BDSP Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl General Discussion

[EmCeeChupi the Undying]

As long as Pichu is available at some point, I'm fine with the game.
It's why Let's Go isn't that high up on my list of favorite Pokemon games anymore.
Chupi doesn't like LG.

 

[FelipePR]

I think if you're a kid and your first games were Sword and Shield or even Sun and Moon, BDSP would seem like a major downgrade in many many aspects.

Many of the reviews suggest that the target audience is people linked more to Pokémon GO and Let's GO and Former fans who no longer follow the franchise. In other words, the intention is that this game will serve as a bridge for people, not so familiar with the current state of the main games, to venture further into the Pokémon universe.

 

[Oriden]

Many of the reviews suggest that the target audience is people linked more to Pokémon GO and Let's GO and Former fans who no longer follow the franchise. In other words, the intention is that this game will serve as a bridge for people, not so familiar with the current state of the main games, to venture further into the Pokémon universe.

Yeeeeeah, I can see that being the case. Going the extremely faithful route really rooted these as an attempted nostalgia trip rather than a standalone modern new entry. It's pretty contingent on not comparing it to Sword and Shield but to either the original games or nothing else.

 

[zoroarctic]

I never played the original DP, so many of the main points of contention aren’t a problem for me.
If they take the same approach with Unova remakes…

 

[Bolt Strike]

I think, realistically, kids wouldn't care about the things we're complaining about. I'm pretty sure they don't really care about graphics and artstyle (I know I didn't, but I still don't, so I don't I think I'm the best point of reference), and they won't even know what a Battle Frontier is. I think the only thing they might miss is Pokémon appearing on the overworld, but that wasn't in Gen 7 either.

Pretty sure a kid can recognize the difference between a grid based chibi artstyle and a realistically proportioned artstyle and would be very disappointed to see a game regress from the latter to the former.

I'm pretty sure they can also recognize when a game feels too short or lacking even if they don't know what was in the original.

Many of the reviews suggest that the target audience is people linked more to Pokémon GO and Let's GO and Former fans who no longer follow the franchise. In other words, the intention is that this game will serve as a bridge for people, not so familiar with the current state of the main games, to venture further into the Pokémon universe.

Let's Go already pretty much proved that this doesn't work (or at least not more than any other Pokemon game), as Go fans are largely unwilling to migrate from mobile to Switch and LGPE's only sold about as much as any other remake. "Bridge" entries like LGPE and BDSP don't really seem to accomplish much other than pissing off veterans so they should probably choose a different target audience.

 

[Kallyle]

Many of the reviews suggest that the target audience is people linked more to Pokémon GO and Let's GO and Former fans who no longer follow the franchise. In other words, the intention is that this game will serve as a bridge for people, not so familiar with the current state of the main games, to venture further into the Pokémon universe.

Let's Go already pretty much proved that this doesn't work (or at least not more than any other Pokemon game), as Go fans are largely unwilling to migrate from mobile to Switch and LGPE's only sold about as much as any other remake. "Bridge" entries like LGPE and BDSP don't really seem to accomplish much other than pissing off veterans so they should probably choose a different target audience.

Either Masuda or Ishihara must just be that adamant on smartphones being the future of gaming they need to compete with. ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[Bolt Strike]

Either Masuda or Ishihara must just be that adamant on smartphones being the future of gaming they need to compete with. ¯\(ツ)/¯

There's no competing with mobile, mobile's audience is much larger and spans much more than gaming, that's why so many people are entrenched there. No matter how many times they try and get mobile players to make the jump to Switch they're not going to get more than a few million players (which is a drop in the bucket for both Pokemon and mobile) because mobile players aren't interested in a device that can only play video games, they want a device that can also watch movies, listen to music, browse the internet, etc. They seem to understand that this is why mobile is so popular based on interview comments but for some reason it doesn't seem to occur to them that the Switch and other Nintendo handhelds don't really do that, so if they really want that kind of audience they need to convince Nintendo to branch out into more than just gaming (good luck with that Game Freak and TPC, as much as I would love to see Nintendo make a Switch smartphone so I don't have to lug around an iPhone all of the time, Nintendo seems adamant about being gaming only). Mobile games' popularity has more to do with those games existing on a platform that can do just about anything else they'd want to do in their lives than it does with that style of gaming being more well liked. So initiatives like LGPE and BDSP were always going to fail (from an opportunity cost standpoint, meaning they would fail to bring in more gamers than they would if they just made a regular old remake) and it makes them look foolish for even trying.

 

[Kallyle]

There's no competing with mobile, mobile's audience is much larger and spans much more than gaming, that's why so many people are entrenched there. No matter how many times they try and get mobile players to make the jump to Switch they're not going to get more than a few million players (which is a drop in the bucket for both Pokemon and mobile) because mobile players aren't interested in a device that can only play video games, they want a device that can also watch movies, listen to music, browse the internet, etc. They seem to understand that this is why mobile is so popular based on interview comments but for some reason it doesn't seem to occur to them that the Switch and other Nintendo handhelds don't really do that, so if they really want that kind of audience they need to convince Nintendo to branch out into more than just gaming (good luck with that Game Freak and TPC, as much as I would love to see Nintendo make a Switch smartphone so I don't have to lug around an iPhone all of the time, Nintendo seems adamant about being gaming only). Mobile games' popularity has more to do with those games existing on a platform that can do just about anything else they'd want to do in their lives than it does with that style of gaming being more well liked. So initiatives like LGPE and BDSP were always going to fail (from an opportunity cost standpoint, meaning they would fail to bring in more gamers than they would if they just made a regular old remake) and it makes them look foolish for even trying.

My thoughts exactly. I really don't know what would give the impression that they even could compete with smart phones; the mobile audience is just too different from the dedicated gaming market.

 

[Oriden]

It isn't just dedicated gamers who play pokemon or buy consoles, though? I don't think they're foolish at all for trying to appeal to a broader audience.

 

[Bolt Strike]

It isn't just dedicated gamers who play pokemon or buy consoles, though? I don't think they're foolish at all for trying to appeal to a broader audience.

For the most part it is just dedicated gamers. If you're a casual, and you only have enough money for one device (because you probably can't afford to drop $300+ on a device every few years), what are you going to choose, the device that can do basically everything or the device that can just play video games? The one that can just play video games appeals more to players that either can afford to buy both or the ones that are super interested in video games.

 

[Oriden]

For the most part it is just dedicated gamers. If you're a casual, and you only have enough money for one device (because you probably can't afford to drop $300+ on a device every few years), what are you going to choose, the device that can do basically everything or the device that can just play video games? The one that can just play video games appeals more to players that either can afford to buy both or the ones that are super interested in video games.

This is a weird assumption that people often have to choose one or the other? Generally people aren't that poor or having to replace their phone that frequently that they can't splurge on a game console. Especially families around Christmas buying one for their family to share.

 

[Bolt Strike]

This is a weird assumption that people often have to choose one or the other? Generally people aren't that poor or having to replace their phone that frequently that they can't splurge on a game console. Especially families around Christmas buying one for their family to share.

No, this is Economics 101. Literally one of the first things you learn in Economics classes and a central tenant of the study of Economics. Some level of resource scarcity exists in almost every facet of economics (limited amount of materials, limited amount of time, limited amount of money, limited amount of workers) and you constantly have to make decisions on how to spend it, so there's always going to be these kinds of one or the other choices when it comes to purchasing decisions. Now maybe on an individual level, some probably might and might choose to make sacrifices elsewhere to afford both, but in general you're always going to have to come to the decision of "do I buy this or that?".

At any rate, I think given the massive gulf in sales between mobile and console (iPhone's sold over 1 billion since it launched in 2009 and shipped 200 million in the last year, and there are over 2 billion mobile gamers, whereas most consoles don't even reach the 100 million mark in lifetime sales), I think it's safe to say that there's a very large demographic of people that use smartphones that have no interest in buying a console.

 

[Oriden]

No, this is Economics 101. Literally one of the first things you learn in Economics classes and a central tenant of the study of Economics. Some level of resource scarcity exists in almost every facet of economics (limited amount of materials, limited amount of time, limited amount of money, limited amount of workers) and you constantly have to make decisions on how to spend it, so there's always going to be these kinds of one or the other choices when it comes to purchasing decisions. Now maybe on an individual level, some probably might and might choose to make sacrifices elsewhere to afford both, but in general you're always going to have to come to the decision of "do I buy this or that?".

At any rate, I think given the massive gulf in sales between mobile and console (iPhone's sold over 1 billion since it launched in 2009 and shipped 200 million in the last year, and there are over 2 billion mobile gamers, whereas most consoles don't even reach the 100 million mark in lifetime sales), I think it's safe to say that there's a very large demographic of people that use smartphones that have no interest in buying a console.

Obviously there are a large number who won't because phones are an essential item, but I still think it's extreme to assume that the majority have to choose between a phone or a console. There are many other kinds of luxuries to choose against, and it's more likely to be weighed against those than a phone, unless you're someone who is tempted to frequently replace your phone with the latest model.

And keeping in mind that among the subset of mobile users who will buy a console, there are still other options, and Pokemon can't go wrong trying to appeal to them with mobile compatibility to sway them away from Nintendo's competitors.

 

[venusboi79]

I’ve never gotten the impression that GF/Masuda/etc. think they can get people to throw away their mobile phones or stop playing mobile games. Whenever I’ve read interviews where mobile gaming comes up, it feels more like they realize that the landscape has changed and they need to make changes based on that. Whether or not those choices are successful or for the best are open to interpretation.

Mobile phones are ubiquitous now; it makes total business sense for major console game companies to attempt to create games that continue to appeal to the widest audience possible. Again, whether or not this is always successful or “done right” is subjective.

As far as the first day patch goes; this is almost 100% the result of current affairs. Along with the pandemic, we have several other global issues that have impacted supply, production and shipping. Unfortunately, this plays into the “GF is lazy, money-hungry and also spitting in my face personally” chestnut so many people in the dedicated fandom seem to cling to anytime the current offering doesn’t match the game they built up in their head.

 

[Bolt Strike]

Obviously there are a large number who won't because phones are an essential item, but I still think it's extreme to assume that the majority have to choose between a phone or a console. There are many other kinds of luxuries to choose against, and it's more likely to be weighed against those than a phone, unless you're someone who is tempted to frequently replace your phone with the latest model.

And keeping in mind that among the subset of mobile users who will buy a console, there are still other options, and Pokemon can't go wrong trying to appeal to them with mobile compatibility to sway them away from Nintendo's competitors.

You're missing the point. It's not just a matter of whether or not they can afford it, but also a matter of priorities and what they want. It's difficult to say exactly why they would choose against buying a Switch, it's probably varies on each person's specific situation and it'd be infeasible to analyze each one. But again, based on the sales data, there's strong evidence to suggest that many of them are deciding not to buy one (whether it's because they can't afford it, have other priorities, or just don't want it). So it's not really a smart idea to try and appeal to the subset of mobile users who will buy a console because that subset doesn't seem to be that large to begin with.

 

[Oriden]

You're missing the point. It's not just a matter of whether or not they can afford it, but also a matter of priorities and what they want. It's difficult to say exactly why they would choose against buying a Switch, it's probably varies on each person's specific situation and it'd be infeasible to analyze each one. But again, based on the sales data, there's strong evidence to suggest that many of them are deciding not to buy one (whether it's because they can't afford it, have other priorities, or just don't want it). So it's not really a smart idea to try and appeal to the subset of mobile users who will buy a console because that subset doesn't seem to be that large to begin with.

There's more factors to that, though. Let's Go undoubtedly appealed to a mobile market, but it also turned away regular players by panning too heavily toward GO-users via negating the majority of battles in a series that is traditionally battle-centric. So the sales for Let's Go specifically may look like they didn't tip the needle, because for what they gained, they also lost.

This doesn't mean that it was a bad idea in the long run, though. Let's Go introduced the idea of being able to transfer pokemon from GO to the main series games, and that capability still continued in the games that followed via Home. So those who bought Let's Go because it was compatible with GO now have the idea of "oh, I can take what I catch while I'm out and about and transfer it into a game I can play in my free time."

How much did Let's Go sales boost the sales for Sword and Shield? Can that be measured? And among those who already owned a Switch, how many bought Pokemon over some other game because GO enabled them to still contribute toward their gameplay while away from their console?

I don't think these directions are about boosting the sales for any single game, it's about drawing people into the whole franchise. The more pokemon integrates, the more it stands out among other games, and each bold new venture is just a scoop reaching out and adding more to the pile.

 

[Bolt Strike]

There's more factors to that, though. Let's Go undoubtedly appealed to a mobile market, but it also turned away regular players by panning too heavily toward GO-users via negating the majority of battles in a series that is traditionally battle-centric. So the sales for Let's Go specifically may look like they didn't tip the needle, because for what they gained, they also lost.

Business wise it doesn't matter too much, 10 million sales is 10 million sales regardless of how many of them are console players and how many of them are mobile players. It matters for future purchases, yes, but in terms of profits one demographic's money is just as good as any other.

This doesn't mean that it was a bad idea in the long run, though. Let's Go introduced the idea of being able to transfer pokemon from GO to the main series games, and that capability still continued in the games that followed via Home. So those who bought Let's Go because it was compatible with GO now have the idea of "oh, I can take what I catch while I'm out and about and transfer it into a game I can play in my free time."

That would be great if they actually wanted to play that game in their free time, but I doubt that's enough to sell them on making the jump to the main series.

How much did Let's Go sales boost the sales for Sword and Shield? Can that be measured? And among those who already owned a Switch, how many bought Pokemon over some other game because GO enabled them to still contribute toward their gameplay while away from their console?

The only ones who truly know the answer to that question are Game Freak, TPC, and Nintendo, you need more details on who's buying them and what else they've bought to conclusively determine if there's actually an effect, but based on how some of the other games sold, it's likely that Go had little to do with SwSh's sales. While SwSh did sell more than most Pokemon games, it's worth noting that a lot of high profile Switch games are seeing record breaking sales (BotW, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Animal Crossing New Horizons, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, Super Mario Party, Splatoon 2, and Luigi's Mansion 3, are all the highest selling games of their series, some even by wide margins, Super Mario Odyssey is the highest selling 3D Mario game, and Metroid Dread saw fantastic sales at launch compared to other Metroid games and may join that list as well). While SwSh have sold well too, they haven't sold that much more than other Pokemon games so SwSh's increased sales likely have more to do with the Switch being a phenomenal success than Go bringing in new players.

I don't think these directions are about boosting the sales for any single game, it's about drawing people into the whole franchise. The more pokemon integrates, the more it stands out among other games, and each bold new venture is just a scoop reaching out and adding more to the pile.

I agree with the general mentality, but they aren't going to be able to get much out of that when it comes to the main games. The spinoffs are probably benefitting (which is probably why we're seeing soooooo many mobile spinoffs lately), but the main games aren't. Maybe if they cross-released on Switch and mobile there might be something to that, but Nintendo is likely not allowing that because Pokemon is one of their killer apps and helps them sell their hardware.

But yeah, the people buying games like LGPE and BDSP are likely not mobile gamers. They're probably just the same audience that Pokemon's always sold too.

 

[Oriden]

Business wise it doesn't matter too much, 10 million sales is 10 million sales regardless of how many of them are console players and how many of them are mobile players. It matters for future purchases, yes, but in terms of profits one demographic's money is just as good as any other.



That would be great if they actually wanted to play that game in their free time, but I doubt that's enough to sell them on making the jump to the main series.



The only ones who truly know the answer to that question are Game Freak, TPC, and Nintendo, you need more details on who's buying them and what else they've bought to conclusively determine if there's actually an effect, but based on how some of the other games sold, it's likely that Go had little to do with SwSh's sales. While SwSh did sell more than most Pokemon games, it's worth noting that a lot of high profile Switch games are seeing record breaking sales (BotW, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Animal Crossing New Horizons, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, Super Mario Party, Splatoon 2, and Luigi's Mansion 3, are all the highest selling games of their series, some even by wide margins, Super Mario Odyssey is the highest selling 3D Mario game, and Metroid Dread saw fantastic sales at launch compared to other Metroid games and may join that list as well). While SwSh have sold well too, they haven't sold that much more than other Pokemon games so SwSh's increased sales likely have more to do with the Switch being a phenomenal success than Go bringing in new players.



I agree with the general mentality, but they aren't going to be able to get much out of that when it comes to the main games. The spinoffs are probably benefitting (which is probably why we're seeing soooooo many mobile spinoffs lately), but the main games aren't. Maybe if they cross-released on Switch and mobile there might be something to that, but Nintendo is likely not allowing that because Pokemon is one of their killer apps and helps them sell their hardware.

But yeah, the people buying games like LGPE and BDSP are likely not mobile gamers. They're probably just the same audience that Pokemon's always sold too.

I don't think that it probably was. I think there was a shift that went unnoticed because the numbers didn't appear to have moved.

I know I saw many posts on my local Pokemon GO facebook group from people who don't play Pokemon otherwise saying that they were going to buy Let's Go (and you can tell they don't play pokemon normally because every time GO has released a generation, they talk like they're brand new pokemon and it's a bit facepalm-worthy.) I'm sure this also occurred in many other GO communities besides mine.

On the flip side, there's also been many people who play the regular games who decided not to buy Let's Go because they hate GO or the GO mechanics and "wtf this game is like Pokemon Jr." and- we know all the criticisms. Just spoke to someone today who bought a copy and then sold it because he didn't like the game- a lot of people didn't even make it that far.

And I think they knew that would happen. It was a calculated risk where they knew the sales weren't going to suffer, that it was going to ultimately balance out. They lost nothing from trying it... and their gain? An entry level game for people who hadn't touched the main franchise either ever or recently, and more people- maybe not a lot, but more- buying Sword and Shield.

BDSP does seem to follow in the same line- an entry level game that probably won't do better or worse than other remakes, but will effectively reach out and draw a few more people into considering buying the real meat and potatoes, the core series games. Or at the very least, other pokemon products, which is especially true if the people they're reaching out to have kids. Which BDSP is banging the nostalgia drum, so you know they're aiming for an older audience there. GO likewise largely boasts an older demographic and imagine- they love Pokemon GO, want to get Melmetal, and also want their kid to stop borrowing their phone? Get them Let's Go and a Switch. They get their Melmetal, the kid gets to play their own pokemon game, it becomes a family bonding activity, and TPCi sells more pokemon toys for birthdays and Christmas.

Does turning remakes into entry level games targeted at fringe audiences frustrate traditional fans who would rather get more out of them? Sure. But if it helps build the fanbase and TPCi doesn't take any losses from it, it's not really a failure for them, is it? We can't really say that targeting mobile doesn't work, it just doesn't appear to produce drastic results. But a small gain with no loss is still a gain, and they sure aren't going to grow their base by only ever catering to the same audience.

 

[Bolt Strike]

I don't think that it probably was. I think there was a shift that went unnoticed because the numbers didn't appear to have moved.

I know I saw many posts on my local Pokemon GO facebook group from people who don't play Pokemon otherwise saying that they were going to buy Let's Go (and you can tell they don't play pokemon normally because every time GO has released a generation, they talk like they're brand new pokemon and it's a bit facepalm-worthy.) I'm sure this also occurred in many other GO communities besides mine.

On the flip side, there's also been many people who play the regular games who decided not to buy Let's Go because they hate GO or the GO mechanics and "wtf this game is like Pokemon Jr." and- we know all the criticisms. Just spoke to someone today who bought a copy and then sold it because he didn't like the game- a lot of people didn't even make it that far.

This is anecdotal. Just because you know people that did that doesn't mean the fanbase as a whole did that. Without any concrete, macroeconomic data (data on the fanbase as a whole in case you're not familiar with the term) we can't really conclude this because for all you know, your neighborhood is an exception. Again, only Game Freak has access to that kind of data.

What we can see, however, is that the sales data is roughly in line with other IPs, so I think it's more likely that the Switch brought in new players who were interested in a console scale Pokemon game (and some other highly polished console scale games for other Nintendo IPs) that they could play at home or on the go.

Does turning remakes into entry level games targeted at fringe audiences frustrate traditional fans who would rather get more out of them? Sure. But if it helps build the fanbase and TPCi doesn't take any losses from it, it's not really a failure for them, is it? We can't really say that targeting mobile doesn't work, it just doesn't appear to produce drastic results. But a small gain with no loss is still a gain, and they sure aren't going to grow their base by only ever catering to the same audience.

That's not the right way to go about growing their base. You don't want to turn off anyone unless you feel it's necessary, usually because of contradictory preference. And I don't think that's the case here, any mobile gamers that might be interested in games like LGPE or BDSP probably won't mind if Game Freak actually made the changes the veterans wanted them to make.

If Game Freak really wants to expand their audience, they need to find new ways to expand on the core formula to draw in different fans while still keeping what existing fans already like about the games. Legends is a much better example of this because it's actually expanding on the Pokemon formula with open world gameplay that can bring in fans of console adventure games like BotW or Skyrim and from what we know so far it really isn't throwing anything out (or at least nothing that any other recent games haven't also thrown out). And that's a gameplay style that's much more in line with what someone interested in a Switch would actually want. Other similar measures that expand on the formula without taking away what makes the older games appealing is the way to go here. Other than that, it's up to Nintendo to find new markets to appeal to with their hardware and Game Freak has no control over that.

 

[Silktree]

Yeah but it's still mainly ILCA being supported by this. Game Freak has its own cash cow that it cares about more.

There's no way ILCA are profiting from DP remakes more than Game Freak.

"If a developer works for a publisher, then there are two main models. Work for hire. The publisher pays the developer a negotiated fee for developing the game, and then they part ways. The developer gets no money from sales or other revenues, and has no other rights to the game, including to its characters."

Obviously, this is the model they picked.