Why do people hate the two versions thing?

[guydee]

I think ever since it was discovered a little while ago that Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl are literally the same game with a "switch" in the code to determine which it was, I've been seeing a lot more criticism of the "two versions" model, which I don't think I really get? Call me a bootlicker all you want, it's probably deserved, but getting the other versions' Pokémon is as easy as going on here or Reddit or something and setting up a trade. Granted, now it also requires a Nintendo Switch Online membership, but we should be complaining to Nintendo about that, not Pokémon. Would it be better if there was just one version? Maybe? But I dunno, I think a part of me enjoys talking with my friends about which version we're gonna get and that sort of thing. And this more social experience is clearly something Pokémon is trying to push with the inclusions of Max Raid Battles, greater emphasis on competitive, etc., which I really like.

 

[Welkamo]

One of the founding principles of Pokémon was the fact that you could trade the titular characters. In fact, I believe that the idea of trading bugs was the inspiration for the series. It was a very unique and creative gimmick that encouraged interacting with other people and collecting.

A lot of factors contribute to people disliking the two game gimmick: games getting more expensive, people growing tired of it, the lack of differences between the two versions save certain Pokémon (notable exception being RSE and their remakes). Personally, I’m fairly neutral on the two game debate; I have to get both games if I want to complete the Dex (I usually don’t though lol) because I have no one IRL to trade with, but I also think it’s a cute tradition.

 

[Daren]

For me it adds annoyances to the game, especially in the switch era (back in gen 6 and 7 reasonable trades happened pretty fast but trading through Home takes forever), while offering no positive in return.

 

[Defiant]

Can't complete the game on your own, reliant on others, or have to buy both versions. You can say current gens are fine, but if I want to go back and play Black, no one will be able to trade me a Solosis as the server got taken down.

Also I think this flag thing just highlighted how much of a cheap gimmick it is. We've always known the 2 games are pretty much the same, just with minor differences, things that are in one but not the other, but to find out its literally just 1 string of code, not even that, but a flag thats either ticked or unticked, that then qualifies to be a different game, people realise how much we being taken for.

Don't know how difficult it is to edit this flag, but if its reasonably straight forward, who in their right mind would pay $60 instead when buying 1 cart effectively gives you both games, just create a different save file.

Also in Gen 1 - 4, it became quite clear the 3rd version was the definitive and far superior so you just waited for that if you were smart. Now all they've done is taken that away so we don't get the better game, but it hasn't really improved the experience. XY and USUM were not up to previous 3rd version standard. USUM releasing the 3rd version as 2, really really went too far imo.

Now we see even Lets Go, which was a Yellow remake, get split into 2 as well, Smh

 

[Tood]

The two version thing was probably super cool in 1996, and was meant to promote the idea of two+ people being able to interact between two different systems or something.

It's outdated nowadays though, since multiplayer interaction in games is way more common and much easier to do than it used to be.

Hopefully the Legends game being a single version means that they might drop the gimmick in the future.

 

[Jimothy]

I don't buy the idea that it was ever to trick people into buying both versions because 1. that's obviously not what you're supposed to do (marketing-wise it moreso communicates that you and your friends "pick sides"), and 2. the number of people who actually buy both copies must be so small as to be negligible.

Thus the complaint that they aren't different enough always rang hollow to me-- you wouldn't want them to be that different, or it would mean that you actually are meant to play through both (compare to the Zelda Oracle games, which you actually are expected to buy both of. I'm more of a Zelda guy than I am a Pokemon guy, but it always seemed weird that Pokemon got called out for this when Zelda didn't).

That said, the most (and probably only) effective use of the "differences between two versions that are still similar enough that you don't feel compelled to buy both" thing was discussing Opelucid with a friend of mine. I played White and thought it was a super boring location, he played Black and said it was his favorite city in the game. As we talked, we realized that the location we were discussing looked completely different to each of us. I wasn't bothered that he had the better version in this instance, I was too fascinated and amused that we had such different experiences and only discovered that particular version difference through our conversation.

The part that always seemed greedy to me was not having save files, thus forcing every family member to have their own copy. Unless it's like Animal Crossing and the single save file takes up the entire game's memory, I have no idea-- monsters are individualized enough that I could almost see it being the case, but I have doubts.

Oh and double-dipping with third versions (including USUM). That always read as greedy to me. It picks up stragglers that came late to the generation, but you absolutely were meant to update to the newest version, and it was super dumb. Thank god they've finally switched to DLC.

All that said, I've never particularly liked the multiple versions thing, and would happily drop them. Hoping LA is the first sign of that. Again, BW is the only case where it ever felt like there was a real benefit to the experience. They could always have your starter determine your playthrough's exclusives for trading with friends, we could go back to a single boss legendary like Mewtwo, etc. People are already "picking sides" with each generation's starter discussion anyway, so that aspect is maintained.

 

[Daren]

2. the number of people who actually buy both copies must be so small as to be negligible.

I doubt they'd be going to the trouble of making the dual packs if the sales were negligible.

EDIT:

The part that always seemed greedy to me was not having save files, thus forcing every family member to have their own copy. Unless it's like Animal Crossing and the single save file takes up the entire game's memory, I have no idea-- monsters are individualized enough that I could almost see it being the case, but I have doubts.

I was thinking about this myself earlier today, due to the flaws of storage on cart based systems it might just have been a space issue.

 

[PinkIceFox]

Why I hate it: Version exclusives. I have severe social anxiety and had no friends to trade with growing up so version exclusives translated to content I was not allowed to have at all unless I forked over another wad of cash for the other version so I could at least have them in my team since two consoles to trade between was and still is an absurdity for me. It's just one more 'no 100% for you' beyond trade evolutions or version exclusive form evolutions and other garbage like that. Also the exclusive game experiences like the black tower and white hollow from gen 5 suck.

The exclusive pokemon is always a mixed bag too. There'll be a bunch I want in one version where my favorite is in the other with a bunch I like so much less. It's annoying. If they're gonna make two different games they could at least make two different games. Like (for an example) two different games where one starts you out in Kanto and then you go to Johto while the other starts you in Johto and you go to Kanto. And have plot points cross over at bits so you can see something from a different point of view when you play the other version. Could even have different pokemon available at different points of the game in this way so you could still encourage trading between players who would still trade.

With the addition of DLC to the series- and that DLC requiring to be purchased twice since there's a version of it for each of the main game versions, that's another reason to hate the two versions. What's that you bought Shield at launch and have the DLC but wanna play shield too? hee hoo better buy that DLC again when the are no differences beyond some of the pokemon that appear and whether you get poison waifu diva or psychic dork dandy as your rival in the first DLC.

 

[prog rocker]

I think ever since it was discovered a little while ago that Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl are literally the same game with a "switch" in the code to determine which it was,

Believe it or not, this is not new. Save files from Red work on Blue and vice versa, and Black City and White Forest are fully programmed on the other version.

This criticism is not new, really. And it does screw people over that can't pay the subscription or have bad internet.

 

[Neyo]

What I’m seeing here can be boiled down into a few reasons:
A) It feels like a cheap way to squeeze more money out of the fan base.

B) What it’s promoting isn’t relevant any more. The “Catch ‘Em All” slogan was retired a few years back, and trading, which was a selling point of the earlier games, is pricey and has less of a social aspect.

C) Differences are becoming smaller and less relevant.

D) Game differences hardly affect the games themselves, and could be easily fused into one single game.

Mwah

 

[Isaac the Investigator]

Basically what others said, it's a cheap cash grab, there aren't enough differences between versions to be worth it, and version exclusives are an arbitrary annoyance. Plus it stifles creativity, what if the legendary you get was determined by player choices rather than which version you had to buy? There's a lot more you could do with an idea like that.

Also, since they're hiding trading behind a paywall, version exclusives are gonna become a bigger annoyance than they were Gens IV-VII.

 

[Poke Dragon]

Honestly, I just hate the idea of two versions because it holds the greater potential back just for consistency's sake. Even though I hated Third Versions due to the fact that they were always released later than the two initial versions, I could see why Third Versions were liked, it's because they were games that used the full potential of the games, not just in gameplay, but also in how the stories play out. Take Diamond and Pearl for example: Cyrus wanted to create a completely new universe, but to do that, he needed both Dialga and Palkia, only having one or the other isn't enough to create a new universe, thus it didn't make sense anymore whereas it made complete sense in Platinum because both of the legendaries did in fact appear before Cyrus in the climax.

Legends Arceus seems to nudge Pokemon in the right direction as being just a single version (the first single version main series Pokemon game ever since Platinum.)

Also, need I mention that single versions typically need less time for decision-making in the development? It's true, this is partly why many other franchises that tried the two version approach stopped doing them immediately or almost immediately. This allows the developer to focus more on actually developing the content. Fire Emblem tried it, then abandoned it, Zelda tried it, same thing happened. Two versions for one game are simply not needed anymore, especially in this day and age where most games have online capabilities. It's especially bad when the two version idea actually harms the game rather than help it, which to be honest, seems to have happened to Pokemon a lot more often than not during the 3DS era. It's no wonder that they have started phasing out trading, albeit, very slowly. What with Sword and Shield literally having trade evolutions in the wild and some version exclusives can be caught in either game regardless in Max Raid battles between the two versions.

 

[Norzan]

Others have basically said the reasons why some people don't like it. But at the same time, it's the reason why the dual versions Pokemon games sell so well. Yes, a lot of people buy both versions, and Gamefreak kept doing it because at best a minority was criticizing them for it (if it was a majority, that would mean people buying both versions would have decreased. But instead it kept the dual versions selling a lot more than single version, meaning the majority actually doesn't care).

It's why Crystal, Emerald and Platinum are some of the worst selling games because they are a single version. It's also why i honestly laugh when people bring up the sales of Sword and Shield like it's some achievement, saying it sold more than Breath of the Wild and Smash Ultimate. The latter two didn't had two versions, but you bet your ass it would have made those games sell a lot more if they had two versions.

I am glad that Legends Arceus is single version. But we'll see how well it will sell.

 

[Bolt Strike]

Others have basically said the reasons why some people don't like it. But at the same time, it's the reason why the dual versions Pokemon games sell so well. Yes, a lot of people buy both versions, and Gamefreak kept doing it because at best a minority was criticizing them for it (if it was a majority, that would mean people buying both versions would have decreased. But instead it kept the dual versions selling a lot more than single version, meaning the majority actually doesn't care).

It's why Crystal, Emerald and Platinum are some of the worst selling games because they are a single version. It's also why i honestly laugh when people bring up the sales of Sword and Shield like it's some achievement, saying it sold more than Breath of the Wild and Smash Ultimate. The latter two didn't had two versions, but you bet your ass it would have made those games sell a lot more if they had two versions.

I am glad that Legends Arceus is single version. But we'll see how well it will sell.

Actually the two versions didn't have much to do with it because BW2 and USUM sold about the same as Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum despite being two versions. Crystal, Emerald, Platinum, BW2, and USUM didn't sell as well because they were updated versions of games that just came out a year or two ago.

I am concerned about Legends Arceus sales, but not because it's a single version. I'm concerned because it's coming two months after a remake and launching at perhaps the worst time of the year for video games (or... just about anything). My biggest fear is that everyone will just buy BDSP because it's available for the holidays and then they won't bother with Legends because it's in a dead spot in the calendar. Maybe DLC in the second half of the year could provide it a sales bump (and even that might not work because Nintendo seems to be planning for a loaded 2022 with Splatoon 3, BotW2, and maybe more scheduled), but other than that it might be DOA.

 

[Norzan]

Actually the two versions didn't have much to do with it because BW2 and USUM sold about the same as Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum despite being two versions. Crystal, Emerald, Platinum, BW2, and USUM didn't sell as well because they were updated versions of games that just came out a year or two ago.

They sold around 2 to 3 million more copies than the single versions. So yes, being dual versions did made them sell more, they only sold less than the previous games because the games following the release of the first games in a generation always sell less.

All the best selling games in the series are dual versions.

 

[Bolt Strike]

They sold around 2 to 3 million more copies than the single versions. So yes, being dual versions did made them sell more, they only sold less than the previous games because the games following the release of the first games in a generation always sell less.

All the best selling games in the series are dual versions.

But they're still 2 to 3 million less than the lowest selling remakes, whereas the highest selling remakes are 4 or 5 million more, and the highest selling new generation is 3 times as much. That 2 to 3 million more than the single versions isn't much in the grand scheme of things, the type of game it is and what hardware it's on clearly has more of an effect on sales than whether or not it's single or dual version.

 

[Norzan]

But they're still 2 to 3 million less than the lowest selling remakes, whereas the highest selling remakes are 4 or 5 million more, and the highest selling new generation is 3 times as much.

Because it's a remake of an older generation and not just a third version or sequel to a game that came out last year. Of course it's gonna sell more by comparison.

That 2 to 3 million more than the single versions isn't much in the grand scheme of things, the type of game it is and what hardware it's on clearly has more of an effect on sales than whether or not it's single or dual version.

Maybe it has a bigger effect, but being a dual version still has a noticeable difference. If Platinum was Brilliant Platinum and Shining Platinum, it would have sold more than regular Platinum because they are selling the same game twice and a lot of people buy both versions.

If it didn't had a noticeable effect they would have made the remakes like BDSP based on Platinum and not on the originals. But then they couldn't sell the same game twice. If it didn't matter in the grand scheme of things, why keep doing it? Even if the differences are minor and don't take much work, that is still stuff they need to do. Plus they also have to print two covers for the game when they could just print one, that's two different pieces of artwork they have to make. But they do it because it does make a difference in sales, even if a couple of times only resulted in a rather small difference.

 

[Jukain726]

Everything aside, the versions exist as what pokemon was envisioned as: being able to trade, along with collecting. True, a lot of that was made moot when the 4th gen made it possible to trade over the Internet. Some have said that they prefer being able to catch the pokemon themselves, which I will just take as a personal preference. Related is which legendary you face since the 2nd gen, although since the 3rd gen, you can only fight and catch one depending on the version you play, until Sword and Shield, where you can fight but never catch the other legend. There can be a number of reasons, including that some just think that collecting is more important, probably because trading is moot. If that is the case, though, it honestly makes no difference, as you can get the other legend through trading at any time, unless you want to get it yourself.

For argument's sake, yes, versions never needed to exist, since it doesn't really affect the availability of the pokemon, which is what drives trading and collecting. Otherwise, it would be conflating displeasure with criticism, and that is not necessarily the same thing.

 

[charlycicero]

what if the legendary you get was determined by player choices rather than which version you had to buy? There's a lot more you could do with an idea like that.

That actually would be very cool if applied in the games. I am all for games where your choices matter and have impact on the story/ progression.

 

[Poke Dragon]

Only if you get to catch the other legendary in the post-game. This would be such a genius way to let players choose their favorite during the game without making them possibly regret it afterward.