• 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.
  • Hey guys! Have you heard? We now have popup
    Yes, Popups!
    messages for your forum posts. Learn more about it here!
  • Hey everyone, if you hadn't heard, information about Sword and Shield has been leaking. Outside of the designated threads in our Current Events section, please keep all unrevealed Pokemon, names, or any other information in spoiler tags. This policy will be in effect until January 3rd. This is an exciting time for Pokémon fans, enjoy yourselves!
  • Recently, some of our fellow Pokémon fan sites have received legal requests to take down leaked Sword and Shield images. We have not received one of these requests yet, but we are taking some preemptive measures to stay on the safe side. We ask that from now until the games release (November 15th) that you do not post any new leaked images anywhere on the forums.

    For more information, see this thread

Poke Transporter (Transfering Pokemon From Previous Gens)

Zeb

what is your spaghetti policy here?
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
12,582
Reaction score
6,314
Ok, since a few of you suddenly decided it was ok to go ahead and start pulling out the insults against people you disagree with, I'm just posting to let you all know that if people do it again (regardless of their "side" in this argument) you'll be a receiving an instant five point infraction. There's no need for attacking or insulting. People are entitled to their opinion (within the rules obviously) and while you may not agree with what they are saying, that doesn't make it ok to start name-calling and other silly things.

Just be respectful to each other.

And if you can't get your point across without doing that then best you don't post at all.
 
He Sees You...
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
1,934
Reaction score
0
@Dog of Hellsing. i wish i could like your post 100x. but some people will continue to argue for the sake of arguing. they can go 'slippery slope' all they want... but gamefreak has given us no reason to distrust them, after they worked out a system that can theoretically be the end-all-be-all of pokemon transfer and storage but all they can think about is 'omg 5 bucks a year .. now but we all know all companies are greedy bastards'.... let them think what they want. they dont have to transfer their 'mons. thats their prerogative.

the rest of us can enjoy this generous and efficacious new feature while they cry because their beloved pokemon are stuck in gen 5. boo freaking hoo.
Lol, they don't gotta, but they'll be the first ones shrieking their lungs out that they can't. And the slippery slope argument doesn't hold any validity at all considering this is the first time GF has done Pokemon storage in this manner. There's no proof at all that they'll increase the prices, at least not without good reason. And to be honest I truly do see a price increase down the road, now that I think about it. I know GF is expecting a HUGE amount of data to go on these servers, but what if they underestimate? What if they need additional servers and more maintenance to keep up with the true amount of data they need to store?

In that case, I can easily see PokeBank's price increasing to 10 or so a year, maybe a bit more. Either way it's still a paltry amount considering how much money you drop on a daily basis for things, let alone over the course of a month.

I still also don't think PokePorter will rely on PokeBank indefinitely. I'm not sure how long they've been working on the Porter app, though I recall someone elsewhere saying the Bank had been in development for several years. If the Porter was something they just developed very recently, that could explain why it doesn't have the ability to be a standalone app atm. After all, most of GF's time and effort seems to be going into the creation of XY itself, and more of it going to the Bank feature. PokePorter as it is currently might just be the bare bones of the application, the minimum parts needed for it to function on a base level. After XY is finally out and everything, GF could focus more attention on building up the Porter app until it can send Pokemon directly from Gen5 to 6.

Then again, as I've said, there's a chance that the Porter app just might be incapable of communicating directly with XY and that's why it has to rely on PokeBank and be tied to it. All we can do is wait and see what happens. At least give the apps and the game a chance before saying it's all garbage and GF just wants to drain the life from our wallets.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
4,562
Reaction score
961
$5 or $10 per year is still nothing you can't scoff at. On a practical level, that's barely a blip on the annual budget. If it was per month, then it would be on par with a variety of subscription-based services, but as-is the impact on your wallet is not even worth complaining about.

I think Iwata (or was it Masuda?) stated it well enough the first time: Pokemon Bank will be an ongoing service that needs to pay ongoing expenses. So it needs a source of ongoing income, and the easiest way to do that (one that doesn't impact whatever else the actual XY sales revenue pays for -- each sale being a one-time income -- and it's safe to assume that a chunk of XY revenue will be used to invest in Gen 7 development: wages for the devteam, location research trips, etc.) is asking the players to chip in.
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
Have you stopped to consider that MAYBE they had to tie the PokePorter with the PokeBank app? After all, the former DOES have to make use of the latter to shove your Mon from Gen5 to Gen6, it's not like the Porter is it's own standalone app here. Sure you can get it and move Pokemon to it and not have PokeBank, but to move the Mon from the Porter you do. Have you stopped to consider maybe the Porter app can't communicate directly to Gen6 and needs the Bank to act as a translator of sorts?


This is exactly it. Without Bank, Transporter goes nowhere because it is Bank that sends stuff to Gen 6, not Transporter.

So yes, you need to pay for the Bank service that you'll be using.

THE. MONEY. DOES. NOT. GO. TO. GAMEFREAK.

IT. GOES. TO. POKEBANK'S. SERVER. UPKEEP. AND. MANAGEMENT.
I mean there certainly will be long term costs but Pokemon's digital files are EXTREMELY small and barring a huge multi-server failure, they'll make a good profit from fairly minimal work. It won't be all peaches and roses, but they'll make plenty of money doing it. But in the case something does go wrong, they'll have the capital to fix any problems, expand capabilities, update apps, etc...

Seriously, the people whining about 42 cents a month are free to sell off their games right now if they feel that is too much of a burden. Not only will you then have more money, but you won't have anything to transfer. Problem solved!

And for the people who still wanna transfer but don't wanna pay, there's a one month free trial and you've got plenty of time between now and late December to complete X/Y, get your Gen 5 Pokemon ready, etc... anyone who misses it at this point has only themselves to blame.
 
追放されたバカ
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
288
Reaction score
0
Everyone talking about how it takes money to maintain ongoing services. Well they seemed to manage the Global link and Dream world being free.
Nintendo is not a poor company struggling to make ends meet, they are a rich multinational, they can easily the afford data storage, they have done so the past 7 years since DP came out just fine.

But they've obviously done market research and seen that they will be able to get away with it, and by the comments from some on here, it looks like they could probably get away with 10, 15 or 20. Think of it as fishing, your money is the fish, the free trial is like bait, a lot of people are gonna bite, then they gonna reel us in a little further, up to $5, then they will just reel us in a little further, just a touch, maybe up to 10, and then carry on and on, keeping it steady, no major jolt to risk losing the fish, just a little bit each time til they're closer and closer to what they want.
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
Everyone talking about how it takes money to maintain ongoing services. Well they seemed to manage the Global link and Dream world being free.
Nintendo is not a poor company struggling to make ends meet, they are a rich multinational, they can easily the afford data storage, they have done so the past 7 years since DP came out just fine.

But they've obviously done market research and seen that they will be able to get away with it, and by the comments from some on here, it looks like they could probably get away with 10, 15 or 20. Think of it as fishing, your money is the fish, the free trial is like bait, a lot of people are gonna bite, then they gonna reel us in a little further, up to $5, then they will just reel us in a little further, just a touch, maybe up to 10, and then carry on and on, keeping it steady, no major jolt to risk losing the fish, just a little bit each time til they're closer and closer to what they want.
A company trying to make money? Oh what a horrible world we live in.

You're free to not purchase the app if you don't feel like paying $5. But considering you're posting on this forum and have sunk at least $200+ into Pokemon so far, I really don't buy the economic hardship argument. And if you still want to use it, there's the one month free trial.

They have never offered "data storage" at all. They have offered storage games which had their own lil things as well as storing Pokemon. Pokemon Box was comparable cost to a Gamecube game at the time. Ranch cost $10.
 
He's Amphabulous!
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
397
Reaction score
3
all this 'ohh, they are going to consistantly hike up the cost because we think in our heads that GF are evil moustache-twirling villains tying our pokemon to the railroad tracks' is getting old.

they didnt HAVE to offer gen5-6 compatibility

they didnt HAVE to offer a storage place for 3000 pokemon

and similarly you dont HAVE to use it if you think its some big money-grabbing conspiracy.
 
The Professor
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Everyone talking about how it takes money to maintain ongoing services. Well they seemed to manage the Global link and Dream world being free.
Nintendo is not a poor company struggling to make ends meet, they are a rich multinational, they can easily the afford data storage, they have done so the past 7 years since DP came out just fine.

But they've obviously done market research and seen that they will be able to get away with it, and by the comments from some on here, it looks like they could probably get away with 10, 15 or 20. Think of it as fishing, your money is the fish, the free trial is like bait, a lot of people are gonna bite, then they gonna reel us in a little further, up to $5, then they will just reel us in a little further, just a touch, maybe up to 10, and then carry on and on, keeping it steady, no major jolt to risk losing the fish, just a little bit each time til they're closer and closer to what they want.
I can see where you're coming from, I really can... I was on the other side of this argument as a longtime Capcom fan who became extremely disappointed at that company's nickel and diming of the consumer. That, in addition to the deterioration of the actual games themselves(DmC was the final straw) and fighting with blind Capcom supporters... I was left with the realization that the only true recourse you have as a consumer is to voice your opinion and reinforce that opinion by voting with your wallet.

That means if you don't like the concept of Pokemon Bank and the yearly five dollar subscription fee, you state your displeasure and stand by it by not purchasing it. Companies only listen to the sound of money. If it fails sales-wise, GameFreak/Nintendo will find another way.

However, the fact that there is a free trial allowing anyone who wishes to transfer/use the storage to do so without commitment takes a lot of the sting out of it. The pittance of five dollars per year, not per month, not per week really makes it difficult for me to see this as a greedy cash-grab.

As I stated before, other companies(i.e. EA, Capcom, Microsoft) would have bled this fanbase dry by now.

When they start charging for DLC Event Pokemon, then I will be right there with you, flaming torch and pitchfork in hand...
 
追放されたバカ
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
288
Reaction score
0
Everyone talking about how it takes money to maintain ongoing services. Well they seemed to manage the Global link and Dream world being free.
Nintendo is not a poor company struggling to make ends meet, they are a rich multinational, they can easily the afford data storage, they have done so the past 7 years since DP came out just fine.

But they've obviously done market research and seen that they will be able to get away with it, and by the comments from some on here, it looks like they could probably get away with 10, 15 or 20. Think of it as fishing, your money is the fish, the free trial is like bait, a lot of people are gonna bite, then they gonna reel us in a little further, up to $5, then they will just reel us in a little further, just a touch, maybe up to 10, and then carry on and on, keeping it steady, no major jolt to risk losing the fish, just a little bit each time til they're closer and closer to what they want.
A company trying to make money? Oh what a horrible world we live in.

You're free to not purchase the app if you don't feel like paying $5. But considering you're posting on this forum and have sunk at least $200+ into Pokemon so far, I really don't buy the economic hardship argument. And if you still want to use it, there's the one month free trial.

They have never offered "data storage" at all. They have offered storage games which had their own lil things as well as storing Pokemon. Pokemon Box was comparable cost to a Gamecube game at the time. Ranch cost $10.
A company making money is fine, exploiting little kids emotional attachments to their Pokemon is not.
I'm not too interested in data storage, so much as the fact that they are charging me to transfer my Pokemon between generations.

all this 'ohh, they are going to consistantly hike up the cost because we think in our heads that GF are evil moustache-twirling villains tying our pokemon to the railroad tracks' is getting old.

they didnt HAVE to offer gen5-6 compatibility

they didnt HAVE to offer a storage place for 3000 pokemon

and similarly you dont HAVE to use it if you think its some big money-grabbing conspiracy.
They did have to offer compatibility or else they'd face a backlash worse than what they did in Gen 3. They're not fools, they know a 2nd stint of that would do irreparable harm to the franchise. You're right they don't have to offer storage, but that's not the point, the storage being charged for isn't what's getting people's backs up.

And yes I do have to buy it if I want to transfer my Pokemon over, they know that we grow attached and they are trying to use that to make a bigger profit, Now instead of charging £40 for the game, they will effectively get £45, then another 5 the year after, and another 5 after that. And I don't believe it costs that much to maintain, Nintendo are a rich multinational, and Global Link and Dreamworld run/ran for free fine.

Making money is fine, greed and exploitation are not.
 
Administrator
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
10,493
Reaction score
8,577
I still think that this is a great feature. Sure, paying for it is a bit bothersome, but as long as it's a price like five dollars a year, I don't have a problem with it. For the service they're offering and possibly allowing it to work with future games, I think that five dollars a year is a great price. It certainly does beat out having to buy a second 3DS just to trade with myself like with trading between the fourth and fifth generation games. I'm not in a huge rush to transfer over my older Pokemon, especially when I still need to transfer over my third generation Pokemon over to my fifth generation games, so I might not take part during the free trial run.

In regards to preventing hacked Pokemon from getting in the system, I just wonder how their system will be able to detect that and if it could make any mistakes in determining if a Pokemon is hacked or not.
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
In regards to preventing hacked Pokemon from getting in the system, I just wonder how their system will be able to detect that and if it could make any mistakes in determining if a Pokemon is hacked or not.
I'm sure it'll be similar to what the current legality check is with GTS, Random Match, and official Wi-Fi tournaments. Some, mostly the very obvious, get caught. Some will get through, and a handful of innocent might be flagged as hacked. I know I've had events be flagged as hacked on PBR during Gen 4 if I tried using a Pokemon 1-2 days after an event happened rather than 1-2 weeks. Nothing too drastic like "Your game save is destroyed, dirty hacker" but "There is a problem with this Pokemon, and it can't be uploaded to Pokemon Bank"
 
Majestic
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
5,771
Reaction score
3,608
I'm not happy with Pokémon Transporter being coupled with Pokémon Bank. I wish Transporter was free because I'm not extremely interested in Bank, and transporting Pokémon has always been free. By the way, isn't this the first time Nintendo has ever charged an annual fee for something? Now I don't want to be some grumpy complainer, and I think 5 dollar/euro a year is reasonable, but I don't hope this is the start of something new and they will raise prizes or implement annual fees a lot more in future games with higher prizes.....

But maybe I shouldn't worry about that.
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
I'm not happy with Pokémon Transporter being coupled with Pokémon Bank. I wish Transporter was free because I'm not extremely interested in Bank, and transporting Pokémon has always been free. By the way, isn't this the first time Nintendo has ever charged an annual fee for something? Now I don't want to be some grumpy complainer, and I think 5 dollar/euro a year is reasonable, but I don't hope this is the start of something new and they will raise prizes or implement annual fees a lot more in future games with higher prizes.....

But maybe I shouldn't worry about that.
If Pokemon Transfer came by itself, it'd be pointless since the Pokemon can't transferred to Bank and not the game.

Masuda himself has said it is impossible for DS games to communicate with 3DS games, hence there can't be a transfer without a middleman type of app.
 
Majestic
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
5,771
Reaction score
3,608
I'm not happy with Pokémon Transporter being coupled with Pokémon Bank. I wish Transporter was free because I'm not extremely interested in Bank, and transporting Pokémon has always been free. By the way, isn't this the first time Nintendo has ever charged an annual fee for something? Now I don't want to be some grumpy complainer, and I think 5 dollar/euro a year is reasonable, but I don't hope this is the start of something new and they will raise prizes or implement annual fees a lot more in future games with higher prizes.....

But maybe I shouldn't worry about that.
If Pokemon Transfer came by itself, it'd be pointless since the Pokemon can't transferred to Bank and not the game.

Masuda himself has said it is impossible for DS games to communicate with 3DS games, hence there can't be a transfer without a middleman type of app.
I'm sure there's some way to it to be free. You see, I have no problems with Pokémon Bank and I think for Pokémon Bank 5 dollar/euros a year is very reasonable, but I just think it's stupid to be having to pay for transporting Pokémon. Every cent you pay is spent on Pokémon Bank, yet you need to have it to get Transporter. What if, like me, you're just not interested in Bank and are bound to make very little to no use of it? Unlike a feature like Bank, transporting Pokémon is a very simple feature that has been present in nearly every game for free. And it should remain free in some way.

And before anyone points me on the free trial: I know the free trial will be there and it's useful in some degree. But I'm always hesitating which Pokémon to send over and which not and that's why I don't transport some Pokémon over until way later. So I'll probably need to make longer use of it than the trial will let me.

All in all, in the end, I'm probably still paying for Bank to get Transporter :-/ I'm not some greedy guy who complains about every little cent, but having to pay indirectly for a simple feature that was previously free and with that pay for a feature that I'll probably make little to no use of feels weird. And I just don't hope the annual fee is something we're gonna see a lot more in the future.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,859
Reaction score
0
I'm not too interested in data storage, so much as the fact that they are charging me to transfer my Pokemon between generations.
How are you going to transfer stuff if you don't use the data storage?
Have a smaller amount of free storage for those who don't want to use Bank's full services? Perhaps you get a single box worth of space, and you have to move everything to your game before you can transfer the next batch- no more annoying than playing a minigame or waiting a day between transfers, but bothersome enough that there's still some incentive to purchase Bank. There, everyone's happy (probably).
 
Majestic
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
5,771
Reaction score
3,608
transporting Pokémon has always been free.
It sure was nice of Nintendo to give away those free second DSes so everyone could transfer their pokemon into gen V games.
True, I had problems with this too, but you were still able to access it for free with some effort. And I doubt anyone would buy a second 3DS only to transport Pokémon though. Game Freak did make a fault with this, I agree with that.

I probably just have to get used to it. Unlike Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo has never done something like an annual fee, and I'm not used to them as a result. Also just doesn't feel like anything Nintendo would do. And now you have to pay indirectly for a simple feature.
 
Last edited:
追放されたバカ
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
288
Reaction score
0
Agree with a few other posters here, I don't want 3000 Pokemon, I don't have that many, there are currently ~650 types, so why do you need 3000? Also you don't have every single type at the same time, as when they evolve I don't bother replacing them.

I should be able to put my Pokemon into some storage thing for a brief period of time, then take them out in X and Y, and for all those people who want to store 3000 Pokemon, good luck to them, and charge them for the service like they did with Box and Ranch etc.
 
Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
2,881
If Pokemon Transfer came by itself, it'd be pointless since the Pokemon can't transferred to Bank and not the game.

Masuda himself has said it is impossible for DS games to communicate with 3DS games, hence there can't be a transfer without a middleman type of app.
Inability for direct transfers = mandatory use of a specific app? Seems legit.

Again, this leap in logic is faulty, Transporter doesn't require the Bank because of a technical restriction, it requires the Bank because Game Freak designed it that way. The storage space required to utilize transfers is small enough that it doesn't need to be charged for. They could've released a free app if they wanted to, but they clearly didn't want to. So we have to pay for our transfers.
 
Top