Pokemon Stars Discussion Thread (Speculation)

Do you think that Stars is real or Fake

  • Real

    Votes: 61 59.8%
  • Fake

    Votes: 41 40.2%

  • Total voters
    102
  • Poll closed .
Long Lost Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
3,189
Reaction score
2,432
Exactly right. I don't see why I should have to buy another console just to play a third version. That's like releasing Black 2 and White 2 for only the 3DS. A jump to another console should wait until Gen VIII's paired versions.
Exactly.

If they wanted to get Pokemon onto the Switch, would've been smarter to save SM for the Switch.

For positivity's sake, hopefully Stars is a really good game. If it's just a 3rd version, let's hope it's a damn good 3rd version with way more new content than past 3rd versions. Of course it'll be for the Switch, and eventually, that will be okay. Though I doubt I'll be able to afford it... maybe for Christmas 2017 (also why I think the Switch should've released before the holidays instead of waiting til Spring) ;-;
 
If she's UB-01, I'm UB-01
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
2,810
Reaction score
389
A couple of points on this:

1. The difference between S1 and S2 is not going to be Y. In S2, they're going to be spending more money redesigning the region for the upgraded graphical engine. Let's call that Z. The difference between S1 and S2 is going to be Y + Z.
2. We don't know that there's going to be a price cut that soon.
3. It's entirely possible that Group B will be buying launch titles later on in S2. Like you said, many of them are likely buying the Switch for more than one game. If they don't see enough games they like on the Switch, they'll delay their purchase until they see enough games they want. Plus Nintendo could always advertise older games even after they release, they did just that with ORAS up until SM. So that $100 of profit from extra games is likely to be less of a factor than that.

So no, it would not be more profitable. Stars on the Switch would need to sell 120 million +Z /$300 more than Stars on the 3DS to be more profitable. Depending on what Z is, that would mean it would need to be approximately 9+ million in sales (120 million/300 = 400,000 + Z/300).
Obviously I've ignored a LOT of variables for the sake of he post, but you're drastically overestimating the cost of updating Alola.

MOST of the important stuff (char and Pokémon models) are already very high quality, you just can't tell because the 3DS is such a dinosaur. Check out a shofu wifi battle, for instance - he uploads his battle videos to an emulator and plays them in HD. The quality upgrade from SM on 3DS is notable.

@UB-01 Kenobi Great work on that lengthy post (not sarcasm haha). However I do have one strong issue with it. Not so much your argument, but a forgotten variable regarding group B.

Third versions, on the whole, sell less than the original pair. Obvious why, they're pretty much the same games with a couple pretty new things thrown in. Group B may love Pokemon, and are more likely to buy a Switch if it got a main series Pokemon game, but would they buy a new expensive console for a *Third Version*? In all likelihood, no, I don't think so. Group B would be a much smaller number of people if they are the ones willing to buy a Switch for a rehash of what they just played--not to mention that SM are probably the fullest initial pair we've ever had.

Now, as far as whether Stars should be 3DS or Switch? Obviously Switch, yes. But if Stars ends up being a lousy old 3rd version--a simple port + upgrade of SM, then it will not do hardly any good for anyone. It'll just be happy to be here. The biggest mistake in this whole entire debacle was rushing SM onto the 3DS. If they had simply released another Gen VI game for the 3DS in 2016, they could've saved Gen VII SM for the Switch to have an overall more profitable and beneficial outcome--huge sales for both, two birds with one stone. But instead, they put SM on the 3DS and have created (with this whole Stars thing) a nasty situation that can't be escaped or saved.



*TLDR regarding the main topic of the thread right now:

If Stars exists, of course it's for the Switch. No questions asked. There's no way Stars won't be a Switch game, if it exists. I just think it's a really shitty situation that could have been avoided, resulting in amazingly better outcomes for everybody if GF had more foresight and saved SM/Gen VII for the Switch in the first place and just given 2016 another Gen VI game to hold over. I just don't think putting a 3rd version (basically port) on the Switch will do any good. But it won't do much bad either. Just underwhelming.


Best case scenario at the moment: Stars is announced to be not a SM third version, but actually a super rad sequel(s). New content, returning battle styles and features, maybe a few new Pokemon like evolutions and new Megas and Alolan forms, new stuff. New story, new characters, hell, add a second region. Sun Moon sequel. Rad. Even better, though less likely: Woops, turns out it's actually DP remakes or Gen VIII (wayyy too early).

But yeah, if it's just an awkward console jump early generation third version, it's basically just there. Not helping, not hurting, just a fun thing a few people will buy.
I think you misunderstood what Group B represents. Obviously there are SOME people who fit your description - people who would buy a Switch for Gen VIII but not a 3rd version - but they DON'T fall into Group B. Like Group A, the profit off of that Group - let's say Group C - is constant. In S1 or S2, Group C buys the Switch after the price cut. So it does not matter whether GF releases Stars on 3DS or on Switch, Group C gives them the same amount of money towards Switch sales.

A more full scenario would be the following:

Group A will buy the Switch at launch no matter what.
Group B will buy the Switch as soon as a Pokémon game is released on it.
Group C will buy the Switch as soon as Gen VIII is released on it.
Group D will not buy the Switch no matter what.

Assuming the constraints of the previous hypothetical (GF's ONLY available course of action is Stars followed by Gen VIII on Switch), then the ONLY group that they can influence AT ALL is Group B. Their ONLY meaningful choice is "do we want these people to buy switches at launch (and potentially take a profit hit), or do we want to cling to the safety of the 3DS and ensure our short term profits?"

My argument was that putting Stars on the Switch could hypothetically result in EQUAL or GREATER profit than putting it on the 3DS, even if we ignore long term strategy, because I think Group B - by itself - is quite large, personally.

Of course in ADDITION TO the above possibility, this is also a HUGE long term bonus for Nintendo as they get a larger install base at launch and that means that people are buying Switch games as they come out at full price.

As @Bolt the Cat said, Groups B and C MIGHT go back and buy old launch titles even if Gen VIII is the first Switch Pokémon title, but it's LESS LIKELY, and on top of that, when you buy a game that's already been out for 2 years, you can get it at a discount (less profit for Nintendo) or you can get it used (ZERO profit for Nintendo).
 
Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
5,155
Reaction score
3,312
Obviously I've ignored a LOT of variables for the sake of he post, but you're drastically overestimating the cost of updating Alola.

MOST of the important stuff (char and Pokémon models) are already very high quality, you just can't tell because the 3DS is such a dinosaur. Check out a shofu wifi battle, for instance - he uploads his battle videos to an emulator and plays them in HD. The quality upgrade from SM on 3DS is notable.
Maybe, but with all of the factors I pointed out being nonfactors, it doesn't really matter a whole lot. Regardless of how large Z is, S2 is going to need to surpass S1's sales to make a profit. Z just determines by how much.
 
Pikachu's Global Adventure
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
2,157
Nintendo has a stake in the Pokémon Franchise and they like to promote their new products. Switch is virtually a handheld console that is also a home console. The reason why GameFreak never made main Pokémon games on the Wii or Wii U even though it would have been very profitable (seriously, there are demands for a home console Pokémon game) is because they believe that Pokémon works best with social mobility outside of the room.

Switch eliminates the issue completely. There is no excuse for GameFreak to not make a main Pokémon game on a home console. And really, profit-wise, Nintendo has many unconventional decisions that are deemed risky or not worth the money by investors because they are also artists and innovators. Conventional wisdom would had them make PS4 clones with no gimmicks and Breath of the Wild being released early and split into two games half-cooked to maximize profit. Putting a main Pokémon game on a new console has its rewards to be reaped.

And Pokémon is the type of the franchise that is worth the risk.
 
Goddess
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
9,265
Reaction score
1,218
Two things:




You mean the fanbase that's 15+ million big? Yeah, that's not a reliable market at all.
Firstly do not use the sarcasm tone at anyone in a disrespectful manner especially me.

Secondly a fanbase doesn't equal sales. If so then every Pokemon game sold should in theory be equal to Pokemon Red and Blue or Red and green.

It feels like all the apparent evidence that you have sprouted out ad nauseum is basically not taking into consideration outside influences, variables, the potential market, and many other considerations. It feels that your arguments have been very black and white and not fluid at all. You know business and basically marketing to know that everything is fluid and everything changes. Your arguments are just too restricted in theoretically business which you should know that theory isn't practical. It isn't how it works. If we went by your arguments, there wouldn't have been growth in video games and we would have been stuck without taking risks.

I mean if you want to quote and argue against it, go ahead but I'm not going to reply because I feel maybe you need to take a step back and take into consideration variables and look at the majority market and how 'pandering' (which is an awful word) to the die hard Pokemon fan is going to narrow the market and leave out massive amounts of potential sales.
 
Only 79 new Pokemon?
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
559
I wonder how Necrozma will be handled in Stars since it is the third legendary. The plot will have to be changed majorly as they can't just pull a gen 3/4 and swap Rayquaza/Giratina into the climatic final evil team moments over the previous covers as this time things are different. Nebby doesn't really do all that much in the story in its final form other than bringing you to and from Ultra space so I don't think they'll just have it evolve into necrozma. It's not an ultra beast and it wouldn't make sense for Lusamine to obsess over it so the Aether component is missing.

They'd likely have to rewrite an entire chunk of the plot to fit necrozma in.

Or pull a zygarde and unceremoniously shove it in gen 8 as a random fetch quest.
 
Destroyer of Fairy, Steel and Ice types.
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
5,199
Reaction score
2,243
There are no benefits to Stars being on Switch in my opinion. It would become incompatible with SM. Shouldn't put the rest of gen 7 on the Switch in my opinion. I rather they just do gen 8 on the Switch instead of Stars.
 
Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
121
Reaction score
63
I wonder how Necrozma will be handled in Stars since it is the third legendary. The plot will have to be changed majorly as they can't just pull a gen 3/4 and swap Rayquaza/Giratina into the climatic final evil team moments over the previous covers as this time things are different. Nebby doesn't really do all that much in the story in its final form other than bringing you to and from Ultra space so I don't think they'll just have it evolve into necrozma. It's not an ultra beast and it wouldn't make sense for Lusamine to obsess over it so the Aether component is missing.

They'd likely have to rewrite an entire chunk of the plot to fit necrozma in.

Or pull a zygarde and unceremoniously shove it in gen 8 as a random fetch quest.
I hope it's like Gen 5 where in B2W2 they focused on Kyurem instead. We'll probably have two games as well and Necrozma could have two forms. One he changes into when he absorbs Moonlight and the other when he absorbs Sunlight
Fits the SuMo theme
 
If she's UB-01, I'm UB-01
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
2,810
Reaction score
389
Maybe, but with all of the factors I pointed out being nonfactors, it doesn't really matter a whole lot. Regardless of how large Z is, S2 is going to need to surpass S1's sales to make a profit. Z just determines by how much.
First off I disagree, you can make a bigger profit by putting Stars on Switch even if the strict number of sales is lower. I won't bother explaining again, the fact is that it's true.

Second, recall that for the scenario we just ASSUMED that the numbers you've been throwing around - 5 and 8 million - are accurate. What if Stars on 3DS bombs? Maybe the new content just pushes that dinosaur of a system a little too far, and nobody buys the game because of lag and graphical issues like stretched or blurry text. Or maybe because S/M have such a good deal of content in the first place, people don't feel motivated to buy the same game on the same console a second time. Maybe we shouldn't just assume that 3DS Stars 100% WILL meet the highest end of the spectrum when it comes to 3rd version sales.

And more importantly, we definitely shouldn't ASSUME that Switch Stars will be the lowest selling 3rd version EVER by around a million sales. Guys, it's Pokémon... on your big TV! Everybody wanted that growing up. Colosseum and XD are beloved and some fans put them in the same boat (in terms of quality and enjoyment) as the main series games even though they have limited Pokémon selection, only double battles, and GF didn't even make them.

Stars on the Switch has the potential to be the BIGGEST 3rd version ever. Not the worst.
 
Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
121
Reaction score
63
Pokemon on your TV is a really big selling point yeah + the first real HD Pokemon game. But depending on how long it has been in development Gen 8 might be the true HD Pokemon game.

Finally we might have Coliseum/XD Gale of D/Stadium like Battles where you see Pokemon in their full size on hardware that is more capable.

Having walking with your Pokemon back

I'm getting excited just thinking about it :D
 
#1 Wooloo Fan
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,378
Reaction score
2,369
I wouldn't call the Crystal situation that. Anyone who wasn't playing GS on the GBC was missing out to begin with; they were GBC games.
The GBC had also nigh on eclipsed the GB at the point of Crystal's release, so my own point is kind of moot.

There are no benefits to Stars being on Switch in my opinion. It would become incompatible with SM. Shouldn't put the rest of gen 7 on the Switch in my opinion. I rather they just do gen 8 on the Switch instead of Stars.
OR/AS were incompatible with X/Y and they went down a storm. The only thing they could do together was trade, and even then you couldn't trade all the sparkly new goodies that OR/AS introduced because of the lack of compatability, and GF didn't bother to update X/Y because they hate Kalos and want to see it fall into a volcano

Speaking from a developer's point of view, Stars on Switch is ideal. They get to play around with a brand new engine and development software for a third version before coming out with the arguably bigger/more important Gen VIII (it was Plus/Minus all along) for the Switch at a later date. GF staff having more experience with powerful development kits can never be a bad thing.

Having walking with your Pokemon back
Given that walking Pokemon models were found, it's safe to assume that GF heard our request and wanted to bring them them back, but the 3DS just wasn't powerful enough to process it. Which makes sense, given the reports of 3DS slowdown when running Sun & Moon.
 
Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
5,155
Reaction score
3,312
Firstly do not use the sarcasm tone at anyone in a disrespectful manner especially me.
I didn't mean for it to be disrespectful, sorry.

Secondly a fanbase doesn't equal sales. If so then every Pokemon game sold should in theory be equal to Pokemon Red and Blue or Red and green.
True, but generation debuts consistently sell around that number, so it's a safe assumption.

It feels like all the apparent evidence that you have sprouted out ad nauseum is basically not taking into consideration outside influences, variables, the potential market, and many other considerations. It feels that your arguments have been very black and white and not fluid at all. You know business and basically marketing to know that everything is fluid and everything changes. Your arguments are just too restricted in theoretically business which you should know that theory isn't practical. It isn't how it works. If we went by your arguments, there wouldn't have been growth in video games and we would have been stuck without taking risks.

I mean if you want to quote and argue against it, go ahead but I'm not going to reply because I feel maybe you need to take a step back and take into consideration variables and look at the majority market and how 'pandering' (which is an awful word) to the die hard Pokemon fan is going to narrow the market and leave out massive amounts of potential sales.
Oh believe me, I'm aware of the outside factors. Problem is, as I've said before, Pokemon's very identity is in conflict with what those outside factors generally want. In the long term, there's some things they can do to appeal to those outside markets (such as making more games like Go or creating another Colosseum/XD type of game), but Stars is most likely not going to be the game to do that, so those outside markets are irrelevant to the argument.

First off I disagree, you can make a bigger profit by putting Stars on Switch even if the strict number of sales is lower. I won't bother explaining again, the fact is that it's true.
Doesn't look so factual to me, but if you don't want to bother countering the argument, suit yourself.

Second, recall that for the scenario we just ASSUMED that the numbers you've been throwing around - 5 and 8 million - are accurate. What if Stars on 3DS bombs? Maybe the new content just pushes that dinosaur of a system a little too far, and nobody buys the game because of lag and graphical issues like stretched or blurry text. Or maybe because S/M have such a good deal of content in the first place, people don't feel motivated to buy the same game on the same console a second time. Maybe we shouldn't just assume that 3DS Stars 100% WILL meet the highest end of the spectrum when it comes to 3rd version sales.
Whether or not the system is pushed too far depends on the kind of content. Most of the lag is related to battling styles, when the game has to process more than 2 battlers on screen. As for the content argument, that applies more to Switch than 3DS. If they're not convinced that a third version is worth their purchase on a system they already own, they'll be even less convinced on a console they don't own that they'll have to pay $300 for.

And more importantly, we definitely shouldn't ASSUME that Switch Stars will be the lowest selling 3rd version EVER by around a million sales. Guys, it's Pokémon... on your big TV! Everybody wanted that growing up. Colosseum and XD are beloved and some fans put them in the same boat (in terms of quality and enjoyment) as the main series games even though they have limited Pokémon selection, only double battles, and GF didn't even make them.

Stars on the Switch has the potential to be the BIGGEST 3rd version ever. Not the worst.
That might be appealing for an original Pokemon game, but not so much for a game that's only a year old. Stars being a port of a recent game is in conflict with its potential selling points and that's easily something that could offset those selling points.

Having walking with your Pokemon back
Speaking of this, I saw the video showcasing that and it doesn't look like it's meant for Pokemon following you. For one, they show Mega Evolutions walking, and Megas cannot follow you in the overworld because they're triggered by battling. Second, the models are a little big for the overworld. IDK what they're for, but they don't look like for following.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
2,235
i feel as if in their arguments some people are looking too much towards the short term rather than the long term. regardless of which console it is on, Stars will make Game Freak a chunk of money. arguments about sales and money are trivial since even if Stars were to flop on a certain console, it's not like Game Freak couldn't take a hit. simply put, Stars on the 3DS would be a blatant cash grab for Game Freak. there's no real technical experience they would gain from it since the 3DS is a dying console and it would certainly come off as a very "here's the real Gen VII 3DS experience" with the withheld features from SM. putting it on the Switch at least gives them valuable technical experience as well as helping to ensure that what'd likely be their next platform is a successful one before they launch Gen VIII.

also i feel like some people are just straight-up ignoring the fact that it's the 20th anniversary, the primary reason there was a new generation over a brief continuation of Gen VI to begin with.

It's not an ultra beast
(it is.)
 
Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
121
Reaction score
63
Given that walking Pokemon models were found, it's safe to assume that GF heard our request and wanted to bring them them back, but the 3DS just wasn't powerful enough to process it. Which makes sense, given the reports of 3DS slowdown when running Sun & Moon.
I'm well aware of the 3DS technical limitations.

You know what's funny. They could have brought it back with XY/ORAS because of how each area was set up.
In SuMo they updated and upgraded and added a there was a lot more on screen at any given point.
That unfortunately made it that these games had a lot of loading as well, especially those small gates.

I hope everything goes a lot more seamless on the Switch
The loading isn't as bad as gen 4 “saving a lot of data” but it's still annoying.
 
Destroyer of Fairy, Steel and Ice types.
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
5,199
Reaction score
2,243
OR/AS were incompatible with X/Y and they went down a storm. The only thing they could do together was trade, and even then you couldn't trade all the sparkly new goodies that OR/AS introduced because of the lack of compatability, and GF didn't bother to update X/Y because they hate Kalos and want to see it fall into a volcano

Speaking from a developer's point of view, Stars on Switch is ideal. They get to play around with a brand new engine and development software for a third version before coming out with the arguably bigger/more important Gen VIII (it was Plus/Minus all along) for the Switch at a later date. GF staff having more experience with powerful development kits can never be a bad thing.
What? XY and ORAS were compatible. You can trade between both games. You just couldn't put the new mega evolutions and forms into XY but that didn't matter. I rather the third version follows Platinum and Emerald by staying on the same handheld as the first pair of games.

I do not think Stars on the switch has the potential to be the biggest third version game. The 3DS can do that.
 
#1 Wooloo Fan
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,378
Reaction score
2,369
What? XY and ORAS were compatible. You can trade between both games. You just couldn't put the new mega evolutions and forms into XY but that didn't matter.
I should have phrased it properly: they were only partially compatible. XY & ORAS could trade between eachother, but couldn't battle online against eachother due to ORAS's new inclusions.

The 3DS can do that.
Perhaps, and it may even do so. But there is a clearly growing list of things that the 3DS cannot do.
 
If she's UB-01, I'm UB-01
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
2,810
Reaction score
389
Doesn't look so factual to me, but if you don't want to bother countering the argument, suit yourself.
the reason i don't feel the need to explain is because my original points still stand. I think you're vastly overestimating the long term additional cost of putting Stars on the Switch over the 3DS since most of the work is either a) already done or b) going to be done anyways for Gen VIII (doing it now means they get to reuse it). I also think you're vastly underestimating the profit gained from having however many additional Switch owners during the time between launch and whenever Gen VIII gets released. Having a large Switch install base is nothing but good for the company - more people potentially buying Switch games is just the start of it. The larger the Switch's install base is at launch, the better Nintendo's stocks will be doing in the market, for instance. It's all about thinking long term.
 
Hear me roar!
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
6,316
Reaction score
6,018
While this argument over what system Stars should be on goes on and on again, I wanna talk about walking Pokemon. Evidence was found from dataminers that each Pokemon has a walking and running animation, though I think its obvious that they couldn't properly implement this beloved feature into the game. I'm hoping that they'll be able to do this in Stars.
 
Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
5,155
Reaction score
3,312
the reason i don't feel the need to explain is because my original points still stand. I think you're vastly overestimating the long term additional cost of putting Stars on the Switch over the 3DS since most of the work is either a) already done or b) going to be done anyways for Gen VIII (doing it now means they get to reuse it). I also think you're vastly underestimating the profit gained from having however many additional Switch owners during the time between launch and whenever Gen VIII gets released. Having a large Switch install base is nothing but good for the company - more people potentially buying Switch games is just the start of it. The larger the Switch's install base is at launch, the better Nintendo's stocks will be doing in the market, for instance. It's all about thinking long term.
The thing about thinking about this long term is that it only really differs until 8th gen. I am thinking long term, I just don't agree with your analysis. Let's just leave it at that for now.
 
Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
304
Reaction score
196
The rumor is about a Switch exclusive game so I don't see where these 'should be on 3ds' peopel are coming from. It's a rumor about a Switch game so we should better speculate about the features rather than complaining the platform on which it is going to be released.
 
Top