The 3DS Successor and its effects on Pokemon

[SinnohEevee]

As much as I dislike Awakening, what's wrong with Fire Emblem that can be attributed to the Switch? We don't even know anything about the recently announced Switch title other than it's a thing.

What's wrong with the Switch's screen size? If this is that portability argument again, it's already been shown Switch without Joycons attached is about the size of a 3DSXL.

Nintendo has already stated the paid online won't apply to all games iirc.

The actions with the mobile market is to court people into their main market, their console market. It's essentially a side thing to generate profit and potential audience by using what's popular at the moment. Mobile gaming is HUGE right now, everyone wants a slice of that pie.

Yes, Pokémon should be exempt from the online fee.
Nintendo would be idiots to not do it.

 

[Soki]

Yes, Pokémon should be exempt from the online fee.
Nintendo would be idiots to not do it.

Nintendo would be idiots if they didn't do it, cause then it wouldn't earn them money

I can see the online services being free for Stars though, simply because it's free for Sun/Moon on the 3DS, so it would be a big reason for players to just stick to those versions. This is assuming that Sun, Moon, and Stars are all three allowed in VGC, or else competitives don't have much choice than to go for Stars.

But I can very much see future Pokémon games having paid online services, it's considered pretty normal to pay for online these days, on the other consoles. And for a lot of people it probably wouldn't matter anyway, you only pay once for the online services of all games, right? Most people playing Pokémon online probably also have other games on which they use online services (Splatoon, Fire Emblem, etc.), so they'll need to pay the price anyway.

The only reason I can see it being free is because of the necessity to trade Pokémon to complete the dex. It is a bit evil to force people to pay for that, the question is how much Nintendo cares about that and not about the money it would earn them. I mean, practically, to complete the National Dex in ORAS (and thus get the Shiny Charm), having Bank made it a lot easier cause XY had most of the mons not available in ORAS, so you could just transfer them all. So paying a fee to complete the Pokédex has already been a thing really (though you could also complete the Dex by trading, but that's a lot more hassle).

 

[Cookies and Creme]

Okay first of all, the mobile games are basically just a side venture right now developed by one dev team. Nintendo's development overwhelmingly favors 3DS and Switch, with 3DS support likely tapering off over the next year. As for the other "problems" you discussed, the screen size is about the same as a 3DS XL and the Switch is very much portable. And paid online is somewhat disappointing, but expected. Quality online just isn't cheap anymore.

The size is same as the 3DS XL's top screen, bottom screen, or both combined? That's my point. The top screen, yes, but then how about the bottom screen, with the options to fight, save, etc.?

As much as I dislike Awakening, what's wrong with Fire Emblem that can be attributed to the Switch? We don't even know anything about the recently announced Switch title other than it's a thing.

The fact that you can't really bring it anywhere as Nintendo says it's confined at home.

And yes, the mobile games are for side games and whatnots, but seeing Super Mario Run having almost the same concept as usual Mario games, ignoring the fact that you can't control Mario except jumping and stuff, I'm starting to see Nintendo actually using the mobile market as an advantage not only to let others buy products, but to get more money.

And yes, in the future the 3DS may be replaced by the Switch, but remember that Switch is still primarily console.

I can see the online services being free for Stars though, simply because it's free for Sun/Moon on the 3DS, so it would be a big reason for players to just stick to those versions. This is assuming that Sun, Moon, and Stars are all three allowed in VGC, or else competitives don't have much choice than to go for Stars.

You did say Nintendo wants money. Why not add a subscription to that? (insert troll face here).

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

The size is same as the 3DS XL's top screen, bottom screen, or both combined? That's my point. The top screen, yes, but then how about the bottom screen, with the options to fight, save, etc.?

For the battle interface, a Reddit user posted a thread with a pic on how Pokemon would look on the Switch.

Spoiler

Looks good, in my opinion.

You did say Nintendo wants money. Why not add a subscription to that? (insert troll face here).

To maintain uniformity with SM, since their service is free. But they can make a paid service in games after Stars. (Punches troll face)

 

[Cookies and Creme]

To maintain uniformity with SM, since their service is free. But they can make a paid service in games after Stars. (Punches troll face)

Looks really awkward to me, combining top screen and bottom screen together. Rip Troll face

Also how would Rotom Pokedex work? The map on the bottom screen? etc.

 

[SinnohEevee]

Nintendo would be idiots if they didn't do it, cause then it wouldn't earn them money

I can see the online services being free for Stars though, simply because it's free for Sun/Moon on the 3DS, so it would be a big reason for players to just stick to those versions. This is assuming that Sun, Moon, and Stars are all three allowed in VGC, or else competitives don't have much choice than to go for Stars.

But I can very much see future Pokémon games having paid online services, it's considered pretty normal to pay for online these days, on the other consoles. And for a lot of people it probably wouldn't matter anyway, you only pay once for the online services of all games, right? Most people playing Pokémon online probably also have other games on which they use online services (Splatoon, Fire Emblem, etc.), so they'll need to pay the price anyway.

The only reason I can see it being free is because of the necessity to trade Pokémon to complete the dex. It is a bit evil to force people to pay for that, the question is how much Nintendo cares about that and not about the money it would earn them. I mean, practically, to complete the National Dex in ORAS (and thus get the Shiny Charm), having Bank made it a lot easier cause XY had most of the mons not available in ORAS, so you could just transfer them all. So paying a fee to complete the Pokédex has already been a thing really (though you could also complete the Dex by trading, but that's a lot more hassle).

It depends on the fee, but people would already have to pay a lot for the Switch.
This will discourage many people from using online services, making trading harder.
It's already hard when I see people asking for Legendaries in exchange of some Level 1 Rowlet.

 

[Silktree]

I'm pretty sure that trading will be kept free. It's a very minimalistic interaction and the Bank subscription is already related to it.

 

[Soki]

It depends on the fee, but people would already have to pay a lot for the Switch.
This will discourage many people from using online services, making trading harder.
It's already hard when I see people asking for Legendaries in exchange of some Level 1 Rowlet.

Xbox and Playstation consoles are both more expensive and for both you have to pay for online services too. And it hasn't stopped anyone from buying their games. This won't either. You're all really underestimating how much money gamers are willing to spend on their hobby

And we don't even know yet how much they're going to ask. It could be as cheap as $5 - $25 a year, that will really hardly stop anyone.

 

[Cookies and Creme]

And we don't even know yet how much they're going to ask. It could be as cheap as $5 - $25 a year, that will really hardly stop anyone.

And even if it does get expensive, blame Nintendo

 

[Soki]

And even if it does get expensive, blame Nintendo

Well...yes. Why shouldn't you blame the company that is responsible for the paid online services in the first place? They're the ones deciding the price too, you're paying for online services on the console, not for the specific game. At least that's how it works with Xbox and PS.

 

[Silktree]

Nintendo didn't say that the subscription would be needed for all games, so I think that this discussion is premature.

Making the subscription needed only for rating battles and more intensive interactions (as opposed to the online variants of the Link Cable of yore) would be a fair compromise. Who knows? Maybe this will encourage them to fix the GTS after over 10 years.

 

[Cookies and Creme]

Nintendo didn't say that the subscription would be needed for all games, so I think that this discussion is premature.

Making the subscription needed only for rating battles and more intensive interactions (as opposed to the online variants of the Link Cable of yore) would be a fair compromise. Who knows? Maybe this will encourage them to fix the GTS after over 10 years.

Your right, it is a bit too early to call. Let's see how the Switch turns out first.

 

[Silktree]

I do think that there may be a good way to offset the rising costs that come with the Switch, aside from HD graphics.

Since we are the point where quite a few of the veteran players from the 90s have kids, which is a fact that Go demonstrated, shouldn't Game Freak encourage family members to play the same version? This could be done in at least two ways:

1. Offer multiple save files.
2. Create a feature/area where at least two players can travel and battle together (on the same system).

The latter would naturally work alongside the former, but "casual" players who don't want to play the main story could be included by letting them borrow some of the main player's Pokemon for the duration of the co-op gameplay.

 

[SinnohEevee]

I do think that there may be a good way to offset the rising costs that come with the Switch, aside from HD graphics.

Since we are the point where quite a few of the veteran players from the 90s have kids, which is a fact that Go demonstrated, shouldn't Game Freak encourage family members to play the same version? This could be done in at least two ways:

1. Offer multiple save files.
2. Create a feature/area where at least two players can travel and battle together (on the same system).

The latter would naturally work alongside the former, but "casual" players who don't want to play the main story could be included by letting them borrow some of the main player's Pokemon for the duration of the co-op gameplay.

They probably prefer everybody in the house get their own device.

 

[Silktree]

They probably prefer everybody in the house get their own device.

They should rethink that strategy unless the Switch is getting a cheap, portable-only SKU anytime soon. Even in the event of that happening, it would still be a good idea to give a family an option to play the same game on a single system, and charge more for the game.

 

[SinnohEevee]

They should rethink that strategy unless the Switch is getting a cheap, portable-only SKU anytime soon. Even in the event of that happening, it would still be a good idea to give a family an option to play the same game on a single system, and charge more for the game.

Some of us have siblings.
I will probably let him play X after I finish it (I downloaded it after getting Moon).

 

[Silktree]

Some of us have siblings.
I will probably let him play X after I finish it (I downloaded it after getting Moon).

I assume you're going to use Bank to transfer your Pokemon?

Now imagine your brother didn't have to wait for you to finish playing. I understand why Game Freak haven't made that possible so far, but the advent of a system that is at least partially a home console should make them reconsider.

 

[SinnohEevee]

I assume you're going to use Bank to transfer your Pokemon?

Now imagine your player didn't have to wait for you to finish playing. I understand why Game Freak haven't made that possibile so far, but the advent of a system that is at least partially a home console should make them reconsider.

Yes. I will use Bank and start from scratch.
Doesn't that also allow you to get more copies of the same Legendary?

 

[Silktree]

Yes. I will use Bank and start from scratch.
Doesn't that also allow you to get more copies of the same Legendary?

Bank already does, so my idea wouldn't change much in that regard. Considering that it takes about 20 hours to finish the main story, I'd say that anyone willing to make that investment deserves another batch of legendaries.

 

[SinnohEevee]

Bank already does, so my idea wouldn't change much in that regard. Considering that it takes about 20 hours to finish the main story, I'd say that anyone willing to make that investment deserves another batch of legendaries.

It takes me more than 20 hours.