Pokemon Stars Discussion Thread (Speculation)

[Ereshkigal]

A Pokémon game on the Switch would be a good reason to expect more sales, right?

No, it wouldn't.

The Pokemon series is a popular and long-lasting series... but even on the handheld platform, it typically pales in comparison to Mario and Zelda, especially some of the Mario spinoffs like Kart and Smash Bros. It does extremely well as a mobile game, but in terms of home console sales it's very close to flop territory. Even more so since it will be instantly overshadowed by Breath of the Wild, Skyrim, and Minecraft. For terms of games that are easy to pick up and play, relatively cheap, and a lot of fun... Pokemon would be in competition with Stardew Valley, which is a massive powerhouse of a game for something so cheaply made (and considered likely to unseat both Harvest Moon and Story of Seasons as the go-to farming game).

If Pokemon is to have any chance of competing at all rather than being buried before it even has a chance, it's going to need to come out of the gate swinging. It's going to need something to attract new players, those only vaguely familiar with it... and to be frank, the 3DS graphics and gameplay are not going to do the job. Especially since people can get the same experience on a cheaper system.

Nintendo and Game Freak know all of this already. That's why it is I'm willing to consider that even if they do port Sun and Moon over, what will be ported will be an overhaul and not the game we've been playing already.

I repeat: because they want to be the first to report it. If you find spectacular news, you're not gonna wait to give hungry fans something to discuss, you're gonna report it before someone else beats you to it. They don't care about fans, they care about scoops.

Which is why you should always take what they say with a grain of salt, no matter how many times they've been right. It's very, very easy to pull the wool over the eyes of a news agency that operates that way. Which is what caused their false prediction on Zelda.

 

[Soki]

No, it wouldn't.

The Pokemon series is a popular and long-lasting series... but even on the handheld platform, it typically pales in comparison to Mario and Zelda, especially some of the Mario spinoffs like Kart and Smash Bros. It does extremely well as a mobile game, but in terms of home console sales it's very close to flop territory. Even more so since it will be instantly overshadowed by Breath of the Wild, Skyrim, and Minecraft. For terms of games that are easy to pick up and play, relatively cheap, and a lot of fun... Pokemon would be in competition with Stardew Valley, which is a massive powerhouse of a game for something so cheaply made (and considered likely to unseat both Harvest Moon and Story of Seasons as the go-to farming game).

If Pokemon is to have any chance of competing at all rather than being buried before it even has a chance, it's going to need to come out of the gate swinging. It's going to need something to attract new players, those only vaguely familiar with it... and to be frank, the 3DS graphics and gameplay are not going to do the job. Especially since people can get the same experience on a cheaper system.

Nintendo and Game Freak know all of this already. That's why it is I'm willing to consider that even if they do port Sun and Moon over, what will be ported will be an overhaul and not the game we've been playing already.

Pokémon on a handheld is a whole different thing than Pokémon on a console though. This will be the first time for it to be on a console, and while it will indeed pale in comparison to Zelda (hell what won't), I still think it would be quite a success. People have been asking for a main Pokémon game on a console for ages. Sure it's probably not good enough reason to double the sale projections, but it could help with that together with lots of other reasons why they did that. There could be loads of reasons why they did that, assuming they did it because a bigger Pokémon game than Stars is coming is a huge assumption.

Which is why you should always take what they say with a grain of salt, no matter how many times they've been right. It's very, very easy to pull the wool over the eyes of a news agency that operates that way. Which is what caused their false prediction on Zelda.

I am taking it with a grain of salt, I've never said I'm 100% sure Stars is real. Just discussing why it's plausible. It's the opponents that have been saying "EG has been wrong once, so this is proof they're wrong again". I'm just saying, they've been right enough times to not be dismissed as a false source immediately. They could be wrong, they could be right, but they definitely don't deserve to be called fake immediately just because they didn't have everything right.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

No, it wouldn't.

The Pokemon series is a popular and long-lasting series... but even on the handheld platform, it typically pales in comparison to Mario and Zelda, especially some of the Mario spinoffs like Kart and Smash Bros. It does extremely well as a mobile game, but in terms of home console sales it's very close to flop territory. Even more so since it will be instantly overshadowed by Breath of the Wild, Skyrim, and Minecraft. For terms of games that are easy to pick up and play, relatively cheap, and a lot of fun... Pokemon would be in competition with Stardew Valley, which is a massive powerhouse of a game for something so cheaply made (and considered likely to unseat both Harvest Moon and Story of Seasons as the go-to farming game).

Question: What do you base all that on? We haven't had a main game in a console, so we don't know what reaction will it cause. You're speaking of spin-offs,.

Which is why you should always take what they say with a grain of salt, no matter how many times they've been right. It's very, very easy to pull the wool over the eyes of a news agency that operates that way. Which is what caused their false prediction on Zelda.

I think Eurogamer sort of started it. But, there have been a few leaks after Eurogamer, like with the 20 new Pokemon thing. They may be building on Eurogamer.
I think a Pokemon Game on Switch is likely, and Stars is a plausible way to start it.

 

[Ereshkigal]

Pokémon on a handheld is a whole different thing than Pokémon on a console though. This will be the first time for it to be on a console, and while it will indeed pale in comparison to Zelda (hell what won't), I still think it would be quite a success. People have been asking for a main Pokémon game on a console for ages. Sure it's probably not good enough reason to double the sale projections, but it could help with that together with lots of other reasons why they did that. There could be loads of reasons why they did that, assuming they did it because a bigger Pokémon game than Stars is coming is a huge assumption.

Quite a success when released at the right time and with the right enhancements, yes. Now definitely is not that time, since the advertisements and hype for Zelda will overshadow it and likely hurt sales. We were never going to get a Pokemon game as a Switch launch title for exactly that reason.

And it doesn't have to be bigger than Sun and Moon. It could simply be an overhaul of Sun and Moon. But as it stands, releasing Sun and Moon as-is for the Switch is going to have it compared unfavorably with the bigger games already released. And while people have been wanting a main series Pokemon game on the Switch, I think we both already know that most reviews of a pure Sun and Moon port would be panning it simply because it would be the same game. Even GTA 5 made certain there was some improvements as incentive for playing it on the newer generations, and that game pretty much didn't need any.

I am taking it with a grain of salt, I've never said I'm 100% sure Stars is real. Just discussing why it's plausible. It's the opponents that have been saying "EG has been wrong once, so this is proof they're wrong again". I'm just saying, they've been right enough times to not be dismissed as a false source immediately. They could be wrong, they could be right, but they definitely don't deserve to be called fake immediately just because they didn't have everything right.

This relies on a false premise. The idea that they have been surprisingly right means they should be trusted relies on ignoring the very nature of how they report news. The Onion has been scarily right about some of its predictions too.

They very much should be dismissed as a primary news source entirely because of their focus on getting the scoop, to the point they don't always bother to verify information before reporting it (which would have stopped the false Zelda prediction dead in its tracks before it even got started).

Question: What do you base all that on? We haven't had a main game in a console, so we don't know what reaction will it cause. You're speaking of spin-offs.

I'm basing it entirely off of game sales on the 3DS and previous handheld systems. And then extrapolating from there.

I think Eurogamer sort of started it. But, there have been a few leaks after Eurogamer, like with the 20 new Pokemon thing. They may be building on Eurogamer.
I think a Pokemon Game on Switch is likely, and Stars is a plausible way to start it.

I think Eurogamer got taken for a ride, and the reports since are just building on it.

I also think they're just now working on Stars, and that development was not started before the rumors started. It wouldn't be the first time that a rumor mill has created enough popularity for something to be added to a game (the Pandaren race from WoW, for example). I could see GF taking advantage of the hype that has been generated along with the news the Switch will do well.

 

[Lyrebird]

Wait wait, wait. wait. Did you actually say that Pokemon on a console will be overshadowed by Zelda. Seriously? One of the most popular things in pop culture not just with people who play the games but everyone will be overshadowed by Legend of Zelda. So, basically it's like saying that Star Wars shouldn't release a movie at a certain time because Mission Impossible is there. Actually it's like saying the NBA shouldn't host its finals because of a baseball game between the Yankees and the Red Sox. Actually it's like saying that Apple shouldn't release a new iPhone because Sony Xperia is releasing a new phone.

It makes no logical sense to actually say that Pokemon one of the most popular things in pop culture history in the 90's and the 21st century would actually be overshadowed by a game people mainly have memories of in the 90's and 80's. There is no way in the world that Legend of Zelda would actually overshadow a Pokemon game. Hell, a Pokemon game on a console, something that has never been done (main series). Pokemon is a franchise that transcends beyond players. People know Pikachu and shit like that. Pokemon Go was way popular. How would LoZ actually be overshadowing Pokemon? Like, how? How is it even possible?

Also thinking that Eurogamer which got like what a few things wrong? Should be dismissed because of it is like basically saying you can throw out every single news source in the world. Sources get things wrong, so what? News these days and forever is about who is the quickest. You might as well dismiss everything in sight because news is all about speed first.

Also actually basing a Pokemon game on a console to previous sales on a 3DS and DS seems way invalid, unreliable, and completely incorrect. You don't base it on pure stats that mean nothing to this. It's a console and Pokemon on a console is unprecedented. It has never been done before and it is safe to say that something people have been clamouring for since the late 90's would be extremely popular. I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be popular. People mainly play games on a console and what a way to attract people to Nintendo again after not really having a Nintendo since the Wii or even before, then one of their childhood games on the big screen TV. Imagine the kid who grew up playing Pokemon Red and had played Pokemon Go, remembers watching Pokemon on TV back in the day, their school banning Pokemon Cards after a kid ripped a holographic Charizard belonging to another kid. She casually scrolls down the internet to see the news or goes on Facebook and sees "Now you can play Pokemon on a Console"

She would click on it as nostalgia hits. She reads about it. She doesn't care about all these new Pokemon. To her 251 is where it ended, so she's like "You know what I'm going to buy this cause Pokemon and I guess Mario Kart is there." and there you have it. Pokemon on a console, on your TV will evoke a massive emotional response to those that grew up with Pokemon, who had an N64 and the Game Boy but fell out of Pokemon after G/S came out.

Now the counter arguments will be but they wouldn't care about Pokemon anymore. That's not true to a certain extent. A lot of people and I know a lot of people, they remember Pokemon growing up and when they hear about a possibility that Pokemon will be a console game, the shit's real. People start talking about it, singing the theme song, talking about Yellow, Gold, Red, Blue, Silver, Pokemon Stadium mini games, Pokemon Snap, using Pikachu in Super Smash on the N64. Imagine how many people you can target, how many sales. It's just crazy not to do so or crazy to think that it wouldn't be a hit.

Now I know a lot of people here just don't want to buy a Switch or would prefer Pokemon being handheld but you know what? Things change and progress has to be made. Pokemon can't stick with doing the same thing on the same handhelds types forever. There needs to be innovation and progress to get more people to buy your products. Basically, either adapt or die off and GF needs to adapt, really badly.

Also what the hell is a Stardew Valley?

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

I'm basing it entirely off of game sales on the 3DS and previous handheld systems. And then extrapolating from there.

But we cannot compare console and handheld markets like that. Who knows how much sales we would've got if DP and BW were released for the Wii?
There is simply no base to know if Zelda would be fading Pokemon or not.

Also, who said that Zelda can overshadow Pokemon? Stars will release in the later half of 2017, that is atleast 3 months after Zelda (and I CANNOT see a June release, max. Pokemon will be announced at E3. TheZelda hype will die down by then By the time Stars comes along, it will be encouraging people to buy Switches along with Mario. Both games will sell together, and will not compete, since Mario and Pokemon are entirely different.

As I was writing this... @Lyrebird posted, summarising my points very clearly.

EDIT:

Stardew Valley, which is a massive powerhouse of a game for something so cheaply made (and considered likely to unseat both Harvest Moon and Story of Seasons as the go-to farming game).

I just googled "Stardew Valley"... and you're comparing a 20-year old classic widely loved franchise with...
barely a year old farming indie game? I was sort of baffled when I googled "Stardew Valley"...

 

[Soki]

Even more so since it will be instantly overshadowed by Breath of the Wild, Skyrim, and Minecraft.

Every game will be overshadowed by those games. Should everyone else just stop releasing games this year then, cause none of them will be a success?

For terms of games that are easy to pick up and play, relatively cheap, and a lot of fun... Pokemon would be in competition with Stardew Valley, which is a massive powerhouse of a game for something so cheaply made (and considered likely to unseat both Harvest Moon and Story of Seasons as the go-to farming game).

I can assure you that a lot more people have heard about Pokémon than Stardew Valley. Also Pokémon is not a farming game, and afaik Stardew Valley is not a monster collecting game. That's comparing apples with pears.

This relies on a false premise. The idea that they have been surprisingly right means they should be trusted relies on ignoring the very nature of how they report news. The Onion has been scarily right about some of its predictions too.

Fine, call them lucky guesses if you want. This could also be a lucky guess. Still no proof against Stars to be found here.

They very much should be dismissed as a primary news source entirely because of their focus on getting the scoop, to the point they don't always bother to verify information before reporting it (which would have stopped the false Zelda prediction dead in its tracks before it even got started).

Like Lyrebird said above me, every news source focusses on getting the scoop. Is all news fake then with sometimes lucky guesses?

 

[Ereshkigal]

Wait wait, wait. wait. Did you actually say that Pokemon on a console will be overshadowed by Zelda. Seriously? One of the most popular things in pop culture not just with people who play the games but everyone will be overshadowed by Legend of Zelda. So, basically it's like saying that Star Wars shouldn't release a movie at a certain time because Mission Impossible is there. Actually it's like saying the NBA shouldn't host its finals because of a baseball game between the Yankees and the Red Sox. Actually it's like saying that Apple shouldn't release a new iPhone because Sony Xperia is releasing a new phone.

It makes no logical sense to actually say that Pokemon one of the most popular things in pop culture history in the 90's and the 21st century would actually be overshadowed by a game people mainly have memories of in the 90's and 80's. There is no way in the world that Legend of Zelda would actually overshadow a Pokemon game. Hell, a Pokemon game on a console, something that has never been done (main series). Pokemon is a franchise that transcends beyond players. People know Pikachu and shit like that. Pokemon Go was way popular. How would LoZ actually be overshadowing Pokemon? Like, how? How is it even possible?

Zelda managed to overshadow Mario. I wish I were making that up, but to restate it: Zelda managed to overshadow the best-selling independent Mario game of all time. Mario, a game series that pretty much guarantees to be the biggest seller of a Nintendo console, was overshadowed by Zelda. Even Eurogamer admits Zelda is simply the biggest launch title in Nintendo history. So, yes, Pokemon would be overshadowed; Zelda is competing with games like Skyrim, not games like Pokemon.

And it makes every bit of logical sense. Zelda managed to overshadow a franchise even bigger than Pokemon, so naturally it would overshadow Pokemon as well.

Also thinking that Eurogamer which got like what a few things wrong? Should be dismissed because of it is like basically saying you can throw out every single news source in the world. Sources get things wrong, so what? News these days and forever is about who is the quickest. You might as well dismiss everything in sight because news is all about speed first.

That's why I verify with multiple sources instead of trusting one source. And if possible, hunt down the original information. Because there are some seriously bad misrepresentations that end up in the news. Like the ever-popular idea that playing video games makes people into serial killers.

Also actually basing a Pokemon game on a console to previous sales on a 3DS and DS seems way invalid, unreliable, and completely incorrect. You don't base it on pure stats that mean nothing to this. It's a console and Pokemon on a console is unprecedented. It has never been done before and it is safe to say that something people have been clamouring for since the late 90's would be extremely popular. I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be popular. People mainly play games on a console and what a way to attract people to Nintendo again after not really having a Nintendo since the Wii or even before, then one of their childhood games on the big screen TV. Imagine the kid who grew up playing Pokemon Red and had played Pokemon Go, remembers watching Pokemon on TV back in the day, their school banning Pokemon Cards after a kid ripped a holographic Charizard belonging to another kid. She casually scrolls down the internet to see the news or goes on Facebook and sees "Now you can play Pokemon on a Console"

She would click on it as nostalgia hits. She reads about it. She doesn't care about all these new Pokemon. To her 251 is where it ended, so she's like "You know what I'm going to buy this cause Pokemon and I guess Mario Kart is there." and there you have it. Pokemon on a console, on your TV will evoke a massive emotional response to those that grew up with Pokemon, who had an N64 and the Game Boy but fell out of Pokemon after G/S came out.

But we cannot compare console and handheld markets like that. Who knows how much sales we would've got if DP and BW were released for the Wii?
There is simply no base to know if Zelda would be fading Pokemon or not.

Also, who said that Zelda can overshadow Pokemon? Stars will release in the later half of 2017, that is atleast 3 months after Zelda (and I CANNOT see a June release, max. Pokemon will be announced at E3. TheZelda hype will die down by then By the time Stars comes along, it will be encouraging people to buy Switches along with Mario. Both games will sell together, and will not compete, since Mario and Pokemon are entirely different.

As I was writing this... @Lyrebird posted, summarising my points very clearly.

If we didn't have multi-platform games like Mario Kart and Smash Bros and didn't have the Switch, I would agree this is a logical stance. But keep in mind the Switch is both a home console and portable, and intended by Nintendo to be the sequel to both the Wii U and the 3DS. All games on it are, thus, arguably now part of the handheld market. As such, I can compare Pokemon to games like Skyrim.

Also, keep in mind I can just compare Pokemon to the 3DS version of Smash Bros, the compare the 3DS and home console versions. I have a basis for extrapolation because of games like that which were both home console and portable before the Switch came out.

Now the counter arguments will be but they wouldn't care about Pokemon anymore. That's not true to a certain extent. A lot of people and I know a lot of people, they remember Pokemon growing up and when they hear about a possibility that Pokemon will be a console game, the shit's real. People start talking about it, singing the theme song, talking about Yellow, Gold, Red, Blue, Silver, Pokemon Stadium mini games, Pokemon Snap, using Pikachu in Super Smash on the N64. Imagine how many people you can target, how many sales. It's just crazy not to do so or crazy to think that it wouldn't be a hit.

The same nostalgia value is true of Mario, Zelda, and a number of other games. It's why it is Sonic games keep being re-released. The nostalgia of arguing which Nintendo character would beat which is the entire foundation of the Smash Bros. series.

Traditionally, Pokemon has not been competing against big games. It's been competing against handheld games, and increasingly against remakes from much older Nintendo systems. And occasionally against a cross-platform game. But for the most part, it has held its own market.

That's about to change. And right now, Pokemon would be going up against powerhouses, most of whom have well-established fanbases and a one of which has smashed even Nintendo's records. That's a kind of competition Pokemon has never faced before.

Now I know a lot of people here just don't want to buy a Switch or would prefer Pokemon being handheld but you know what? Things change and progress has to be made. Pokemon can't stick with doing the same thing on the same handhelds types forever. There needs to be innovation and progress to get more people to buy your products. Basically, either adapt or die off and GF needs to adapt, really badly.

I'm one of the people who has argued Pokemon would benefit from the Switch. I never said they won't release a new game for the Switch; in fact, I stated up above that I thought they're working on one right now. But I've cited some of the challenges and problems they'll likely face if they do a straight port without at least some effort to adapt it to the new console added in, and the challenges they're going to face once they release.

And, you're right. Things do change. Now, Pokemon has to compete against franchises like Elder Scrolls. I think they can do it, but I also think those challenges are why they will delay.

And, if you trust Eurogamer, consider they have an argument for why you don't want Pokemon on the Switch.

Also what the hell is a Stardew Valley?

It's a farming game, made in the similar vein as Harvest Moon, by a single guy who thought it would be a good idea. Also amazingly popular if you play those kinds of games; it's completely beaten the series that spawned it in sales.

EDIT:


I just googled "Stardew Valley"... and you're comparing a 20-year old classic widely loved franchise with...
barely a year old farming indie game? I was sort of baffled when I googled "Stardew Valley"...

Yep. It doesn't help that Harvest Moon is now two different franchises; the original games series is now called Story of Seasons, while Harvest Moon is a Natsume spin-off because Natsume had a copyright on the name "Harvest Moon."

In total sales, Story of Seasons pales compared to Harvest Moon, but both are jokes at this point. I don't even have accurate sales figures for Stardew Valley... but Steam ranked it very high among their top sellers of 2016, where it competes against games like Doom and Skyrim. Thus, Stardew Valley is actually considered comparable because it is more successful than both of the entries for the split Harvest Moon franchises.

Also, Stardew Valley is going to be released on Switch this summer (correction from earlier comments on it being released already). It's already out on Xbox 1 and Playstation 4. So, keep in mind those sales are only from one platform and don't reflect the fact that Stardew Valley will be the first Harvest Moon-style farming game available on the Switch.

Every game will be overshadowed by those games. Should everyone else just stop releasing games this year then, cause none of them will be a success?

Nah. Just save your good games for six months from now and release them in time for the holiday rush By then, Zelda mania should have died down.

I can assure you that a lot more people have heard about Pokémon than Stardew Valley. Also Pokémon is not a farming game, and afaik Stardew Valley is not a monster collecting game. That's comparing apples with pears.

We'll see how that pans out.

Fine, call them lucky guesses if you want. This could also be a lucky guess. Still no proof against Stars to be found here.

I would hope not. I haven't been arguing Stars isn't coming. A lot of people seem to assume I am just because I'm pointing out a few hundred flaws with the projected release date.

Like Lyrebird said above me, every news source focusses on getting the scoop. Is all news fake then with sometimes lucky guesses?

Considering the reports about the LHC creating black holes, GMOs being somehow dangerous to humans, the way they misrepresent climate science, the hysterias they've invented, the fact at least one war was started because two newspapers thought they could get away with starting it, the number of times Onion articles have been treated by serious news agencies as real news, and far more issues than I care to count on nearly every topic imaginable... At this point, I could accept that as a legitimate stance.

I may not like the modern mantra of "fake news" used by certain people, but I have to admit that it does bring up a very real problem with modern media and how, really, you kinda should be treating most news agencies as though they're at least partly lying until you've verified for yourself. The people using the mantra did not invent the problem; they're merely capitalizing on an existing issue.

Sites like Eurogamer? Use some basic logic and do a lot of research. And accept their claims, such as the Switch being a failure waiting to happen, as being mostly speculation instead of anything remotely resembling fact.

 

[PurplePopplio]

A better franchise to compare Pokemon to would be Yokai Watch. Just imagine the war on the Switch if both those are present.

 

[Mehrunes_Bagon]

Having lurked this thread on and offline for a while now, I can see we need some solid news in the next few months, or it might end up end up like this thread's latter days.

 

[Lyrebird]

Launch titles of Nintendo's history isn't really that great and did you just quote IGN while complaining about news? That is way inconsistent and it is literally an opinion piece on IGN which you just complained about on Eurogamer. Be consistent.

Sure LoZ sold more than any launch title but Mario is a more popular brand and same as Pokemon. How you manage to think that Zelda has to be more popular than Mario due to sales is ridiculous in a bubble. Try comparing every single asset of Mario, every sales inclusive of mechanising, TV programming, reach of advertising, brand awareness, brand resonance, and value and compare it to Legend of Zelda. No competition and Pokemon v. LoZ, no competition either. You're looking way too much as recent single game sales which doesn't make sense why not does it lead to anything valid in terms of popularity.

It is like saying that Jennifer Lawrence's recent movie grossed more than Tom Cruise's movie ergo Lawrence is more popular than Cruise. It doesn't work like that.

Dude, your extrapolation isn't sound because again you're comparing without variables. You can't compare something as big as Pokemon to SSB which is not on the same level. It doesn't work too much. You're trying to make it too logical where common sense and knowing variables is disregarded. Heck the fact that you don't take into consideration how massive of a property Pokemon is, shows how insular your thought process is. You're literally undervaluing Pokemon and ironically you're on a Pokemon forum. The logic is berefit of common sense.

Also news has always been like that since media started even in the 1800s. First come, first serve and posting an opinion with facts. Just because they write an opinion piece or made a prediction due to sources and it came off wrong doesn't really discredit unless done repeatedly and from what I gather Eurogamer hasn't done it repeatedly to get given a stigma. I mean you use an IGN puff piece and then say Eurogamer is wrong because you don't agree or trust it. Which is very hypocritical in nature. So you can't fault someone for using Eurogamer as a source and then post an IGN one.

As I said before and I'll say it again, you're highly underestimating the Pokemon brand and the thought process is just too insular. It doesn't take consideration several variables outside the bubble of video game fans.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

So, yes, Pokemon would be overshadowed;

Zelda is competing with games like Skyrim, not games like Pokemon.

How do these sub-sentences make sense together? If Zelda is not competing with Pokemon, it won't

Zelda managed to overshadow Mario. I wish I were making that up, but to restate it: Zelda managed to overshadow the best-selling independent Mario game of all time. Mario, a game series that pretty much guarantees to be the biggest seller of a Nintendo console, was overshadowed by Zelda. Even Eurogamer admits Zelda is simply the biggest launch title in Nintendo history. So, yes, Pokemon would be overshadowed; Zelda is competing with games like Skyrim, not games like Pokemon

You conveniently ignored my whole paragraph on how Zelda won't be overshadowing Pokemon (the 2017 Pokemon game, atleast. Here's that para once more.

Also, who said that Zelda can overshadow Pokemon? Stars will release in the later half of 2017, that is atleast 3 months after Zelda (and I CANNOT see a June release, max. Pokemon will be announced at E3. TheZelda hype will die down by then By the time Stars comes along, it will be encouraging people to buy Switches along with Mario. Both games will sell together, and will not compete, since Mario and Pokemon are entirely different.

Zelda is simply not competing Pokemon. Games 'comptete' when they're similar. Pokemon offers a completely different experience.

 

[Ereshkigal]

Note: This is going to be my last post on the topic for the day. Because I can argue anything to death.

Launch titles of Nintendo's history isn't really that great and did you just quote IGN while complaining about news? That is way inconsistent and it is literally an opinion piece on IGN which you just complained about on Eurogamer. Be consistent.

Launch titles of Nintendo's home consoles also tend to be the most profitable. For example, compare Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time. Both were highly popular games at the time, but the launch title still did better than the other title.

And I am being consistent. I said to use multiple news sources, not one, to confirm a story.

Sure LoZ sold more than any launch title but Mario is a more popular brand and same as Pokemon. How you manage to think that Zelda has to be more popular than Mario due to sales is ridiculous in a bubble. Try comparing every single asset of Mario, every sales inclusive of mechanising, TV programming, reach of advertising, brand awareness, brand resonance, and value and compare it to Legend of Zelda. No competition and Pokemon v. LoZ, no competition either. You're looking way too much as recent single game sales which doesn't make sense why not does it lead to anything valid in terms of popularity.

It is like saying that Jennifer Lawrence's recent movie grossed more than Tom Cruise's movie ergo Lawrence is more popular than Cruise. It doesn't work like that.

Being a more popular brand does not stop a brand from getting overshadowed by a sudden smash hit. For example, Harvest Moon is a more popular video game series, but in total sales it's been completely blown away by Stardew Valley as of late. Breath of the Wild is, for Nintendo, a smash hit.

Dude, your extrapolation isn't sound because again you're comparing without variables. You can't compare something as big as Pokemon to SSB which is not on the same level. It doesn't work too much. You're trying to make it too logical where common sense and knowing variables is disregarded. Heck the fact that you don't take into consideration how massive of a property Pokemon is, shows how insular your thought process is. You're literally undervaluing Pokemon and ironically you're on a Pokemon forum. The logic is berefit of common sense.

If Pokemon is to be on the same platform as SSB, then they are comparable. In terrms of how popular a video game is, you simply compare the video game sales. That doesn't mean that a popular brand, like the Matrix was for a time, won't flop on the video game level or that an established brand, like Call of Duty, won't have the occasional underperforming title. Pokemon has been lucky to not have to deal with that.

I'm ignoring other variables because those other variables are simply irrelevant to how a Pokemon video game would sell on the Switch and how it would stack up in ratings compared to other games on the same system. Because, unfortunately, it would be compared to other games on the same system anyway.

Also news has always been like that since media started even in the 1800s. First come, first serve and posting an opinion with facts. Just because they write an opinion piece or made a prediction due to sources and it came off wrong doesn't really discredit unless done repeatedly and from what I gather Eurogamer hasn't done it repeatedly to get given a stigma. I mean you use an IGN puff piece and then say Eurogamer is wrong because you don't agree or trust it. Which is very hypocritical in nature. So you can't fault someone for using Eurogamer as a source and then post an IGN one.

The Boston News-Letter was established in 1704. It focused first on British politics, which due to communications at the time were often late when they reached the Americas. But, pretty much, it acted as a summary of political events up until 1722, at which time it added events from its own area (which, again, were often long after the fact due to communications limitations). It didn't expand to communications around the colonies until 1732, and ended up completely ended as a newspaper in 1776 because was run by people in the Loyalist faction.

The world's first newspaper was published in Germany, starting in 1605. It focused primarily on summarizing the prior week's worth of news that had come in, so that readers could keep relatively up to date. It didn't focus on being first to report news because that would have been impossible with the communications technology of the period.

And, the 1800s famous example? Two newspapers who intentionally misrepresented news to the American public to the point their lies resulted in the Spanish-American War. They are the living embodiment of the damage that invented news can cause, and the best example of why you should be leery of trusting news agencies.

I didn't use just an IGN piece. I used pieces from four different news sources. Including Eurogamer.

Also, Eurogamer has done it repeatedly. On the Switch alone: the Nintendo Switch being a flop, predicted a Mario launch title that didn't come, predicted the Switch would be primarily mobile gaming, and predicted Breath of the Wild being a delayed launch and not the leading title on the Switch. And that's before we get into the discussion on if the Virtual Console that Eurogamer predicted is ever coming. For Pokemon, they predicted Pokemon Grey. For the 3DS, they predicted a different graphics card than it ended up with. And so on.

As I said before and I'll say it again, you're highly underestimating the Pokemon brand and the thought process is just too insular. It doesn't take consideration several variables outside the bubble of video game fans.

I'm not. I'm estimating they're waiting for a time when they don't have to compete with the Zelda hype and will have a revamped game to offer to excite players. A time when they can excite players a lot more with a game release.

How do these sub-sentences make sense together? If Zelda is not competing with Pokemon, it won't


You conveniently ignored my whole paragraph on how Zelda won't be overshadowing Pokemon (the 2017 Pokemon game, atleast. Here's that para once more.

Zelda is simply not competing Pokemon. Games 'comptete' when they're similar. Pokemon offers a completely different experience.

This is ignoring the fact that one person or thing can be not competing with a second, while the second can be competing with the first. Zelda can be not competing with Pokemon, yet Pokemon can still be competing with Zelda. This typically happens when there is a stark inequality in positions.

Games also compete for hype and advertising attention, in which case much broader categories are typically used. In this case, Pokemon and Zelda would both be in the same general category because they tend to appeal to much of the same audience where that broad category is concerned. For Pokemon, it would be trying to draw attention from a smash hit launch title, while Zelda would be trying to maintain its position against the highly popular Skyrim and Minecraft; Zelda would not need to defend itself against Pokemon simply because Pokemon would be approaching it from a severely disadvantaged position. In which case, waiting a year would be advantageous to them.

Also, I ignored that paragraph because even Eurogamer says it won't happen, and I didn't want to be a jerk and point that out. Here's the relevant text:

It may be some time before Stars releases, however. We heard the game was initially a summer 2017 launch for Nintendo Switch, but has since been pushed back to later in the year.

If Eurogamer is right, we're talking probably October at the earliest. If they're wrong, which is likely for reasons both myself and Silk have pointed out, we're probably talking next year or later.

 

[DoctorWhy]

Zelda managed to overshadow Mario.

No. The launch sales of a single game do not imply overshadowing. Obviously, Mario and Zelda are completely different games and don't compete with each other. But besides that--launch sales are unimportant compared to lifetime sales. Mario 64's lifetime sales are likely bigger than BOTW's sales will ever be (even though it's fucking amazing). Not only will Mario 64's lifetime sales likely outnumber BOTW by a large margin, you're forgetting that Mario 64 was over 20 years ago. Overshadowing, for one, implies the competition of contemporaries. Not items separated by a generation. Secondly, gaming culture has hugely evolved since then. The general population, as well as the population of gamers, has skyrocketed since Mario 64's time. Hell, the internet wasn't even a thing yet. BOTW has the advantages of internet, pre-orders, online shopping, and a larger population of dedicated gamers. If these games were somehow released side by side, Mario would beat Zelda, any day (I would buy Zelda though lol).

Now, Pokemon has to compete against franchises like Elder Scrolls.

They don't compete at all because they are completely dissimilar. They are aimed at entirely separate demographics.

We'll see how that pans out.

Stardew Valley will never be a pop culture icon like Pokemon. Not saying it isn't a great game and will make a lot of money, but it will never reach Pokemon. Call me when Stardew Valley gets a balloon at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade or hits the worldwide charts for a mobile release or enters the top 5 gaming franchises (series sales) of all time. Besides, they also aren't direct competitors.

 

[Ereshkigal]

No. The launch sales of a single game do not imply overshadowing. Obviously, Mario and Zelda are completely different games and don't compete with each other. But besides that--launch sales are unimportant compared to lifetime sales. Mario 64's lifetime sales are likely bigger than BOTW's sales will ever be (even though it's fucking amazing). Not only will Mario 64's lifetime sales likely outnumber BOTW by a large margin, you're forgetting that Mario 64 was over 20 years ago. Overshadowing, for one, implies the competition of contemporaries. Not items separated by a generation. Secondly, gaming culture has hugely evolved since then. The general population, as well as the population of gamers, has skyrocketed since Mario 64's time. Hell, the internet wasn't even a thing yet. BOTW has the advantages of internet, pre-orders, online shopping, and a larger population of dedicated gamers. If these games were somehow released side by side, Mario would beat Zelda, any day (I would buy Zelda though lol).



They don't compete at all because they are completely dissimilar. They are aimed at entirely separate demographics.



Stardew Valley will never be a pop culture icon like Pokemon. Not saying it isn't a great game and will make a lot of money, but it will never reach Pokemon. Call me when Stardew Valley gets a balloon at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade or hits the worldwide charts for a mobile release or enters the top 5 gaming franchises (series sales) of all time. Besides, they also aren't direct competitors.

Internet Explorer was first released in 1995. The internet not only existed when the N64 was released in 1996, but had already had the word "internet" defined enough it could be used to sell a product. Nintendo already had a website by the time the N64 was released. AOL had already been an ISP for years by the time the N64 was released. The longest-running webcomic on the net debuted in 1995. The internet was first reaching popularity at the time the N64 was released, which is why such long-running sites as GameFAQs came to be; it was very much already a thing, just not the societal saturation it is now.

If you want to talk lifetime sales, then Super Mario 64 isn't even in the running for being considered a powerhouse game; it sold less than 12 million units. The actual powerhouse of the Mario series is Super Mario Bros., weighing in at a hefty 40 million units. However, neither of those are Nintendo's powerhouse game; that's Wii Sports, which completely outsold Super Mario 64's lifetime sales up to this year by 2007. And according to Nintendo, Breath of the Wild is outselling Wii Sports.

Stardew Valley does not have to be a pop culture icon to be a more successful game. Mario is a pop culture icon, and he loses out to a random sports game that we'll all probably forget about in ten or twenty years.

Being a cultural icon or popular franchise does not, no matter what anyone likes to believe, automatically translate to being a successful game, or even doing well as a game; the Matrix, Star Wars, Star Trek, the Die Hard series, Call of Duty, RollerCoaster Tycoon, Harvest Moon, the Sims, SimCity, and countless other franchises have learned this the hard way. Halo, despite probably being the first series most people would think of if I said "sci-fi FPS," has had some rather embarrassing sales with their latest iteration, whereas Halo 3 saw record sales for the franchise. All being an established, popular franchise does is grant long-term survival and more chances to adapt rather than meaning you'll die off if your next game is a flop. And in the case of Pokemon, it means that if they ultimately sink in the world of games they can still continue on with the anime, movies, and other merchandise; it at no point guarantees the next game will be a hit if it's mishandled.

Games live and die by hype. Unless your own game has a hype machine equal to the big names, you really don't want to compete with smash hits and extremely popular games if you can avoid it. If you want to see how Pokemon stacks up on a popular system where it has hype advantage and deals with popular competitor, here's the DS stats. As you can see, Pokemon loses out to a Mario game; typically, it does far better in ranking on a system that is much less popular.

So we can talk about the popularity of Pokemon all we want, but the numbers tell the uncomfortable reality of the situation. And that situation is that when Mario is involved (compare Black 2 and White 2 figures to those of New Super Mario Bros. on 3DS, then do Diamond and Pearl compared to New Super Mario Bros.), Pokemon doesn't compete as well, even on a platform where it has the hype advantage. Now, keep in mind we're talking about Pokemon not competing against Mario, but against a game on its way to doing better than the Mario franchise can muster.

You commented you would buy Zelda. You're part of the demographic both games share. Same as I am. You and I both stand as evidence against that argument, so the two being separate demographics is an argument neither one of us can legitimately make.

Edit: I think I got out the typos and miswordings. Either way, I'm done editing this post; if I misworded something and get called on it, I'll just admit to being wrong on that wording. Seriously, this post was a mess when I first typed it.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

Being a cultural icon or popular franchise does not, no matter what anyone likes to believe, automatically translate to being a successful game, or even doing well as a game; the Matrix, Star Wars, Star Trek, the Die Hard series, Call of Duty, RollerCoaster Tycoon, Harvest Moon, the Sims, SimCity, and countless other franchises have learned this the hard way. Halo, despite probably being the first series most people would think of if I said "sci-fi FPS," has had some rather embarrassing sales with their latest iteration, whereas Halo 3 saw record sales for the franchise. All being an established, popular franchise does is grant long-term survival and more chances to adapt rather than meaning you'll die off if your next game is a flop. And in the case of Pokemon, it means that if they ultimately sink in the world of games they can still continue on with the anime, movies, and other merchandise; it at no point guarantees the next game will be a hit if it's mishandled

Well, how popular if Pokemon compared to all those games? 10x atleast.

You commented you would buy Zelda. You're part of the demographic both games share. Same as I am. You and I both stand as evidence against that argument, so the two being separate demographics is an argument neither one of us can legitimately make.

Well... I live in a country where Nintendo has no sort of official presence, and the only way to know about Pokemon is the anime.
And... almost everyone I know knows about Pokemon, but no one at all knows or discusses Zelda. One friend of mine even bought a 3DS to play X and Y, and ORAS.

Your average person is more likely to know about Pokemon,than Zelda. This fact alone ensures that Pokemon is popular. And the Pokemon Go fad will just contribute to it, even if the hype is down.
Suppose, Pokemon releases a main game, and Pokemon Go sends a notification to everyone who has the app, so that everyone is aware of the games. (I already cannot understand why didn't they send a notification about Sun Moon promotion)
That will be the day when Pokemon will completely annihilate Zelda.

Also, how much will be the Zelda hype after 2-3 months?
Very less. D'you know how many people want a Pokemon game on the Switch? Just check out Reddit or any Nintendo Switch forum.
Pokemon has many, many, many fans then Zelda. Anyone will know Pokemon more than Zelda.

Also, Pokemon and Zelda are completely different.
Want to survive in the new open-world, complete quests, cook dishes amongst more? Buy Zelda!
Want to capture your favourite Pokemon, and become the champion? Buy Pokemon!
The premise of the games is totally different to justify buying one over the other.
I wonder who even brought up Zelda reducing Pokemon sales.
EDIT: I can make the argument about specific demographics since I didn't even know what was Zelda before all this, and had no plans to buy it

EDITNo2-

And according to Nintendo, Breath of the Wild is outselling Wii Sports.

Wrong. From here 'Zelda: Breath of the Wild' is Nintendo's fastest selling launch title ever

4. Zelda for Nintendo Switch the best selling standalone launch title (i.e. not a bundled game a la Wii Sports) in Nintendo history...

Wii Sports was simply not included in the comparison. And I haven't heard of exact sales numbers.

Further from the same article.

He also specified that it's the best-selling standalone launch title, distinguishing it from the original Super Mario Bros. or Wii Sports, the latter of which was the best-selling game of all time at one point. Those two games came with the NES and Wii, respectively, and the Switch (or any console) is unlikely to reach the phenomenal market share of those platforms.

 

[Ereshkigal]

Well, how popular if Pokemon compared to all those games? 10x atleast.

Not even close. Harvest Moon, definitely; Star Wars and Star Trek? Pokemon doesn't even scratch the surface of their popularity. When you're going up against series that have affected humanity's technological development, like Star Trek has, you start to run into issues of even being remotely comparable. If you ever use a tablet, for example, you're using a technology inspired by Star Trek.

And people have been trying to make lightsabers ever since the first Star Wars movie came out. I've seen a few promising concepts for the technology, but they run into certain issues of practicality... like how to prevent the user from chopping their own limbs off. But the Jedi religion from Star Wars franchise is very much no longer fictional, even if there's no demonstrated Force abilities in real life.

But as a game series, Pokemon does far better than them for a number of reasons.

Well... I live in a country where Nintendo has no sort of official presence, and the only way to know about Pokemon is the anime.
And... almost everyone I know knows about Pokemon, but no one at all knows or discusses Zelda. One friend of mine even bought a 3DS to play X and Y, and ORAS.

Your average person is more likely to know about Pokemon,than Zelda. This fact alone ensures that Pokemon is popular. And the Pokemon Go fad will just contribute to it, even if the hype is down.
Suppose, Pokemon releases a main game, and Pokemon Go sends a notification to everyone who has the app, so that everyone is aware of the games. (I already cannot understand why didn't they send a notification about Sun Moon promotion)
That will be the day when Pokemon will completely annihilate Zelda.

I think it depends on the nation as to which series they're familiar with and how familiar they are. But, then again, this latest Zelda game is completely out of left field; Zelda has always been a popular series, but it's never been this popular before.

The Pokemon Go one is a good question... but if they haven't done that cross-advertising in the past, it's a sure bet they won't in the future. So, I think you're looking for a promotion that's not going to happen. Keep in mind they are primarily focused on the American and Japanese markets. Places where Zelda are much more popular as well.

Also, how much will be the Zelda hype after 2-3 months?
Very less. D'you know how many people want a Pokemon game on the Switch? Just check out Reddit or any Nintendo Switch forum.
Pokemon has many, many, many fans then Zelda. Anyone will know Pokemon more than Zelda.

Hype for popular games may work that way where you are, but I've never seen it here. Skyrim's hype didn't die down for nearly a year after its release, and right now we have Mass Effect Andromeda, Horizon: Zero Dawn, and Breath of the Wild in a three-way battle over which game will dominate. And none of those are even trying to compete with the monster that is GTA 5 (which, surprisingly, is apparently still going strong).

I'm one of the ones who wants a Pokemon game on the Switch. In fact, I have money earmarked for when Pokemon drops on that platform.

But I also pay attention to markets and project based on the two markets where the game is strongest and GF has the most vested interest. GF isn't going to take an unnecessary risk with a release date; it's not their style.

Also, Pokemon and Zelda are completely different.
Want to survive in the new open-world, complete quests, cook dishes amongst more? Buy Zelda!
Want to capture your favourite Pokemon, and become the champion? Buy Pokemon!
The premise of the games is totally different to justify buying one over the other.
I wonder who even brought up Zelda reducing Pokemon sales.
EDIT: I can make the argument about specific demographics since I didn't even know what was Zelda before all this, and had no plans to buy it

You can have the experience of both Pokemon and Zelda by playing World of Warcraft. And while the premises of the games are different, they are still often marketed to the same people from the primary two nations where the games see most of their sales.

Zelda, at the same time, overlaps with Skyrim; they both have much of the same gameplay.

But that doesn't address the fact the issue isn't gameplay, but advertising and resulting player excitement; a game about collecting and battling mons might do better in your area, but it's not necessarily got that same power in other markets. Which is problematic, given GF has to balance the markets.

Note: I had something different here, but this struck me as better.

EDITNo2-


Wrong. From here 'Zelda: Breath of the Wild' is Nintendo's fastest selling launch title ever

Wii Sports was simply not included in the comparison. And I haven't heard of exact sales numbers.

Further from the same article.

Ah, good point. The article does say that. Here's what else the article says:

A report from research firm SuperData (courtesy of Extreme Tech) estimates that Breath of the Wild has sold 1.34 million units to date, with 89% of Switch owners purchasing the game.

Now, let's take a look at a quote from this article:

It added that The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild has also become the "biggest-selling Nintendo launch title ever in Europe, even outselling Wii Sports in first weekend sales", adding that this success all came "in March – traditionally a quiet time for the games industry."

That's interesting... Especially since, in Europe, Wii Sports was bundled with the Switch.

Just to confirm, here's a second source:

Not only that, but Zelda: Breath of the Wild is Europe's biggest-selling Nintendo launch title ever - higher even than Wii Sports, which was packed-in with the Wii.

Well, a third source points out how this is possible, with this quote coming directly from a tweet within it:

2. Fri-Sat sales for Nintendo Switch exceeded first 2-day sales in Americas for any system in Nintendo history. Next biggest was Wii.

And a fourth source confirms it.

So, basically, that's the answer: The Switch simply sold more consoles than the Wii did, and with basically nine out of ten owners of the Switch also buying Zelda.

This is a good thing, despite the fact it will likely force Pokemon to delay longer than we'd like: The Switch sales are setting records, and they have a flagship title that is beating a predecessor that was packaged with the game system. This is the kind of publicity and the kind of roaring launch that the Switch needs to become a popular system, and in turn prove that it really is going to do well. If it maintains those sales, then GF will be put under insurmountable pressure to make the move to the Switch, which means that our chances of seeing Pokemon permanently on the big screen goes up.

We very, very much need the Switch to not only succeed, but excel if Pokemon is going to be on it. This level of success we are seeing, and Zelda doing so phenomenally well, is exactly the kind of excelling necessary. This is what is going to establish the Switch not only as a serious console, but a successful legitimate contender in the market. And when a Pokemon game is finally released for the Switch, we benefit from it.[/quote]

 

[Peppermint Phoenix]

@Ereshigal; Andromeda already got a price drop on Origin and I've seen very little excitement post launch mostly people just taking the piss out of its animations.

Now on the subject of overshadowing. The Switch needs games and obviously being the only big Switch game helps Botw but I doubt it even if Stars comes out on holiday I doubt it would be Zelda hurting it at that point. It's not like the way Kirby Air Ride got screwed by coming out at the same time as GX and double dash. Really being of only two or three big Switch games is pretty good but a lot more competition is coming this year.

However even if Stars is real which I don't think it is. I don't think it would come out this year because recently mainline Pokemon games have been announced in the first months in the year the game comes out barring remakes.

Also again I don't the only reasons to make the system change one game ahead of schedule I've seen are: Nintendo is potentially pressuring them which I don't think they can and the lag issue which I don't think they care enough about.

 

[PurplePopplio]

What if Game Freak's "wait and see" course of action results in this year being a gap year where Switch sales build up to a big enough total and then Game Freak releases a Switch Pokemon game in late 2018 with enough sales to make some serious profit?

 

[Ereshkigal]

@Ereshigal; Andromeda already got a price drop on Origin and I've seen very little excitement post launch mostly people just taking the piss out of its animations.

I would ignore the price drop. This is EA we're talking about. They did an Origin sale right before Andromeda launched and once bragged about being voted the worst company in America. Trying to gain any useful information from their decisions is a quicker path to insanity than trying to mind-meld with Cthulhu.

And, yeah, I'll admit Andromeda is probably going to come out the ultimate loser in this battle. But up until the news of those animation issues came out, it was the most anticipated game of 2016. That puts it in the running, even if it's a race the game can't win. But, every race like this has a big loser and a big winner. It just happens to end up Mass Effect coming out on the bottom of the pile this time.

Now on the subject of overshadowing. The Switch needs games and obviously being the only big Switch game helps Botw but I doubt it even if Stars comes out on holiday I doubt it would be Zelda hurting it at that point. It's not like the way Kirby Air Ride got screwed by coming out at the same time as GX and double dash. Really being of only two or three big Switch games is pretty good but a lot more competition is coming this year.

However even if Stars is real which I don't think it is. I don't think it would come out this year because recently mainline Pokemon games have been announced in the first months in the year the game comes out barring remakes.

Also again I don't the only reasons to make the system change one game ahead of schedule I've seen are: Nintendo is potentially pressuring them which I don't think they can and the lag issue which I don't think they care enough about.

Nintendo non-portables are also generally the least successful of their consoles ever since the N64 hit the market. The Wii was a pretty good exception, but the Wii U, Gamecube, and N64 all did poorly. Add on the Virtual Boy, and grand total you have four out of seven home consoles being flops. That goes into my question much earlier of how Nintendo is going to treat the Switch; if they are going to treat it just as another home console, it will likely fail in the long run.

That's the thing I think everyone is forgetting to take into account: Nintendo needs this to be a win. If the Switch sinks, it'll probably take Nintendo with it, and then we likely lose Pokemon. And most of the time, when they set up launches for a bunch of good exclusive games it doesn't work out for them. That's why they courted games like Skyrim and Minecraft and Stardew Valley; they're trying to show not just their own players, but players loyal to other systems, that they're a serious contender this time around and they they won't just be for their own exclusives.

That's also likely why they didn't launch with a Mario game.

The other side of this is that competition gets more predictable the longer GF delays. Right now, they're up against a surprise smash hit and two very popular games. There's also the fact that popular Nintendo titles are slated to hit the switch in the normal Pokemon launch windows; no matter when it releases this year, it's going to be at a disadvantage. And that's not even counting the games coming out that ignore the normal rules of development or sales, and thus cannot be predicted as easily. GF has every reason to take one look at the Switch game lineup and decide to just skip this year.

I think you're right that Nintendo is pressuring GF, but I think you're wrong about what they're pressuring GF to do. Nintendo needs the Switch to be a hit not just with its own developers, but with the more fickle third parties as well. Those third parties need to see that not only is the Switch going to be a success, but that there's room in the release schedule for them. So, I think Nintendo is pressuring GF to not release on the Switch until the Switch has had a chance to potentially hook some other developers as well.

Edit: Game Freak is hiring a motion designer, a map modeler, a UI designer, a concept artist, and programmers. I suspect all of these positions are for the same game. The programmers in particular caught my attention; if they were just creating a third version or remakes, why hire programmers? I think Stars is Gen 8.

What if Game Freak's "wait and see" course of action results in this year being a gap year where Switch sales build up to a big enough total and then Game Freak releases a Switch Pokemon game in late 2018 with enough sales to make some serious profit?

I see this as also likely.