The Pokemon Switch Version

[godiego]

Which is going to be problematic when they jump to console and the console market wants to explore. If they don't consider exploration to be a key part of the gameplay they're going to need to rethink that.

i think this post and anyone else in the whole console whatever camp are ignorant of a few underlying realities:

1) the handheld market is done. if it were the case that Pokemon Switch would have to compete with Pokemon 4DS then yes, it totally makes sense that Pokemon Switch would have to do something to push buyers in the direction of it over the traditional handheld game, but that is not the case. this leads to..................................

2) there is no real alternative to Pokemon (esp in the West). unlike something like Final Fantasy which does compete with other games, even some games made by the same developer, Pokemon has no competition. despite being a lot more open-ended (while still equally as one-dimensional and brain-dead as Pokemon), how well did Yokai Watch fare? spoiler alert: brief but immense success in Japan. flop in the West.

and finally, 3) Pokemon is practically a genre in and of itself. for all this brouhaha about exploration this open world that, there'll pretty much always be a market for Pokemon simply because as i said in 2), there's no way to get a fix of it anywhere else.

and that's not even bothering to unpack the notion of a 'console market.' (tl;dr: games are diverse.)

 

[Stratelier]

Exploration is not one of the highlights of Pokemon. It's catching, battling, and trading with friends that are the defining aspects of the franchise. There's no need for a massive open world game, and Pokemon doesn't have to be one.

In Pokemon's case, exploration is part of catching; you explore optional areas because you want to see what Pokemon can be found there.

 

[Minnale101]

different level of exploration. BOTW exploration is next level even for most western devs.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

Can we please remember that even though GameFreak wants to be ‘disruptive', they've ex0licitely warned us NOT to expect BotW levels of change?

Expecting that will just set people up for disappointment. Even if the game releases in 2020, GameFreak has already warned us that it will be no BotW, atleast not 1:1 Pokemon- Breath of the wild.

 

[Bolt Strike]

1) the handheld market is done. if it were the case that Pokemon Switch would have to compete with Pokemon 4DS then yes, it totally makes sense that Pokemon Switch would have to do something to push buyers in the direction of it over the traditional handheld game, but that is not the case. this leads to..................................

The handheld market is done because mobile ate its market share. The Switch's remaining market share consists of more dedicated gamers willing to spend money on a $300 device that can only play video games. Yes, there are handheld gamers on the Switch but said handheld gamers are raising their expectations because of the jump to console. The mentality now is "look at all these high end, high quality games we can play on the go". Hence why something like the 3DS games aren't going to cut it, they won't impress the same way as a game like BotW or Odyssey.

2) there is no real alternative to Pokemon (esp in the West). unlike something like Final Fantasy which does compete with other games, even some games made by the same developer, Pokemon has no competition. despite being a lot more open-ended (while still equally as one-dimensional and brain-dead as Pokemon), how well did Yokai Watch fare? spoiler alert: brief but immense success in Japan. flop in the West.

Thing about competition is that you don't just compete on the same type of products. You also compete on products that have the same type of elements as you. In Pokemon's case, it doesn't just mean that they're competing with monster battling RPGs like Yokai Watch and Digimon, but also RPGs like Final Fantasy in general and yes, exploration games like BotW and Odyssey. Depending on what elements of your product the consumer is attracted to, you're going to have to compete on a variety of different markets in order to appeal to them.

and finally, 3) Pokemon is practically a genre in and of itself. for all this brouhaha about exploration this open world that, there'll pretty much always be a market for Pokemon simply because as i said in 2), there's no way to get a fix of it anywhere else.

The concept of a genre is starting to blur and disappear anyway. The market is dominated with action adventure games that have a variety of elements from different genres to the point where it's no longer about checking every box on the list and more about having varied, high quality games that can appeal to different gamers with different preferences. This is something Pokemon is not doing, they're focusing on only certain types of gamers while ignoring other gamers that like other aspects of the game that could expand their audience.

 

[nickdt]

The handheld market is done because mobile ate its market share. The Switch's remaining market share consists of more dedicated gamers willing to spend money on a $300 device that can only play video games. Yes, there are handheld gamers on the Switch but said handheld gamers are raising their expectations because of the jump to console. The mentality now is "look at all these high end, high quality games we can play on the go". Hence why something like the 3DS games aren't going to cut it, they won't impress the same way as a game like BotW or Odyssey.

The New Direct has showed us that handheld market is far from done actually, since they are release a game on the 3ds in 2019.

 

[Midorikawa]

Yes, there are handheld gamers on the Switch but said handheld gamers are raising their expectations because of the jump to console. The mentality now is "look at all these high end, high quality games we can play on the go". Hence why something like the 3DS games aren't going to cut it, they won't impress the same way as a game like BotW or Odyssey.

Im not. And clearly multiple people in this thread are not. You may be one of those, but not all handheld are like that. The switch is a handheld and a console. I expect it to have games I can play bored at work, not games that I can only play at home. Becaise then why make it part handheld? The only thing that would make it different from PlayStation and Xbox is it’s games.

Thing about competition is that you don't just compete on the same type of products. You also compete on products that have the same type of elements as you. In Pokemon's case, it doesn't just mean that they're competing with monster battling RPGs like Yokai Watch and Digimon, but also RPGs like Final Fantasy in general and yes, exploration games like BotW and Odyssey. Depending on what elements of your product the consumer is attracted to, you're going to have to compete on a variety of different markets in order to appeal to them.

No. As long as the game has something attractive it will get buyers. And Square Enix is not competing with itself. It’s major games are Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, And Call of Duty.

Dragon quest is more like classic FF so thy are not similar enough to be competing since their fan base will be desiring different things.

And CoD definitely ain’t competing because it’s first person shooter. That’s not even the same fan base.

Also in case you say KH-KH features final fantasy characters. They use it as advertisement and it makes you want to play those games.

All other Square Enix games are one offs, or come out and get decent enough popularity like bravely default.

And Pokémon is in the category of extremely unique with a solid fan base. There is no need to change it completely when what it is is already super attractive.

Also don’t forget they’ll probably cater to re Japanese demographic before us. So think about how popular t clearly is there compared to here.

 

[godiego]

The handheld market is done because mobile ate its market share. The Switch's remaining market share consists of more dedicated gamers willing to spend money on a $300 device that can only play video games. Yes, there are handheld gamers on the Switch but said handheld gamers are raising their expectations because of the jump to console. The mentality now is "look at all these high end, high quality games we can play on the go". Hence why something like the 3DS games aren't going to cut it, they won't impress the same way as a game like BotW or Odyssey.

the handheld market is done because Nintendo has left the handheld market. for all the hubbub about handheld versus mobile, Nintendo was able to consistently stand its ground against the supposed insurrection. hell, you were even someone that was arguing against the notion of such competition at one point playing the same very "well [console A] and [console B] people have different preferences/expectation" card.

there's also nothing stopping Nintendo from release an, i don't know, Nintendo Swotch that doesn't have the docking capabilities (and is maybe slightly weaker? idk) that is used to push more handheld oriented games.

and let's be clear here: i do expect some change in the jump mostly because of the increase in power, but i also don't expect much radical change either.

Thing about competition is that you don't just compete on the same type of products. You also compete on products that have the same type of elements as you. In Pokemon's case, it doesn't just mean that they're competing with monster battling RPGs like Yokai Watch and Digimon, but also RPGs like Final Fantasy in general and yes, exploration games like BotW and Odyssey. Depending on what elements of your product the consumer is attracted to, you're going to have to compete on a variety of different markets in order to appeal to them.

yes, to a degree, Pokemon competes with other games like Final Fantasy, BOTW, and Odyssey. of course, there are also demographic realities that make it not really the case. (list of people not playing Final Fantasy: six year olds and also you, apparently.) like, if i don't want to buy into Final Fantasy XV, i have alternatives. i could play Xenoblade Chronicles 2 or Nier Automata or Ni No Kuni 2. if i want something like Pokemon but not Pokemon, what do i really have as an alternative?

of course, the fact that Pokemon's sales consistently blow pretty much every other games' sales out of the water brings into question 1) who really is competing here and 2) if we're already outselling the vast majority of our competition, do we need to innovate. (even what you've considered to be weak entries to the franchise, XY & SM, have outsold every single Final Fantasy game by a considerable margin.)

The concept of a genre is starting to blur and disappear anyway. The market is dominated with action adventure games that have a variety of elements from different genres to the point where it's no longer about checking every box on the list and more about having varied, high quality games that can appeal to different gamers with different preferences.

just because the market is dominated by one type of game doesn't mean that there isn't room for others. there is still room for games like FIFA or Nintendogs that are just meant to be fun, casual games (note: FIFA is a console game with yearly releases as well).

This is something Pokemon is not doing, they're focusing on only certain types of gamers while ignoring other gamers that like other aspects of the game that could expand their audience.

every developer picks a target audience. Pokemon is the way it is because it prioritizes kids/young-people and casual players. and we know this because Game Freak nixed the gambling when it cause them to be rated E10 (& eq) in places. this argument would make sense if Pokemon were a brilliant but struggling franchise that was held back by the fact that it was catering to an ultra-specific niche, but that's not the case.

The New Direct has showed us that handheld market is far from done actually, since they are release a game on the 3ds in 2019.

and gen 5 was released after the announcement and release of the 3DS. make no mistake; the 3DS is pretty much done for.

 

[KrisiChiki]

I personally consider region exploration to be a core feature of the main series Pokemon games and it is part of catching Pokemon; exploring the unknown to see what kind of Pokemon you'll discover. I don't expect to see open world in the upcoming Pokemon Switch game, but I expect Sinnoh-level exploration as the bare minimum.

 

[Bolt Strike]

The New Direct has showed us that handheld market is far from done actually, since they are release a game on the 3ds in 2019.

2 remakes and a Wii U port (that's also coming out on Switch) doesn't exactly indicate a thriving handheld market. The 3DS is clearly dying a slow death. Slower than I would've expected, but still dying.

Im not. And clearly multiple people in this thread are not. You may be one of those, but not all handheld are like that. The switch is a handheld and a console. I expect it to have games I can play bored at work, not games that I can only play at home. Becaise then why make it part handheld? The only thing that would make it different from PlayStation and Xbox is it’s games.

Why can't you play those games at work? For the Switch to be both a handheld and a console platform it needs games that appeal to both. So ideally they should be games that have the size and scale of a console game with the accessibility and straightforwardness of a handheld. Yes, not everyone enjoys both but we are starting to see handheld gamers that now that we have a handheld capable of console size and scale now want that in their handheld games. This is going to eat into the sales of a game like Pokemon, where handheld gamers will start to lose interest in a SM-sized game and expect something bigger.

No. As long as the game has something attractive it will get buyers. And Square Enix is not competing with itself. It’s major games are Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, And Call of Duty.

Dragon quest is more like classic FF so thy are not similar enough to be competing since their fan base will be desiring different things.

And CoD definitely ain’t competing because it’s first person shooter. That’s not even the same fan base.

Also in case you say KH-KH features final fantasy characters. They use it as advertisement and it makes you want to play those games.

All other Square Enix games are one offs, or come out and get decent enough popularity like bravely default.

And Pokémon is in the category of extremely unique with a solid fan base. There is no need to change it completely when what it is is already super attractive

False. There's always an element of competition to gaming, and yes, even within the company's own games. Imagine you want to buy a game and you only have enough money for 1 and you see Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and CoD all sitting next to each other on the store shelf. The games are now competing with themselves even though they're all owned by the same company. Competition is a constant in the gaming market (and the economy as a whole) because people have a limited amount of money to spend. So if Pokemon fails to keep up with the competition they'll find themselves losing sales. The games, no matter how unique they are, will look less attractive next to other games by virtue of the other games being more appealing and more unique.

Also don’t forget they’ll probably cater to re Japanese demographic before us. So think about how popular t clearly is there compared to here.

That's the wrong way of looking at it. Again, this is a situation where they should be looking to appeal to both and reconcile both preferences instead of favoring one audience.

the handheld market is done because Nintendo has left the handheld market. for all the hubbub about handheld versus mobile, Nintendo was able to consistently stand its ground against the supposed insurrection. hell, you were even someone that was arguing against the notion of such competition at one point playing the same very "well [console A] and [console B] people have different preferences/expectation" card.

Standing its ground? Not really. The 3DS was selling decently, but much less than past handhelds which routinely sold ~100ish million. Mobile was very much eating into Nintendo's handheld market. On some level this was a necessity because Nintendo's marketshare in both their handheld and console markets was shrinking and pooling their resources together was a prudent business move.

there's also nothing stopping Nintendo from release an, i don't know, Nintendo Swotch that doesn't have the docking capabilities (and is maybe slightly weaker? idk) that is used to push more handheld oriented games.

If they were to do that it'd be so they could have a budget model to sell to people that can't dump $300, not to focus on the handheld market.

of course, the fact that Pokemon's sales consistently blow pretty much every other games' sales out of the water brings into question 1) who really is competing here and 2) if we're already outselling the vast majority of our competition, do we need to innovate. (even what you've considered to be weak entries to the franchise, XY & SM, have outsold every single Final Fantasy game by a considerable margin.)

In general, you should always have this mindset even if you're still winning. Especially in a tech driven market like gaming where new products are supposed to be iterative and feel technologically superior to the last. The industry is always competing with itself to catch people's attention with bigger and better games and to feel like the greatest thing since sliced bread. If everyone else does that and Pokemon doesn't, Pokemon is going to look like an inferior product and people will start losing interest in it. So failing to keep up with technology and industry trends could have a negative effect on sales. Coasting on past successes can only get you so far.

just because the market is dominated by one type of game doesn't mean that there isn't room for others. there is still room for games like FIFA or Nintendogs that are just meant to be fun, casual games (note: FIFA is a console game with yearly releases as well).

And maybe for those games it doesn't make sense to include elements from other genres. FIFA is a soccer game, soccer has a distinct ruleset and can't really include other elements from other genres without it losing its identity, so you wouldn't really expect that game to innovate. Nintendogs is a pet sim, the game is focused around interacting with a virtual pet. I could see perhaps adding an open world element to take your dog for a walk and interact with other dogs and dog owners, but beyond that there's not really much they can do with that either. It's a matter of what they can do to flesh out the concept that fits the series' identity. Games like FIFA and Nintendogs are fairly limited so you wouldn't expect a lot of change to those IPs. Pokemon though, has a ton of gameplay flexibility and its concept is one that lends itself nicely to open world.

every developer picks a target audience. Pokemon is the way it is because it prioritizes kids/young-people and casual players. and we know this because Game Freak nixed the gambling when it cause them to be rated E10 (& eq) in places. this argument would make sense if Pokemon were a brilliant but struggling franchise that was held back by the fact that it was catering to an ultra-specific niche, but that's not the case.

Focusing on kids doesn't mean they have to limit what kinds of gameplay elements are in the game (it mainly just limits them from violence and sexual content) and focusing on casuals is a poor choice for a system that's selling to dedicated gamers with a variety of interests. And I'm not saying Pokemon should be GTA, but that having a variety of gameplay elements will help them in the long run without compromising the series identity or target audience. In other words, having a healthy mix of battling, online gameplay, collecting, exploration, mini games, etc. Just make a game that fully realizes Pokemon's concept and appeals to a variety of different elements of the gameplay instead of overthinking "well this audience wants this element so we'll focus on this and screw anything else anyone else wants" as they have during the 3DS era when they've been bending over backwards for mobile gamers. The former approach is working very well on the Switch, and it makes sense to go that route considering the Switch is a system that attracts a wide variety of gamers with different interests.

 

[DoctorWhy]

Square Enix...Call of Duty

Square Enix published one single COD game (didn't even do development), and even that was only in Japan... COD is definitely not Square Enix.

Square Enix has been doing the recent Tomb Raider games, however.

Square Enix's 5 top selling franchises are:
1. Final Fantasy
2. Dragon Quest
3. Tomb Raider
4. Kingdom Hearts
5. Mana

 

[WallflowerCanyon]

I just realized that this is probably gonna be the first main series Pokemon game that will cost well over $40. Mind = blown

 

[MetroLSD]

I just realized that this is probably gonna be the first main series Pokemon game that will cost well over $40. Mind = blown

Here’s hoping the game has enough content to warrant that price.

 

[SodiumChloride]

I just realized that this is probably gonna be the first main series Pokemon game that will cost well over $40. Mind = blown

I can see it being $50

 

[dvor]

I can see it being $50

even kirby is 60$.. there is no way in hell that pokemon is below 60$

 

[William-Jdubz]

I remember when XD Gale Of Darkness and Pokémon Stadium was 99 dollars brand new at release lol

Average in Australia is 60-89 dollars in the current era for a video game for the switch, im expecting 79 like Mario Odyssey and Zelda was.

 

[SodiumChloride]

Do we just migrate here?

 

[Oriden]

Do we just migrate here?

From the rumor thread? I don't... think so... this doesn't look like a rumor thread. D= This is more of a "what are your hopes for Pokemon Switch" thread.

 

[dvor]

Do we just migrate here?

well they said they making new one soon

 

[Oriden]

well they said they making new one soon

Yeah I think we're all just a bit confused because it's been a few hours now and there's no indication of when that's going to happen. =/