- Joined
- Mar 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,897
- Reaction score
- 13,960
Ports of 1-year old games would hardly be best. The goal should be to maximize overall sales, regardless of the system. Your scenario would do the opposite.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If they release such a pack, I bet there would be people going: "Kanto sequels are next!".Then... I think they should try to promote Pokemon for Switch in the E3. How will Switch and Stars (with maybe a Charizard-Red/Blastoise-Blue/Venusaur-Green/Pikachu-Yellow JoyCon pack bundled be received?
Don't forget that the people who didn't have a 3DS (console owners) will be brought into Pokemon's audience.
Alola forms have shown that they are willing to bank onto nostalgia... (I guess I want Charizard JoyCons as I want flame red, and wing patterns on my JoyCons XD)If they release such a pack, I bet there would be people going: "Kanto sequels are next!".
What I meant is that Switch will have a more diverse audience for Pokemon, and people other than 3DS owners will buy Stars too.3DS would be handheld owners. Console owners would be WiiU owners.
I don't think console gamers (the XBox and PS kind) will buy Pokemon, considering they typically prefer graphics over anything else, and Pokemon is lacking in that department.What I meant is that Switch will have a more diverse audience for Pokemon, and people other than 3DS owners will buy Stars too.
Suppose you're a console gamer, and keep away from handhelds. So, you have most likely not experienced Pokemon main games. You buy a Switch, and now, you are a part of Pokemon audience!
In fairness, the listing starts with “Here’s a chance to work on the development of a globally popular RPG!" so I don't think that people are jumping to conclusions too much by thinking it's main series Pokemon.
I don't think console gamers (the XBox and PS kind) will buy Pokemon, considering they typically prefer graphics over anything else, and Pokemon is lacking in that department.
I don't think console gamers (the XBox and PS kind) will buy Pokemon, considering they typically prefer graphics over anything else, and Pokemon is lacking in that department.
1. According to Nintendo, the decision to release a Switch port of the Zelda game was only made last spring. In contrast, back in November Eurogamer referred to Stars as being "well into development" due to the "parallel development structure" alongside SM. The project was supposedly paused around September for SM's sake, but it would have been at least a year in development by then. The obvious question is: Why would Game Freak have had at least a 6 months' head start on the Zelda team, who are part of Nintendo? If anything, Game Freak are the ones that can bide their time regarding the Switch.
2. The fact that the Zelda team decided to port their game so late implies that the Switch was originally supposed to be released in late 2017, which isn't hard to believe at all. And yet according to Eurogamer, Game Freak initially planned a summer 2017 release date? Regardless of the original target for the Switch's launch, Game Freak not waiting until the holidays would have been a weird move.
3. Nintendo recently doubled their Switch sales forecast for the upcoming fiscal year (till April 2018). It's hard to imagine what would give them that much confidence if they didn't have Game Freak's support. But then, why did they have so much lower expectations until recently? Sure, the Switch's initial sales seem to have exceeded expectations, but that is not a reliable metric for the future (most consoles have similiar sales initially due to limited supplies). Could a Switch Pokemon game actually be a recent decision? Is anything Eurogamer said about Stars real?
4. I don't doubt that Eurogamer has sources at Nintendo, but it seems to me that these "leaks" are actually marketing stunts. Maybe the Stars rumor was just a ruse meant to gauge interest in a 2017 Switch Pokemon title, but the specific details are deliberately false. It's one thing to make us expect Pokemon on the Switch, since that generates hype, but telling us what the game is doesn't leave much in the way of surprise. Why do that at least six months ahead of the announcement?
If they preferred graphics over anything else, they would've been PC gamers instead
Seriously though, I think the biggest reason people play console games is because they like to play games on the tv while hanging out on the couch. The biggest reason I've heard from people who don't own handhelds is because handhelds have small screens and small buttons, it's just less comfortable to play games on. And Xbox and PS owners probably aren't that interested in getting a Switch in the first place, Stars is mostly interesting for Nintendo fans that are console-only gamers, and people who have played Pokémon on handheld, but would love to play it on TV. Both probably quite a big group anyway.
Not to be forceful or anything, but I was hoping that my counterarguments against the Eurogamer report wouldn't just be ignored.
That seems like reverse logic to me. It's the bigger game that should require more foresight and development. Game Freak are the ones with the luxury of time in this case.Just because the Zelda team made the decision to release a Switch port that 'late', doesn't mean they haven't been considering it way earlier. Maybe they just decided to not make a Switch port first because it was too much work to turn a huge Wii U game into a Switch port, but later decided to do it anyway.
SM is a MUCH smaller game, and that's still an understatement. Deciding to make a port on the Switch might've been not so hard a decision and GF started on it immediately.
Because Zelda is the only launch game worth mentioning. What would have happened if the port hadn't been ready? We know that by the end of 2015, the Wii U version was supposed to be released in 2016. I'd say that the original plan was to port the game a year after the initial release.I'm probably missing something here, but why does the Zelda team making that decision imply anything about the release date of the Switch?
It sold out because its initial supply of 2 million units, was pretty conservative to begin with. The 3DS sold 3.61 million units in its first month. And yet the 3DS needed a price cut to keep the momentum going; its first year wasn't a success.What more confidence do they need than the Switch being sold out everywhere? That seems to me a good enough reason to double the sales forecast really.
They were wrong about Mario being a launch title instead of Zelda.Eurogamer has proven its worth with multiple correct leaks. It could be fake, it could not be, but they have a good reputation when it comes to these sorts of things. They reported it early cause they want to be the first to report it, that's all there is about it.
A cross-platform release would largely solve all the problems.Lanstar said:I'm kind of feeling bad for Game Freak right now, for whatever decision they make can't solve every major problem they're having.
A cross-platform release would largely solve all the problems.
A paired 3DS/Switch release of whatever Stars is. It wouldn't work for a third version, but that part could be false.So you mean a Stars release on both the 3DS and the Switch? I need to be sure that's what you mean.
That seems like reverse logic to me. It's the bigger game that should require more foresight and development. Game Freak are the ones with the luxury of time in this case.
Because Zelda is the only launch game worth mentioning. What would have happened if the port hadn't been ready? We know that by the end of 2015, the Wii U version was supposed to be released in 2016. I'd say that the original plan was to port the game a year after the initial release.
They were wrong about Mario being a launch title instead of Zelda.
It sold out because its initial supply of 2 million units, was pretty conservative to begin with. The 3DS sold 3.61 million units in its first month. And yet the 3DS needed a price cut to keep the momentum going; its first year wasn't a success.
No doubt their track record with the Switch's concept and specs can't be dismissed. But I can see why their sources wanted to share that information 2-3 months ahead of the reveal... To give hungry fans something to discuss.
With Stars, making fans look forward to a Switch game makes sense, but actually telling us what it is 6 months in advance... seems counter-productive to me.