Pokemon Stars Discussion Thread (Speculation)

[Bolt Strike]

Which isn't true because Stars will make a profit regardless.

Here are the two scenarios:

- Gamefreak make Stars and therefore profit. They then make Gen 8 and profit.

- Gramefreak make Gen 8 and profit.

Stars will not result in a loss. You can argue that they will make less of a profit by hi-res models. But that wasn't Riley's argument as he said they would "lose money".

Well it's still a bad decision regardless of whether or not it's a loss or less of a profit. Businesses seek to maximize profits, not just arbitrarily make a decision that makes them money. What it comes down to is these two scenarios:

1. Game Freak puts Stars on 3DS. They spend less money on the graphics and so they have more profit from the game.
2. Game Freak puts Stars on Switch. They spend more money on the graphics and so they have less profit from the game.

8th gen is coming either way, so the difference in profitability mainly comes down to whether or not they make Stars a 3DS game or a Switch game. And out of those two, keeping it on the 3DS is the smarter option.

 

[Iteru]

Well it's still a bad decision regardless of whether or not it's a loss or less of a profit. Businesses seek to maximize profits, not just arbitrarily make a decision that makes them money.

I'm not sure what you think all the other 3rd versions have been apart from a quick buck.

Also businesses only have to maximise profits if they are bound by company law involving shareholders. There are tons of businesses out there that don't achieve the profit they could do due to the triple bottom line principle of wanting to be environmentally friendly, or end up paying more costs by using local suppliers, etc

 

[Master Cyrus]

So what you are saying is that they either spend money making hi-res models. Or they spend money making better ones with a different engine.

So again how does hi-res models make them lose money? The games will be profitable anyway.

They already have the models. The ones they've made for XY and carried over to SM are many times more detailed than is necessary for a 3DS game and contributes to why the games ran so poorly.

They've been preparing for this since before the 6th generation.

 

[Bolt Strike]

I'm not sure what you think all the other 3rd versions have been apart from a quick buck.

When did I say they weren't? What I'm saying is they can fulfill that purpose better by keeping it on 3DS than porting it to Switch.

Also businesses only have to maximise profits if they are bound by company law involving shareholders. There are tons of businesses out there that don't achieve the profit they could do due to the triple bottom line principle of wanting to be environmentally friendly, or end up paying more costs by using local suppliers, etc

And is Game Freak one of those companies? They don't seem to want to do anything other than make money.

 

[SionReaver]

They already have the models. The ones they've made for XY and carried over to SM are many times more detailed than is necessary for a 3DS game and contributes to why the games ran so poorly.

They've been preparing for this since before the 6th generation.

I honestly didn't notice a huge difference between models this gen and 7. Though that would explain the spikes in lag and everything else

On an aside, I don't understand why people who are so adamant about this not being true are here. Of course you're in your right to doubt it or not like it, but it seems counter productive to be a thread just to argue against it. Its very unlikely anyone will change one's mind, just as it is unlikely you'll change anyone elses.

But its a moot point since we'll find out in a few months either way. That's why I have more a wait and see approach.

 

[TwistedxMind]

I didn't notice a change in models from Gen 6 to 7 until I played Omega Ruby right after Moon and noticed immediately the drastic difference.

 

[epicgordan]

I'd also like to note that there are at least seven empty plots of land that never come into play in the game, as well as a couple of locations that you never visit that are available on the map (like the lighthouse and golf course). Likely these seven empty lots are all gyms. Which, if they are coming back, then I'm going to predict that Ilima, Molayne, Mina, and possibly even Plumeria and Nanu will all become gym leaders while still retaining their main SuMo roles (Ilima as Trial Captain, Plumeria as a Team Skull Admin, and Nanu as Kahuna). I also noticed too that there are quite a number of Totems with Z-Crystals, but no trials. The Verdant Cave and Vast Poni Canyons have these totems, and are generally the sites of the Totem Pokémon as well as their subsequent Z-Crystals, and tend to serve roles as Trials. So where do these totems with three hidden Z-Crystals come into play as far as Trials go? Specifically Ten Carat Hill, Haina Desert, and Mount Lanakila? And in addition to that, that bloody golf course we can't go to? Is it possible those places would all play pivotal roles in Pokémon Stars? Perhaps as additional Trial Sites? Who knows?

 

[Iteru]

When did I say they weren't? What I'm saying is they can fulfill that purpose better by keeping it on 3DS than porting it to Switch.

You didn't but its my evidence that Gamefreak don't seek to maximise profit as we know that the third version sell less than the main games, so the argument that Stars is wrong because it won't maximise profit is null.

And if you make the argument that they are making maximising profits by reutilising assets, than Stars would be because the plot, character designs, new Pokémon, etc are all carried over.

This all comes to the argument that riley made earlier that the better models will make GF lose money. No third game has lead to a loss and I think the precedents all support that Stars would not be a loss.

 

[Bolt Strike]

I'd also like to note that there are at least seven empty plots of land that never come into play in the game, as well as a couple of locations that you never visit that are available on the map (like the lighthouse and golf course). Likely these seven empty lots are all gyms. Which, if they are coming back, then I'm going to predict that Ilima, Molayne, Mina, and possibly even Plumeria and Nanu will all become gym leaders while still retaining their main SuMo roles (Ilima as Trial Captain, Plumeria as a Team Skull Admin, and Nanu as Kahuna).

Okay, first of all, if gyms are coming to Alola, the positions of Trial Captain and Kahuna are going to be eliminated. Gyms are going to replace them, not exist alongside of them. Second, they don't use up every square inch of the map. Kalos has tons of empty and unused areas, and did those get expansions? Nope.

This is kind of an interesting discussion though, I've also thought about who would end up GLs in a potential sequel. My guess would be that Ilima, Mallow, Kiawe, Lana, and Sophocles stay. Molayne and Nanu don't seem to be interested in battling anymore, so they probably wouldn't. Mina could possibly stay but she doesn't seem very dedicated, so from a realistic standpoint I can't see the League accepting her as a Gym Leader. Hapu would probably make a good gym leader. We need two more characters then. Plumeria is an interesting choice, but I was thinking Guzma, he already has an established type specialty, he's the leader and the strongest Team Skull member, and he really wanted to be a Trial Captain. Beyond that, I think they'll want to throw in at least one new character.

I also noticed too that there are quite a number of Totems with Z-Crystals, but no trials. The Verdant Cave and Vast Poni Canyons have these totems, and are generally the sites of the Totem Pokémon as well as their subsequent Z-Crystals, and tend to serve roles as Trials. So where do these totems with three hidden Z-Crystals come into play as far as Trials go? Specifically Ten Carat Hill, Haina Desert, and Mount Lanakila? And in addition to that, that bloody golf course we can't go to? Is it possible those places would all play pivotal roles in Pokémon Stars? Perhaps as additional Trial Sites? Who knows?

That's because they wanted to make Z-Crystals for every type, but they didn't have enough characters to distribute them. Which is the case every generation, there's never been a region with a major trainer for every type.

You didn't but its my evidence that Gamefreak don't seek to maximise profit as we know that the third version sell less than the main games, so the argument that Stars is wrong because it won't maximise profit is null.

And if you make the argument that they are making maximising profits by reutilising assets, than Stars would be because the plot, character designs, new Pokémon, etc are all carried over.

This all comes to the argument that riley made earlier that the better models will make GF lose money. No third game has lead to a loss and I think the precedents all support that Stars would not be a loss.

Third versions sell less but they also spend less, so they're still profitable. Remember that sales =/= profitability, you maximize profitability by maximizing sales but also by minimizing cost. Stars is doing the opposite by releasing on a more expensive console and launching on a console that has an install base of 0.

 

[NinjutsuSen]

6 million isn't bad sales for a game either. While not great by Pokémon standard, it is still high for games in general.

And still they prefer to release another generation debut pair instead of an third version/sequel like we've seen in Gen VI.

But either way I am expecting two versions because it's more money for GF/Nintendo and they haven't done a single version for 8 years now. And a simple third version splitted up into two games would be super underwhelming as the debut for pokemon on the switch.

There lies the fault in your thinking. There is much to improve on:

• Multi and Double Battle lag
• A 3DS game not even in 3D
• Faded text with some NPCs' dialogue
• Triple and Rotation Battles removed

I am sure there's more that I am missing.

Now I could list up the features which got lost over the timespan of the last few generations. What you got there are minor things and wouldn't justify another Alola entry.

 

[UB-01 Kenobi]

Well it's still a bad decision regardless of whether or not it's a loss or less of a profit. Businesses seek to maximize profits, not just arbitrarily make a decision that makes them money. What it comes down to is these two scenarios:

1. Game Freak puts Stars on 3DS. They spend less money on the graphics and so they have more profit from the game.
2. Game Freak puts Stars on Switch. They spend more money on the graphics and so they have less profit from the game.

8th gen is coming either way, so the difference in profitability mainly comes down to whether or not they make Stars a 3DS game or a Switch game. And out of those two, keeping it on the 3DS is the smarter option.

Let's do a basic thought experiment. Now, as we all know, Game Freak could do any number of things next year - Stars, DP remakes, Gen VIII... they might announce publicly that Pokémon is officially discontinued and that Game Freak will make quality kitchen implements such as spatulas from now on, instead of video games. But for the sake of the scenario, let's pretend that Game Freak follows the model you've laid out in your post: They MUST release Stars in 2017 and they MUST release Gen VIII, on the Switch, at some indeterminate point in the future after 2017 but before releasing any other game.

The only choice in this scenario is, as you've said, making Stars a 3DS game or a Switch game.

Now, we DON'T know how popular Stars will be on either console, but let's just assume that the numbers that you yourself have been continuously throwing around - in this thread and others - are correct. Stars on 3DS will sell to around 8 million people, but Stars on Switch will sell to only 5 million people. Let's see which of these will be more profitable for both Game Freak and for Nintendo, who is a major shot caller at GF.

Scenario 1: Stars on the 3DS.

-Game Freak spends X amount of dollars updating the content of S/M (story writing, coding, playtesting, manufacturing the games, the works).
-They then sell it for $40 a pop to 8 million people and cash in $320 mil in revenue.
-They then spend Y dollars to update the Pokémon engine to be Switch compatible for Gen VIII.
-They are now ready to begin storyline and content writing for Gen VIII.

Scenario end: Immediately prior to the release of Gen VIII, Game Freak has made $320 - (X+Y) million in profit.

Scenario 2: Stars on the Switch

-Game Freak spends X amount of dollars updating the content of S/M (story writing, coding, playtesting, manufacturing the games, the works).
-They then spend Y dollars to update the Pokémon engine to be Switch compatible for Stars.
-They then sell it for $40 a pop to only 5 million people and cash in $200 mil in revenue.
-They are now ready to begin storyline and content writing for Gen VIll.

Scenario end: Immediately prior to the release of Gen VIII, GF has made $200 - (X+Y) million in profit.

Now, as we can see, Game Freak will have to spend $Y fewer to put Stars on Switch in the short term, but in the long run, they have to spend that $Y ANYWAYS, so the costs for both scenarios will be roughly the same. So the real difference here is in sales - if GF puts Stars on Switch, and the numbers that Bolt the Cat is so confident in turn out to be exactly correct, GF will make $120 million LESS by putting Stars on the Switch.

BUT WAIT, there's more. Let's look at things from Nintendo's perspective. They want to sell Switches. So let's go through those scenarios again from a Switch sales perspective. First, let me lay out some terminology:

There is a group, Group A, who is planning to buy the Switch RIGHT NOW, at this very moment. When the Switch releases, they WILL purchase it.

There is a group, Group B, who is ON THE FENCE about buying the Switch but who LOVE Pokémon. They will purchase the Switch IF and ONLY IF a main series Pokémon game is playable on it.

Scenario 1: Stars on the 3DS
-Switch releases
-Group A purchases the Switch
-At some point after Year 1, there is a price cut
-Gen VIII releases
-Group B buys the Switch

Scenario 2: Stars on Switch
-Switch and Stars release
-Groups A and B buy the Switch
-At some point after Year 1, there is a price cut
-Gen VIII releases

Ok, so now we see where the profit from releasing Stars on Switch comes in. The crux of the issue is that Group A doesn't matter - the profit Nintendo makes from them is constant across both scenarios. But by releasing Stars on Switch, they get a bigger install base from Day 1. So group B is what we need to look at.

Now, we know Group B is some size smaller than 5 million. After all, only 5 mil buy Stars on Switch, and at least some of those people belong to Group A - so Group B is some fraction of 5 million.

As for the price drop - the Wii U deluxe set launched at $350 (wii u + a preloaded game, I think it was 3D world?). Right now, you can get a deluxe set (wii u + Mario kart 8) for $300. So let's say the price cut for the Switch is the same - 50 dollars. For each group B member who buys in S2, Nintendo makes a $50 profit over S1.

Recall that the difference in profit between S1 and S2 was 120 mil. Divide 120 mil by 50 and you get 2.4 mil. That's within the size range of Group B - less than 5 million people.

So it is POSSIBLE that there is NO difference in overall profit to Ninten + GF between the scenarios. It's a wash - but this is inconclusive. It's possible that Group B is smaller than 2.4 mil people. But let'a dig a little deeper.

Group B, in S2, gets a Switch near launch. It would be silly for them to buy a console for just 1 game, so they might buy additional Switch games to make their investment worth it. In S1, Group B will likely NOT go into the Switch's backlog and buy launch titles. They might get a game or 2 that releases AFTER gen viii, but there is a gap of 2 or 3 years where Group B does NOT have a Switch and is NOT buying Switch games.

So let's say that Group B buys 1 non-Pokémon game in between Stars and Gen VIII in S2. That's $40 pure profit that would not be gotten otherwise. Add that to the $50 profit from the early Switch sale and you get $90. 120 mil divided by 90? 1.3 million. Group B only needs to be 1.3 mil people to match the profit of S1.

What if Group B buys 2 non Pokémon Switch games? That's 40 + 40 + 50 = 130 bucks. 120 mil divided by 130? Around 920 thousand.

Now, I don't have future sight, so I can't say for sure. But the prospect of playing a FULL LENGTH POKEMON ADVENTURE on a TV instead of a handheld?

I think that will motivate more than 920 thousand people to buy a Switch.

And if that prediction is correct? Then S2, releasing Stars on the Switch, does not just MATCH scenario 1 in profit.

It will be MORE profitable.

Thanks for reading, that was LONG lmao. Sorry bout that!

 

[djinnEXE]

GF won't be making a new engine for Gen 8 and their current one is just going to be updated. In case some of you didn't know creating a game engine isn't very cheap and that's why you future proof it like Nintendo is doing now with their Zelda engine which will be used for all their future games. Heck Super Mario 3D World, Splatoon and Mario Maker already share the same engine. It's cheaper and saves them money in the end.

The pokemon models are already high quality models that are pushing more pixels then the 3DS can handel and that's why the games slow down so drastically.

Those who don't see the changes from Gen 6 to Gen 7.
Try as you might but you won't see it due to the 3DS's crappy 400x240p screen. Most of the Pokemon models at minimum are around 5000p, legends are 10.000p and up. Even Machamp is 12.000 pixel


1v1 slowdown it isn't as obvious unless the Pokemon is as big as a Legend or Wishiwashi but in doubles it becomes very obvious that the 3DS can't handle it anymore and that's why people hope for Stars on the Switch. Better hardware means better performance.


GF saves more money now getting their engine synced and ready with Stars then they do waiting for Gen 8

 

[DoctorWhy]

More likely we'll see a January or February announcement. I say January only because there's a chance it could be tacked onto the big Switch discussion.

Really? That seems super early considering SM only came out in mid-November... That would mean only 2-3 months of play time, with many people getting it as late as Christmas/New Years time. Not only would a SM followup announced so soon cut/practially end SM sales, but if the release were as late as Autumn 2017 (most likely period of time I would think) then that would leave several months of prerelease time that even SM didn't use (consider it would be a 3rd version without as much to talk about).

my idea of the worst option possible: a pure Sun/Moon port. Simple Sun/Moon upgrade, classic 3rd version at its best (or worst, if you wanna look at it that way, like me, or if you wanted a good new game). And a pure 3rd version/port so soon after Sun/Moon would not only cut SM sales, but it would likely cause a lot of negative attitudes towards the new, better port. Plus, if it's just a 3rd version/port, its sales would likely be horrible too. Why buy an expensive new console for the exact Pokemon game that just released on 3DS? It just doesn't make sense. Honestly, most of this talk about Stars (however likely I think it is) just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

As for those saying the purpose of Stars is to get the Switch to sell:

No, it won't help much. I highly doubt it, at least. Stars, if it's the likely 3rd version/port that most people make it out to be, won't be enough to sell Switch... SM just came out on the 3DS. Anybody who wants to play Gen VII isn't going to buy a Switch to get Stars. They're going to buy SM for the 3DS they already have. If this were a new generation coming, yeah a Pokemon game would help sell the Switch like hotcakes. But a 3rd version? Ha, no, sadly.

 

[PurplePopplio]

I am so glad that some people see the benefit of Stars on the Switch. Because, quite frankly, I am getting tired of the whole Stars for 3DS vs Stars for Switch debate.

I'd rather want to discuss what people want to see in a potential Stars. Maybe explore the Ultra Beasts more? Maybe let Lillie return from Kanto and she brings Lance with her?

 

[Bolt Strike]

Let's do a basic thought experiment. Now, as we all know, Game Freak could do any number of things next year - Stars, DP remakes, Gen VIII... they might announce publicly that Pokémon is officially discontinued and that Game Freak will make quality kitchen implements such as spatulas from now on, instead of video games. But for the sake of the scenario, let's pretend that Game Freak follows the model you've laid out in your post: They MUST release Stars in 2017 and they MUST release Gen VIII, on the Switch, at some indeterminate point in the future after 2017 but before releasing any other game.

The only choice in this scenario is, as you've said, making Stars a 3DS game or a Switch game.

Now, we DON'T know how popular Stars will be on either console, but let's just assume that the numbers that you yourself have been continuously throwing around - in this thread and others - are correct. Stars on 3DS will sell to around 8 million people, but Stars on Switch will sell to only 5 million people. Let's see which of these will be more profitable for both Game Freak and for Nintendo, who is a major shot caller at GF.

Scenario 1: Stars on the 3DS.

-Game Freak spends X amount of dollars updating the content of S/M (story writing, coding, playtesting, manufacturing the games, the works).
-They then sell it for $40 a pop to 8 million people and cash in $320 mil in revenue.
-They then spend Y dollars to update the Pokémon engine to be Switch compatible for Gen VIII.
-They are now ready to begin storyline and content writing for Gen VIII.

Scenario end: Immediately prior to the release of Gen VIII, Game Freak has made $320 - (X+Y) million in profit.

Scenario 2: Stars on the Switch

-Game Freak spends X amount of dollars updating the content of S/M (story writing, coding, playtesting, manufacturing the games, the works).
-They then spend Y dollars to update the Pokémon engine to be Switch compatible for Stars.
-They then sell it for $40 a pop to only 5 million people and cash in $200 mil in revenue.
-They are now ready to begin storyline and content writing for Gen VIll.

Scenario end: Immediately prior to the release of Gen VIII, GF has made $200 - (X+Y) million in profit.

Now, as we can see, Game Freak will have to spend $Y fewer to put Stars on Switch in the short term, but in the long run, they have to spend that $Y ANYWAYS, so the costs for both scenarios will be roughly the same. So the real difference here is in sales - if GF puts Stars on Switch, and the numbers that Bolt the Cat is so confident in turn out to be exactly correct, GF will make $120 million LESS by putting Stars on the Switch.

BUT WAIT, there's more. Let's look at things from Nintendo's perspective. They want to sell Switches. So let's go through those scenarios again from a Switch sales perspective. First, let me lay out some terminology:

There is a group, Group A, who is planning to buy the Switch RIGHT NOW, at this very moment. When the Switch releases, they WILL purchase it.

There is a group, Group B, who is ON THE FENCE about buying the Switch but who LOVE Pokémon. They will purchase the Switch IF and ONLY IF a main series Pokémon game is playable on it.

Scenario 1: Stars on the 3DS
-Switch releases
-Group A purchases the Switch
-At some point after Year 1, there is a price cut
-Gen VIII releases
-Group B buys the Switch

Scenario 2: Stars on Switch
-Switch and Stars release
-Groups A and B buy the Switch
-At some point after Year 1, there is a price cut
-Gen VIII releases

Ok, so now we see where the profit from releasing Stars on Switch comes in. The crux of the issue is that Group A doesn't matter - the profit Nintendo makes from them is constant across both scenarios. But by releasing Stars on Switch, they get a bigger install base from Day 1. So group B is what we need to look at.

Now, we know Group B is some size smaller than 5 million. After all, only 5 mil buy Stars on Switch, and at least some of those people belong to Group A - so Group B is some fraction of 5 million.

As for the price drop - the Wii U deluxe set launched at $350 (wii u + a preloaded game, I think it was 3D world?). Right now, you can get a deluxe set (wii u + Mario kart 8) for $300. So let's say the price cut for the Switch is the same - 50 dollars. For each group B member who buys in S2, Nintendo makes a $50 profit over S1.

Recall that the difference in profit between S1 and S2 was 120 mil. Divide 120 mil by 50 and you get 2.4 mil. That's within the size range of Group B - less than 5 million people.

So it is POSSIBLE that there is NO difference in overall profit to Ninten + GF between the scenarios. It's a wash - but this is inconclusive. It's possible that Group B is smaller than 2.4 mil people. But let'a dig a little deeper.

Group B, in S2, gets a Switch near launch. It would be silly for them to buy a console for just 1 game, so they might buy additional Switch games to make their investment worth it. In S1, Group B will likely NOT go into the Switch's backlog and buy launch titles. They might get a game or 2 that releases AFTER gen viii, but there is a gap of 2 or 3 years where Group B does NOT have a Switch and is NOT buying Switch games.

So let's say that Group B buys 1 non-Pokémon game in between Stars and Gen VIII in S2. That's $40 pure profit that would not be gotten otherwise. Add that to the $50 profit from the early Switch sale and you get $90. 120 mil divided by 90? 1.3 million. Group B only needs to be 1.3 mil people to match the profit of S1.

What if Group B buys 2 non Pokémon Switch games? That's 40 + 40 + 50 = 130 bucks. 120 mil divided by 130? Around 920 thousand.

Now, I don't have future sight, so I can't say for sure. But the prospect of playing a FULL LENGTH POKEMON ADVENTURE on a TV instead of a handheld?

I think that will motivate more than 920 thousand people to buy a Switch.

And if that prediction is correct? Then S2, releasing Stars on the Switch, does not just MATCH scenario 1 in profit.

It will be MORE profitable.

Thanks for reading, that was LONG lmao. Sorry bout that!

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).

 

[DoctorWhy]

@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.

 

[Bolt Strike]

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.

Yeah, that's the thing, if Stars is real it makes the decision to begin 7th gen on the 3DS in 2016 look daft. There was no real point to it and it would've been much better as a Switch launch title. Having a Z/XY2 in 2016 and SM on the Switch in 2017 would really be the ideal solution for profitability. They could've reuse XY's engine and sell 8 million, squeezing extra sales out of 6th gen's engine before moving onto the Switch.

 

[DoctorWhy]

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) ;-;

 

[UB-01 Kenobi]

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).

 

[Bolt Strike]

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.