• 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.

  • Grookey, Scorbunny or Sobble, which one do you love most? Want to show your support with a cool banner, check out the info here!

Pokemon Home

Count Scarlioni

F Pokémon GO, M Mystery Dungeon, K the core series
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
12,753
Yeah, no.

Offering transfer support for only most-but-not-all of the available roster is not a "compromise" because that's not how Pokemon collecting works. That's not how teambuilding has worked thus far. If I have a team built in UltraSun and UltraMoon that I used in the Battle Tree or my huge backlog of teams that I've used in previous playthroughs, I'm not going to be breaking up my collection and "splitting" them between Home and Sword/Shield.

If they're only supporting some Pokemon in each game going forward, there simply is no point in supporting transferring at all because I'd rather just start over again than deal with the logistical headaches of having my collection one-foot-in-Sword/Shield-one-foot-out, and just having my collection in a sort of perpetual limbo.
So, wait... just because the current solution inconveniences your particular playstyle/motive means it would be better if nobody had the option at all? :unsure:

This is exactly what I mean when I say that it's not perfect, and that GF seem to be trying to do what they can within the current circumstances. I mean, for all that this issue affects me, I could care less if GF went in Ghetsis-style and deleted everybody's Bank storages right now and sent a message to their Trainer Club accounts saying "fuck off boomers lol". However, I know that my situation doesn't apply to all cases, and that being able to transfer old Pokémon means a lot to a lot of people. GF know that too, but are in a position where they know they can't please everybody. But it's still better to at least try to figure something out than to just give up and sweep it under the rug altogether.
 
Last edited:

PkmnTrainerV

Flame Trainer
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
7,410
Reaction score
14,246
Is it even possible to have a world that comprehensive AND that many creatures in one game at once? Nothing can even get remotely close to what pokemon has in terms of unique models, and that's even without the programming associated to them.
Who the hell even said that all Pokémon need to be obtainable in SwSh? People are just asking that their Pokémon can be transferred into them.
 

Bittersweet

We're very concerned.
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
880
Reaction score
192
So, wait... just because the current solution inconveniences your particular playstyle/motive means it would be better if nobody had the option at all? :unsure:

This is exactly what I mean when I say that it's not perfect, and that GF seem to be trying to do what they can within the current circumstances. I mean, for all that this issue affects me, I could care less if GF went in Ghetsis-style and deleted everybody's Bank accounts right now and sent a message to their Trainer Club inboxes saying "fuck off boomers lol". However, I know that my situation doesn't apply to all cases, and that being able to transfer old Pokémon means a lot to a lot of people. GF know that too, but are in a position where they know they can't please everybody. But it's still better to at least try to figure something out than to just give up and sweep it under the rug altogether.
Considering the amount of backlash this has garnered I'm highly doubtful it's just my particular playstyle and motives that are negatively affected by this.

They may be in a position where they can't please anybody... but the decision to remove 300+ Pokemon from the useable roster is a decision that pleases nobody. Who on Earth asked for that? Who did they think it would please?

It either doesn't affect you (in which case, good for you) or it does affect you negatively. There is no way to spin this as a positive decision or "compromise" that may be beneficial in some way.
 

Geo Panthera

King of Planet Panthera
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
256
Reaction score
410
While I have no issue with Pokémon Home as a concept and as a future app, I'm more concerned about the idea that it is going to cost a annual or even worse, a monthly fee to update it. No matter what ideas Home will get, and how good it is, I'm absolutely refusing the idea to pay for it at a annual or monthly basis. Because if this were to be true, and you can't pay, what then? What will happen to your collection then?

  1. Unable to access your Pokemon collection?
  2. Getting them deleted because of no payment? (most people are worried about the second option)
The worst part of Home is that you can't even transfer them back to the older games. Its a one way ticket. For me to do this, I need to be sure that Home is going to be a good thing and that I can access them whenever I want. Seeing its getting released in 2020, we aren't going to hear much of it this year....I presume.

I like it if Pokémon Home is where you can digitally download it for one time cost, and then you can use it indefinitely, no monthly or annual cost required like in Bank (they should have done the same with Bank too), seeing its also software for your Switch, and not just your phone. You get a part of reserved space to use for your collection, and if you need more, you can pay extra to get more room. It would even be better if the whole thing were free and you only pay to get extra room if you run out of space, but I'm sure GF is never going to do that.

If Pokémon Home is going to be more than just a storage app, and actually a supportive game app for future games, a one time cost, or it being free with a cost to add more space over time for my mons would be great in my opinion.
 

Count Scarlioni

F Pokémon GO, M Mystery Dungeon, K the core series
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
12,753
Considering the amount of backlash this has garnered I'm highly doubtful it's just my particular playstyle and motives that are negatively affected by this.
Obviously, but I guarantee you that the backlash would be worse if they had just abruptly nuked the field entirely and said that players could never use their old Pokémon in newer games ever again.

They may be in a position where they can't please anybody... but the decision to remove 300+ Pokemon from the useable roster is a decision that pleases nobody. Who on Earth asked for that? Who did they think it would please?

It either doesn't affect you (in which case, good for you) or it does affect you negatively. There is no way to spin this as a positive decision or "compromise" that may be beneficial in some way.
They didn't think that it would please anyone. They're not really spinning it as a positive, but rather as a plain reality. That's my whole point. They would have known that people wouldn't like this, but from where they're sitting, the current resolution still leaves them with options and with some room to maneuver. Of course no one asked for 300 Pokémon to be locked out of this entry - people asked for all Pokémon to be included, and according to Masuda, they wanted to do that, but couldn't make it happen. And sure, that inability is more than welcome to criticism. But the key there is that it's an inadequacy, rather than an act of malice or a "betrayal." Transference still exists, just in a more limited form than before. And it's fine to be upset about that limitation, but transferring is only still an option at all because GF do still care about providing players with some way to do it. It's just that, according to them, they've reached a point where something somewhere had to give.
 

Bittersweet

We're very concerned.
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
880
Reaction score
192
While I have no issue with Pokémon Home as a concept and as a future app, I'm more concerned about the idea that it is going to cost a annual or even worse, a monthly fee to update it. No matter what ideas Home will get, and how good it is, I'm absolutely refusing the idea to pay for it at a annual or monthly basis. Because if this were to be true, and you can't pay, what then? What will happen to your collection then?
One of the ideas I've heard thrown around about Pokemon Home that I actually find somewhat intriguing is the idea that it will work as a central hub for most core mechanics that are migrated from the core series; Breeding, EV training, move tutoring, trading, even competitive battling! 'HOME' will be the centre for all that, and the games will work as 'extensions' to that core experience.

However, the more features it may potentially have, the less likely it obviously becomes that it will be cheap or cost no more than what hardcore fans already pay for Bank. And Sword and Shield already cost $80AUD ...

Ouch.
 

Bittersweet

We're very concerned.
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
880
Reaction score
192
It's just that, according to them, they've reached a point where something somewhere had to give.
The only reason this 'had to give' was because they ran out of time. It was rushed to ensure fans "wouldn't be left waiting" (code for: Nintendo pressured us to make release date).

Edit: Even by Masuda's own admission, he didn't want this:
 
Last edited:

Geo Panthera

King of Planet Panthera
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
256
Reaction score
410
One of the ideas I've heard thrown around about Pokemon Home that I actually find somewhat intriguing is the idea that it will work as a central hub for most core mechanics that are migrated from the core series; Breeding, EV training, move tutoring, trading, even competitive battling! 'HOME' will be the centre for all that, and the games will work as 'extensions' to that core experience.

However, the more features it may potentially have, the less likely it obviously becomes that it will be cheap or cost no more than what hardcore fans already pay for Bank. And Sword and Shield already cost $80AUD ...

Ouch.
Then I hope its going to be a one time cost, say, 40 euros or dollars for all the features, and then you can use it indefinitely without issue, and you can purchase extra box space at a additional cost, like how mobile games allow you purchase items or services at a additional cost. I'm just not going to pay a required annual or monthly cost on top of that, as my budget itself isn't very high, and I'm not going blow all of it onto Pokémon.
 

Bittersweet

We're very concerned.
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
880
Reaction score
192
Then I hope its going to be a one time cost, say, 40 euros or dollars for all the features, and then you can use it indefinitely without issue, and you can purchase extra box space at a additional cost, like how mobile games allow you purchase items or services at a additional cost. I'm just not going to pay a required annual or monthly cost on top of that, as my budget itself isn't very high, and I'm not going blow all of it onto Pokémon.
A one-off purchase isn't very likely for a cloud-based service, which usually charge subscription fees to ensure it can be sustained long-term...

Assuming you're correct, it would simply mean a new Pokemon HOME equivalent in Gen IX, or a paid download for the update for Gen IX support.

Honestly, this just isn't a business model I wanna see Pokemon shift towards.

I know Pokemon Go is free-to-download and free-to-play with micro-transactions to unlock extra space, but that is Pokemon Go's core model. I really don't want that to become the 'core' experience at the expense of the mainline games.
 

Geo Panthera

King of Planet Panthera
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
256
Reaction score
410
A one-off purchase isn't very likely for a cloud-based service, which usually charge subscription fees to ensure it can be sustained long-term...

Assuming you're correct, it would simply mean a new Pokemon HOME equivalent in Gen IX, or a paid download for the update for Gen IX support.

Honestly, this just isn't a business model I wanna see Pokemon shift towards.

I know Pokemon Go is free-to-download and free-to-play with micro-transactions to unlock extra space, but that is Pokemon Go's core model. I really don't want that to become the 'core' experience at the expense of the mainline games.
So far, there's no sign it will have subscription fees, especially with all the features its going to possibly have, but that can change of course.

Anything else, it would literally be a game on its own, like Pokémon Ranch (I think it was for the Gamecube?). If its going to be a game with update support and has a one time cost, Im fine with it. But I'm not going to pay for a annual or monthly cost, seeing as with Bank, I never used it other than just transferring Pokémon across generations and for the rest I just let my subscription lapse for the rest of the year. Right now, I forgot to transfer my Alpha Sapphire collection to Ultra Sun, so they are stuck in Alpha Sapphire for the time being until I renew, but it will be the same. Renew, transfer and let my subscription lapse for the reminder of the time.

Seeing as the supposed software is also for your Switch, I reckon its more than just a cloud service.
 

Silktree

Unown Seer
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
17,519
Reaction score
10,760
Don't expect too much from Home. Think Poke Pelago, Ranch and Dream World, which had limited gameplay. And it will, of course, be no cheaper than Bank.

Also, the development "constraints" are not the main reason Masuda cited. It's balance, which people are ignoring because it makes little sense (except for the removed mechanics which arguably clash with Dynamax), which in turn...
 
Last edited:

Envoy

Formerly GTT
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
691
It’s not time constraints. That’s just the excuse. If it was time constraints, they would’ve been very clear that the rest of the Dex would be patched in eventually.

Instead, they said it would be company policy moving forward that no game would have the entire roster of Pokémon available ever again.

Then, a day after the massive backlash, Masuda went on Famitsu (I think?) and said that ‘no decision has been made yet’ regarding a patch to introduce missing mons.

Sounds to me that, while they were expecting backlash, they didn’t anticipate quite the level of it, and (perhaps as a pr stunt) walked it back a little.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent how out of touch Game Freak is with its consumer-base.
 

Bittersweet

We're very concerned.
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
880
Reaction score
192
Then, a day after the massive backlash, Masuda went on Famitsu (I think?) and said that ‘no decision has been made yet’ regarding a patch to introduce missing mons.

Sounds to me that, while they were expecting backlash, they didn’t anticipate quite the level of it, and (perhaps as a pr stunt) walked it back a little.
I'm not 100% certain, but I'm fairly sure the quote from that interview where he says this has been mis-translated or misinterpreted and it's not actually a backpedal.

I think he meant they have not decided to go back and add the missing Pokemon, (meaning they don't plan to because that's just how they design games now); I don't think he meant that they have two options going forward and haven't made a call either way. Every other quote and piece of material about this heavily implies the former interpretation is correct.

Having said that... please-God-let-some-bigwig-veto-this-decision-I-beg-you

I think it is safe to assume that whatever reason they give for this– whether it be "time constraints" or "balance issues"– is a half-truth given for PR reasons and the truth is that the games were just rushed to be ready for release in 2019.
 

Peppermint Phoenix

The one once known as Alphaphlare
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
3,123
Reaction score
553
God I'm pissed I only have one Zerora. I don't know whether to keep it in Gen 7 or put it in Pokemon retirement home. The fact that I'm going to have to make that decision in only a year is horrid
 
Last edited:

Peppermint Phoenix

The one once known as Alphaphlare
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
3,123
Reaction score
553
@Kallyle yeah but I might as well cheat at that point but, then again Gamefreak is cheating me so I guess it's fair.
 

Gligarman

Active Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
687
Reaction score
538
I think it is safe to assume that whatever reason they give for this– whether it be "time constraints" or "balance issues"– is a half-truth given for PR reasons and the truth is that the games were just rushed to be ready for release in 2019.
I can almost guarantee that's the real reason. Remember when Street Fighter V launched without an arcade mode and less characters than SFIV did at launch? That is not something that a developer would decide, that's an upper management decision to have the game out before it's ready because they wanted it launched in time for Evo tournament for the sake of promotion. They know that Sun and Moon's popularity is waned over the years and if they don't get a new gen out soon people will grow impatient.

Patching in the remaining Pokemon is something I think they should prioritize before there's any talk of further remakes or enhanced editions of Sword and Shield. Because if I can't have Simisage due to "battle balance" then I better be able to win VGC 2020 with a Scorbunny!
 

Kyriaki

Steven Stone For Life
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
13,881
Reaction score
3,162
Someone on Tumblr has translated a recent interview with Masuda and Ohmori, clarifying more details into both Home and the cutting of certain Pokémon.

1: Masuda is just as upset as we are over the culling. He wanted SwSh to include the first seven generations of Pokémon, but can't if it means higher quality animation.
2: They've still not decided on whether to patch in left-out Pokémon.
3: There will be over 1,000 Pokémon, alternate forms counting.
4: Home will have playable features, which means it's going to be more than just Bank+. Pokémon not in the Galar Dex will still play some role in Home, so they're definitely not been forgotten.
5: Mega Evolutions and Z-Moves will not be included in SwSh.

The cutting of Mega Evolutions is a major disappointment, but I have my hopes later games will restore them. Meanwhile, the fact that Home will function more as storage is great news, and I hope the later app that allows you to challenge previous trainers in major games will connect with Home, and give the left-out Pokémon the justice they need.
Lol, if Pokemon Home actually turns out to be a massive Battle Frontier - complete with a Pelago/Ranch/Park/Having-whatever-stuff-you-need-to-put-together-a-competitive-team PLUS Battle Facilities - then why the heck not.
 

Soki

Beep Boop
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
5,149
Reaction score
6,402
Man I'm bummed. Like tbf the whole not being able to transfer old mons to the SwSh games doesn't bother me that much. I hardly ever use Pokémon not in the regional dex during my playthroughs and I'm actually quite happy this might shake up the competitive battling a bit. Am getting real tired of seeing the same OP mons over and over, and I really hope this means the UBs are gone cause I simply just hate them.

Not being able to send them back though. I still play the older games a lot and I do use mons from Bank for that often to:
  • send over shinies I've caught to use during a new playthrough;
  • send over Pokémon that are normally only caught very late in the game so I can use them earlier during a new playthrough;
  • send over my living dex so I have the Shiny Charm at the start of a new playthrough;
  • send over my shiny hunting crew since some Pokémon are easier to get as a shiny in XY or ORAS than in SuMo/USUM for example.
Also, I have a whole bunch of breeding mons I don't want to lose, male and female mons of various species with various IVs in various Poké Balls. What if they don't appear in SwSh but I do want to use them to breed something specific? If I send them to Home I can't send them back to another game to breed that Pokémon either.

So sending anything to Home will take some very serious thinking about if I'm not gonna need them in any of the older games at any point. So at this point I'd rather not send anything to Home at all, out of fear I'll regret not being able to use it in my old games. I do hope they never cut off Bank, that would be extremely scummy and would force people to buy a Switch, which I at this point don't have yet and still unsure if I'll even buy one since so far I'm not that impressed with this game.
 

ItalianBaptist

Informed Casual
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
131
Reaction score
153
Looked at the takeaways of the Masuda interview. I’m wondering if there will be more connectivity to Home than just the main/core series games? So maybe Pokémon not in the Galar dex could go into a new Mystery Dungeon, Conquest or Let’s Go Johto...and those are the “adventures” Masuda was talking about.

Is it ideal? No. But there’s the potential of making the Pokémon world much more holistic, and if TPC is going to stick to their guns it seems like this would be the next best thing.
 
Top