• Another scrumptious episode of Bulbacast has been uploaded to YouTube. Watch it here. I hope you don't feel desserted after watching this one.
  • 4chan is an 18+ website, and as such we do not want to expose our underage users to that site.

    You may post screen shots and text from 4chan, but direct linking to the site, or it's archival sites is not allowed.

    Thanks.

  • Hello all! The forum staff have introduced a new rule set. We've reduced the number of rules, made trick language easier to understand, and have hopefully simplified the rules to make understanding them easier. Please have a read over the new forum rules here.

Official Pre-Pokémon Sword & Pokémon Shield Speculation & Leaks thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Icy Wind

*Shivers*
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
5,513
Reaction score
9,454
The $100 number is a bit of an exaggeration I didn't really mean for anyone to latch onto that point. But here's my source:

View: https://youtu.be/VhWGQCzAtl8
This video is talking about games that sell lootboxes, microtransactions, season passes etc... not literally all games. And LGPE has none of the things the youtuber mentioned soo

They definetely shouldn’t cost anywhere near 100$
 

TechSkylander1518

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,035
Reaction score
8,619
What has changed in the two recent generations except for a thinner endgame and no Battle Frontier-mechanic? Besides the atrocious Sun/Moon tutorial.

Something that screams "casualization", that is.
I think that's pretty unfair, we've had quite a few changes:
  • Significantly improved online features in Gen 6 (yes, Gen 7's was terrible, but Gen 6 still has the potential to influence future online)
  • A whole new type
  • At least a hundred new Pokemon
  • Megas and Z-Moves
  • Super training and hyper training (which is hardly casual)
  • Amie/Refresh
The $100 number is a bit of an exaggeration I didn't really mean for anyone to latch onto that point.
Even exaggerating, saying that a 60$ with less content than 40$ games should cost more than it already does is a pretty big statement, I don't know why you think people would brush that off.
But here's my source:
None of these arguments make sense?
  • He says that AAA games cost 60$ in 2005, and maybe that's true for XBox and Playstation (I don't know, I don't play those systems), but I know it wasn't the case for the Nintendo consoles. You can't adjust for inflation on 60$ and get the right price if the game wasn't 60$ to begin with.
  • He's saying that what was worth 60$ in 2005 should be worth 75$ now, but he doesn't define why it should be worth 60$ in the first place. Yes, production costs are a factor in price, but that doesn't mean they're the end-all decider, affordability and customer satisfaction are, too. I can't charge 200$ for one sandwich because I used expensive ingredients in it, for example.
  • His estimated price is based almost totally on a gut feeling. He gives no sources or stats for where he pulled that number from. Closest he gets is the inflation rate, which is only "60$ in 2005 would be worth 75$ now". How is he deciding that production costs and sales justify that price?
  • And even then, he still acknowledges that there's good reason not to raise the price further.
 

KrisiChiki

Fluffy!
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
415
Reaction score
1,074
To add to what Icy Wind said; brand recognition is indeed a very strong factor. It's one of the reasons so many franchises/IPs get remade and rebooted. It's much safer to reboot an IP that has an established fanbase with the potential of attracting new fans, than it is to introduce a new IP that may or may not be successful. I don't think remaking/rebooting IPs is inherently bad and I understand the risks in creating new IPs, but well... this is another topic.
 

Extroth

Face the Darkness
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
692
Reaction score
973
Hahaha honestly its perfectly fine to disagree with me. But I just want to clarify I wasn't meaning to imply that we should be charged 70-100 dollars for any game. It was just an offhand comment about actual value, it wasn't even my main point.
 

TechSkylander1518

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,035
Reaction score
8,619
Hahaha honestly its perfectly fine to disagree with me. But I just want to clarify I wasn't meaning to imply that we should be charged 70-100 dollars for any game. It was just an offhand comment about actual value, it wasn't even my main point.
But how much people are paying for a game and how much content they're getting in return is a pretty big deal, so saying that people are actually getting something worth 100$ in a game that's got less than 40$ games have is still going to be relevant to the discussion. Disagreeing is one thing, but you're saying that they're economically worth that much without providing any kind of evidence to back it up.
So how many of you would lose your shit if, and this is an EXTREMELY HYPOTHETICAL IF, the titles for the next games actually ended up being Plus and Minus?
Wouldn't be much more than a slightly funny coincidence IMO. Of course Plus and Minus are reasonable-sounding titles, but that doesn't mean that Geno's leak would suddenly become reality.
 

Poke Dragon

The boundary between opposites.
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
1,868
Reaction score
3,661
In terms the cost for the games, off course I expect a game with a 60$ price tag to have more content than one with a 40$ price tag. There is no excuse whatsoever to have a game with a higher price tag, but having less content than a game with a lower price tag. That's why I hate LGPE, because it's the epidemy of lame excuses that Game Freak keep coughing up whenever they don't add enough content to the games. At least USUM had the Rainbow Rocket episode in the post-game and had a plethora of legendaries and Ultra Beasts that you can catch. Not to mention that they at least had a battle facility in the form of the Battle Tree. LGPE doesn't have anything better than USUM except for following Pokemon and (possibly) Pokemon in the overworld.
 

Silktree

Hardship
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
17,901
Reaction score
11,209
had a plethora of legendaries and Ultra Beasts that you can catch. Not to mention that they at least had a battle facility in the form of the Battle Tree.
A combination of features from ORAS and SM. At least the Master Trainers, despite their faults, are a different experience. You can only do the same shtick so many times.
 

Extroth

Face the Darkness
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
692
Reaction score
973
But how much people are paying for a game and how much content they're getting in return is a pretty big deal, so saying that people are actually getting something worth 100$ in a game that's got less than 40$ games have is still going to be relevant to the discussion. Disagreeing is one thing, but you're saying that they're economically worth that much without providing any kind of evidence to back it up.
I feel like we have to be miscommunicating...I can't think of any other reason why this conversation is still going.

1. I provided a source you dismissed it out of hand.

2. I am not talking about what the game is worth based on it's content, or how an individual might feel about what the game is like. Trash games still launch at the set price. Trash games still have to pay the designers for their time and effort. That's what I'm talking about. The amount of work that went into the game and how much money has to be made to recoup the money spent making the game. In Pokémon's case they don't worry about that because Pokémon merchandise can make up for anything they don't make back from the game.

3. It really just was an offhand comment that I said as a way to be cute. I remembered the video and made mention of it not to try and make a point but just because it was something funny I remembered.
 

TechSkylander1518

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,035
Reaction score
8,619
1. I provided a source you dismissed it out of hand.
I didn't dismiss it offhand, I gave reasons why the source's arguments didn't apply. (And as I said before, he didn't even provide a source for his claim that video games should be valued at that price-he said in the video that he based it on a gut feeling)

Trash games still launch at the set price.
Switch games don't have a set price.

The amount of work that went into the game and how much money has to be made to recoup the money spent making the game.
But nowhere in the video or in your posts do you provide any evidence that there was enough money spent on LGPE to justify a price increase.
 

Freak-Pokemon

Retired Smogon Player
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
97
Reaction score
306
I dont think it is relevant to argue how much LGPE should or shouldnt be. Nintendo likes to charge the same price for all their first party console games, so that is likely why they charged the amount they did (especially since it was advertised as first main game on switch).

The only time pokemon games are less than the standard amount is when they're spin-offs with little content (pmd/ranger was big enough to be full price, only like rumble and a few other games were less). And I dont think gamefreak sees LGPE as a spinoff even if the rest of us do
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
83
Reaction score
129
Just thought I want to bring this up because if makes me very curious:
View: https://twitter.com/japanese3ds/status/1091015088360865792

Now why the heck am I posting this here you might ask? Well, to me it seems simple. If the report of a Nintendo Switch Mini is correct and plausible, Nintendo could be doing a very unique and smart move. No I am not stating patterns and stuff, I'm saying that IF Nintendo wants this revised Switch model to succeed, it would only make logical sense to release it with a major upcoming title. It has proven well in the past with the 2DS, New 3DS, and most recently in a sense, the Nintendo Switch. Too add, I definitely see Nintendo wanting to bank of Pokemon gen 8 to help thrive this new system's sales if they plan to release it this holiday. Does it have to be Pokemon, No, but they would surely want to use the new Pokemon titles to help promote this system and make it appealing to the younger audience (which I assume is what the revision will aim for since it will be replacing the 3DS).
Anyways, just wanted to spark some cool discussions of that seeing this was reported, and it did bring back some cool memories of how the 2DS (the most recent one I recall tbh,) basically got sold a good amount with the release of XY (my University was filled with 2DS's with either X or Y on them). Cheers!
 

Extroth

Face the Darkness
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
692
Reaction score
973
I didn't dismiss it offhand, I gave reasons why the source's arguments didn't apply. (And as I said before, he didn't even provide a source for his claim that video games should be valued at that price-he said in the video that he based it on a gut feeling)


Switch games don't have a set price.


But nowhere in the video or in your posts do you provide any evidence that there was enough money spent on LGPE to justify a price increase.

Do you have a problem with me? This is starting to feel rather like harrassment. Please stop.
 

TechSkylander1518

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,035
Reaction score
8,619
Where in my post am I saying anything harassing? All I'm saying is that the video you posted didn't show that LGPE should economically cost more. I never made any kind of personal attack on you, and I never even said anything about the way you were arguing. (meanwhile, you said that I "dismissed the video out of hand", even though I went into clear detail on why I didn't think the video applied)
 

Plubio

i love space
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
622
Reaction score
1,925
Honestly, my biggest concern about that "Switch Mini" is: what exactly do a consumer wins from a smaller Switch aside of the substantial price reduction? Also: the Joycon's length is the same as the Switch lenght itself — would they be compatible? etc (even smaller Joycons? lol)
A portable-only Switch without detachable Joycons cuts out a lot of game compatibility, as well.

Not saying it couldn't happen, but wouldn't an "updated" Switch + a price reduction of the original be more profitable? I don't feel this is the same as a cheaper 3DS without 3D screens, as it was just a gimmick.

Time will tell I guess
 
Last edited:

Joker901

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
2,438
Reaction score
5,821
Just thought I want to bring this up because if makes me very curious:
View: https://twitter.com/japanese3ds/status/1091015088360865792

Now why the heck am I posting this here you might ask? Well, to me it seems simple. If the report of a Nintendo Switch Mini is correct and plausible, Nintendo could be doing a very unique and smart move. No I am not stating patterns and stuff, I'm saying that IF Nintendo wants this revised Switch model to succeed, it would only make logical sense to release it with a major upcoming title. It has proven well in the past with the 2DS, New 3DS, and most recently in a sense, the Nintendo Switch. Too add, I definitely see Nintendo wanting to bank of Pokemon gen 8 to help thrive this new system's sales if they plan to release it this holiday. Does it have to be Pokemon, No, but they would surely want to use the new Pokemon titles to help promote this system and make it appealing to the younger audience (which I assume is what the revision will aim for since it will be replacing the 3DS).
Anyways, just wanted to spark some cool discussions of that seeing this was reported, and it did bring back some cool memories of how the 2DS (the most recent one I recall tbh,) basically got sold a good amount with the release of XY (my University was filled with 2DS's with either X or Y on them). Cheers!
Why call Switch a console that is basically a handheld-console? It would lose anything it was created for...but hey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top