tough luck, deal with it." Also implies that people should be fine with the situation and not complain, aka defending.

 

[EmpoleonProd]

@EmpoleonProd you literally defend the practice in your Point 4 and the last paragraph, including use of personal jabs.
"Tough luck, deal with it." Also implies that people should be fine with the situation and not complain, aka defending.

There's a difference between defending and rationalizing.

I'm not defending the practice, I hate it just as much as anyone else. Sony went from free online with the PS3 to now matching Xbox's stupid prices for the PS4.

I'm rationalizing the fact that we could have it much worse. Nintendo could offer online functionality at $60/year like the other powerhouse console makers do, they could offer regions, exclusive Pokemon (like the regional ones in GO), mythicals (like they already do with Mew), items like master balls and rare candies, all behind paywalls and loot boxes and micro-transactions.

ALL I'm saying is be glad it's not worse, because it very much could get worse.

Why do you think retro gaming shops and YouTube channels are becoming so popular? People are done with the modern moneymaking mentality and would rather just enjoy a complete product. That's why classics like Emerald, Crystal, etc will always be the most superior Pokemon games.

"Tough luck, deal with it" means that this industry-wide practice is, unfortunately, not going anywhere, barring a massive, coordinated, worldwide boycott of games, gaming consoles, and accessories, which is not happening any time soon because unfortunately, so many people all around the world are willing to take the financial hit for their own entertainment.

If you would actually look at it from a business standpoint, it's becoming more and more competitive to get people to actually sit down and play your game, because there's so many options to choose from and people have a smaller attention span and less free time than ever before. Theoretically, everything you pay for would go to the developers of games and the consoles that would go to improving the product, I say theoretically because saying there's been any real improvement in the industry aside from graphics is a major stretch.

 

[nickdt]

There's a difference between defending and rationalizing.

I'm not defending the practice, I hate it just as much as anyone else. Sony went from free online with the PS3 to now matching Xbox's stupid prices for the PS4.

I'm rationalizing the fact that we could have it much worse. Nintendo could offer online functionality at $60/year like the other powerhouse console makers do, they could offer regions, exclusive Pokemon (like the regional ones in GO), mythicals (like they already do with Mew), items like master balls and rare candies, all behind paywalls and loot boxes and micro-transactions.

ALL I'm saying is be glad it's not worse, because it very much could get worse.

Why do you think retro gaming shops and YouTube channels are becoming so popular? People are done with the modern moneymaking mentality and would rather just enjoy a complete product. That's why classics like Emerald, Crystal, etc will always be the most superior Pokemon games.

"Tough luck, deal with it" means that this industry-wide practice is, unfortunately, not going anywhere, barring a massive, coordinated, worldwide boycott of games, gaming consoles, and accessories, which is not happening any time soon because unfortunately, so many people all around the world are willing to take the financial hit for their own entertainment.

Like already pointed out: Its not an industry-wide practice (Seems you are missing that point), since some companies on the Switch don't have Online Pay integreated, like Fortnite.

The problem here however is that most people buy a Switch because of Pokemon and don't care about other titles. Most children have at least 2 different consoles and parents also aren't not gonna pay money for to go online on both consoles, especially since Fortnite on is free. Pokken and Smash is more targeted towards teens/adults than its targeted towards children, so its unlikely they are paying for it to go online.

Another aspect is that trading also costs money for Pokemon and i can't see many children go online for battles. Thats the problem for Pokemon, what they offer, doesn't justify a paid subscription, especially since this game is targeted towards casuals who play Pokemon Go (And since Pokemon Go is free, they don't gonna pay for Online). The Paid online subscription is gonna do more harm than good for Pokemon in the long run and this is something GF and Nintendo need to realize, since without Pokemon, Nintendo is technically boned because its highest selling franchise and brings in the most profit.

 

[EmpoleonProd]

Like already pointed out: Its not an industry-wide practice (Seems you are missing that point), since some companies on the Switch don't have Online Pay integreated, like Fortnite.

The problem here however is that most people buy a Switch because of Pokemon and don't care about other titles. Most children have at least 2 different consoles and parents also aren't not gonna pay money for to go online on both consoles, especially since Fortnite on is free. Pokken and Smash is more targeted towards teens/adults than its targeted towards children, so its unlikely they are paying for it to go online.

Another aspect is that trading also costs money for Pokemon and i can't see many children go online for battles. Thats the problem for Pokemon, what they offer, doesn't justify a paid subscription, especially since this game is targeted towards casuals who play Pokemon Go (And since Pokemon Go is free, they don't gonna pay for Online). The Paid online subscription is gonna do more harm than good for Pokemon in the long run and this is something GF and Nintendo need to realize, since without Pokemon, Nintendo is technically boned because its highest selling franchise and brings in the most profit.

When I say industry-wide I'm not only referring to Nintendo, I mean everyone is doing this and the people who aren't yet, will.

 

[Bittersweet]

$20 for an entire flippin' year is a freakin' STEAL

+$5 for Bank, I guess, because some people for whatever reason want to have over 800 pokémon they'll never ever use stored...why?

Get a basic job that lets you rake in, what, over a hundred a week, and you're all set for the next decade or so of pokémon and Switch material

lol I'm 26. I have a job. The reason I'm complaining is not because I can't afford this. I could pay for it. It's not like I could consistently buy all the new consoles and both versions of every game (which I have been since Gen V) and not have a job. I could afford to do that because Pokemon is the only video game I really indulged in... or purchased at all really.

The reason I'm a little angry is because the price of entry is now up, the cost of the console I bought went up by a considerable amount, and now– come Gen VIII– I have to pay for a yearly subscription just to access a feature that was always free. The cost of that subscription isn't really the issue; it could cost $1 a month for all it matters, that's not really my rub.
That is, assuming I don't just sell all my games and stop playing, which is not unlikely at this point.

Lol wow you two just totally missed the point.

1. As I have already said multiple times but one of you refused to listen, this is NOT a Pokemon Company or Gamefreak call, their hands are tied, so blame Nintendo, not Pokemon.

I... I am blaming Nintendo. Who did you think I was blaming? Santa Claus?

3. I'm not defending anything either, all I did was ever so kindly inform both of you of WHY this is happening, not my defense for why it's happening. It's happening because the entire gaming industry is taking this direction, mobile, console, and PC alike, they're all putting DLC and bonus features behind paywalls.

I know the whole industry is going that way of putting DLC and bonus features behind paywalls... But trading and battling online isn't a "bonus feature". It's not something new. It's a basic feature that's always just been part of the package out-of-the-box. Imagine if they suddenly introduced a micro-transaction to unlock Pokemon Breeding. If they had introduced a brand new feature with actual new features and additions to Pokemon as a concept but charged money to unlock it... I would probably buy it.

4. Now I'm going to very less kindly inform you both that $20 a year equates to 5 cents a day so if you can't afford 5 cents a day I think you have bigger issues to worry about in your actual life instead of what features you can and can't access on a video game that you're, to put it bluntly, wasting your time on.
.

It could cost less than 1 cent a day. It could cost $1 a day. That's not really the point. It's not a question of whether I can afford it, or if anyone can; it's the fact a free basic feature is now behind the paywall, seemingly unnecessarily.

Edit: Just to be clear @EmpoleonProd , I am dealing with it... I returned the game and am venting my frustrations as to why here.

 

[RK9]

So as I'm thinking of purchasing this game and reading this whole online payment thing.

Is it possible in-game to get trade evolutions (So Haunter to Gengar and Kadabra to Alakazam) through the use of candies as well, or do I really need to trade them over? Is it even possible to evolve Pokemon through candies like in Pokemon Go? As they would be 2 of my intended team members, I'd be less inclined to purchase the game if I can't get them because I need to pay money to trade.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

So as I'm thinking of purchasing this game and reading this whole online payment thing.

Is it possible in-game to get trade evolutions (So Haunter to Gengar and Kadabra to Alakazam) through the use of candies as well, or do I really need to trade them over? Is it even possible to evolve Pokemon through candies like in Pokemon Go? As they would be 2 of my intended team members, I'd be less inclined to purchase the game if I can't get them because I need to pay money to trade.

There are no candy evolutions in Let's Go. Candies are only used to increase stats to my knowledge.
So, yes, trade is required to get Gengar and Alakazam.

A way to get trade evolutions without trading could be to obtain them in Go using candies to evolve Haunter/Kadabra and transfer the evolved Gengar/Alakazam to Let's Go.

 

[RK9]

There are no candy evolutions in Let's Go. Candies are only used to increase stats to my knowledge.
So, yes, trade is required to get Gengar and Alakazam.

A way to get trade evolutions without trading could be to obtain them in Go using candies to evolve Haunter/Kadabra and transfer the evolved Gengar/Alakazam to Let's Go.

Ouch, that sucks. I don't play Pokemon Go so that's a big blow.

And they're not catchable either, like Clefable in Mount Moon?

 

[Cresselia92]

Y’all keep complaining about the fact that a feature that used to be free it’s now payment-only. But there is a thing that many keep forgetting: servers and their maintenance have a cost, and it’s hefty. Also, popular first-party games tend to weigh on those servers much more than indie or third-party games, since they tend to gather a much bigger playerbase.

We are in an era where everyone is online and there is a surplus of online players, which forces the various companies to buy more servers to sustain the workload, and that is something that costs millions of dollars. It’s obvious that during the DS/Wii and 3DS/WiiU eras things were much different and not as digitally oriented as they are now, so they could afford to keep online features “free”. However, it seems that it’s no longer the case, for factors that we don’t know fully (probably money, but eeh).

The reasoning being the online services is very simple: people who pay the subscription pay for part of the maintenance and costs of the servers, which ensures more stable connections and online features, while people who don’t are left out and don’t weigh on the already overloaded servers. So, the higher the income, the more companies can afford new servers and the more the quality of said servers can be kept high.

“But they are multimillionaire companies, they can afford to pay for those servers!”. Well, no, it doesn’t work like that. They are business companies, not charities. Their main purpose is to make money, and if they can net more by making people pay for subscriptions and stuff, then why not take this opportunity? Sure, it sucks for the customer, but that’s how business works, I’m afraid.

Besides, free online services tend to go in tandem with awful overly slow servers full of lags and all kinds of connection issues, and the more people connect to those crappy servers, and the more the problem is escalated to ridiculous levels, which can end with the crash of the servers.

I mean, just see what happens almost every time that a new hyped game is released on the eShop, with the servers being unable to handle the influx of people connecting at the same time, which usually ends with the servers going offline. Now, imagine this scenario happening everyday, with people battling and trading almost 24/7… you get where I’m coming.

Honestly, I’d gladly pay a little amount of money if that meant having better connections and online features, in order to not have to experience hair-pulling headaches and continuous server crashes, especially during online matches. Quality has its cost, after all, and “free” services have many downsides that far too often are ignored, just because of that magical $0.

The way is see it, $0 = 0 quality. It may suck, sure, and I can’t say to be too happy about having to pay yet another subscription, but this is how things are and will go from now on, and the sooner we accept it and the better it will be.

Ouch, that sucks. I don't play Pokemon Go so that's a big blow.

And they're not catchable either, like Clefable in Mount Moon?

Well, I’ve heard that wild Legendary Pokémon have a very low spawn rate – probably once you catch the original ones and as a way to earn Legendary candy – so I think it may be possible to catch a few evolved Pokémon in the wild. Otherwise, GO would be the way to go, and with trading you can get some Pokémon from other people and transfer them in Let’s Go.

 

[Icy Wind]

The way is see it, $0 = 0 quality. I

This is a pretty terrible excuse considering the Switch’s online isn’t much, if any, better than the 3ds/Wii U, and in LGPE’s case, the game has less online features than the 3ds games, which had free online.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

Plus trading is almost essential to complete the Pokedex if you’re not buying two versions. None of the other games have essential features locked behind paid online, the reason people believed that Pokemon might be one of the exempt games (Nintendo said some games would have free online) from the paid service.

 

[Cresselia92]

This is a pretty terrible excuse considering the Switch’s online isn’t much, if any, better than the 3ds/Wii U, and in LGPE’s case, the game has less online features than the 3ds games, which had free online.

How does that contradict my point, exactly? Being the same =/= better.

And yeah, I’ve experienced crashes with those “free” services. Heck, I’ve lost a few event Pokémon in SM because of those connections failing while I was downloading the Pokémon, with a notification later telling me that I had already received the event. And no, I have an Internet connection at 10 Mbs, so I can’t blame it on a faulty Wi-Fi.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

How does that contradict my point, exactly? Being the same =/= better.

Because you said that paid service would increase the quality and make for a better service.

 

[Cresselia92]

Because you said that paid service would increase the quality and make for a better service.

The Switch service has gone online quite recently, though. Of course things tend to be quite rough at the beginning, just like with everything.

Not like I care too much about it since I rarely go online and I would get the service mainly to play with the NES games and for the Cloud service – as far too often I’ve lost saves and that would truly be a lifesaver – but I’d like to see how things will be once it picks up some steam. If the service will keep being trash and whatnot, then we can point fingers at Nintendo and whatever, but I prefer to give the benefit of doubt for now.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

The Switch service has gone online quite recently, though. Of course things tend to be quite rough at the beginning, just like with everything.

Online was supposed to be free for people to test the service though, wasn’t it? They’ve had an Year sinc even the Switch's launch to work out how the service works.

The Nintendo major online-heavy games like Splatoon 2, ARMS, Mario Tennis Aces and Mario Kart have Peer-to-Peer connection instead of dedicated servers, so the maintaining dedicated servers argument becomes weak here. This is in addition to the fact that non-first party game like Fortnite has free online.

And my previous point that none of the essential features in the above games have been locked by online applies. Without buying the same game 2 times you cannot complete the Pokedex if trading is absent.
The entire two-version philosophy relied on ease of trading and connecting with friends and people all over the globe.

I just think that Pokémon should have been exempt from the online charges due to its unique situation, plus its aim at younger players now (parents might not care enough to pay more than the base game for children) and mass appeal.

 

[Cresselia92]

Honestly, I feel like that’s more an incentive to use GO alongside Let’s Go to get the missing pieces of the puzzle, more than anything.

I mean, connectivity between GO and Let’s Go is the initial and main premise of the existence of Let’s Go, after all, and they kept hammering the whole “transfer Pokémon from Pokémon GO to Let’s Go” since the very first trailer.