"DLC could be fun" -Ken Sugimori

[Sneazy Sneasel]

Paying for Pokemon DLC isn’t something that Game Freak is going out of its way to make happen, based on new comments from art director Ken Sugimori.

Sugimori shared a few words about the possibility as part of a 4Gamer interview. Speaking with the Japanese publication, he said:


“When it comes to business, the one thing I’ve always said ‘no!’ to is ‘the act of buying Pokémon with money.’ That is something that has been said since the days [Satoshi] Tajiri was completely involved in everything.”

“The reason being, is because it’s one of things that could ‘ruin the worldview’ of Pokémon. I believe the reason we don’t simply commercialize [Pokémon], is that it’s a way of protecting the brand, and for this purpose, we have the specialty company called The Pokémon Company. Therefore, suppose we sell a Pokémon for 100 yen, then we must prepare something that is worthy of that 100 yen, along with a reasonable consent for doing so.”

After being asked why it’s accepted that legendary Pokemon are given away to those who watch the films in theaters, Sugimori replied:

“That plan came to be after we thought ‘now, this is fun’ about the idea of having the experience of a Pokémon who was featured in the movie you just saw, appear out of the big screen. After trying it out, we had plenty of thoughts [on the matter] and it was well received, and we also had a lot to talk about.”

“It’s not that we only want to distribute [Pokémon], but we want to give our customers a taste of a ‘new experience.’ Whatever we do, we make sure it fits the worldview, and make sure it remains consistent. Those are some of the parts we place a great amount of importance into.”

“For example, if you’re wondering about how the idea of ‘walking around having your Pokémon inside a Poké Ball’ came to be, it’s because the ‘vision of having monsters following your character’ was actually quite difficult to perform for the Game Boy hardware. However, it was strange to not have a reason for why there’s nothing behind you, so it was the decision of ‘then let’s just put them in your pocket!’ that made it possible. I’d say that closely tying the game’s structure and its worldview is our way of doing things.”

Despite all of his previous comments, Sugimori doesn’t want to rule out Pokemon DLC completely.

“If we ever get the idea of ‘this could be fun if we could sell it for real-life money,’ or something similar during the planning of a future game, then perhaps we could sell them for 100 yen.”

Pokemon director Tetsuya Watanabe also chimed in:

“The game Darumeshi Sports Shop we recently released, is very interesting. The game itself allows you to lower the price you pay. I thought the idea behind it was amusing, and the system of having payments be part of the game itself, was a very nice experiment.”

Pokemon devs discuss possibility of paid Pokemon DLC | Nintendo Everything

 

[Norzan]

If Gamefreak pulls out a Capcom i'll lose my respect for them.

 

[Oshakpop]

At least this interview clears up peoples thoughts that GameFreak said no to any type of DLC!

 

[bluestarfish]

It looks like they're thinking about the concept in a very fair minded way that tries to stay true to the franchise, I wouldn't have anything against DLC as long as they adhered to this way of thinking.

 

[Infinity Mk-II]

I think that, a problem when discussing DLC, is that modern gaming and social gaming have made the term be instantly associated with microtransactions.

While microtransactions for DLC and "freenium/premium" sometimes, and nowadays almost always do involve DLC, they are still two concepts that should be differenciated and are, in my oppinion, best addressed completely separately.


When not thinking about the games that have done it, it makes no sense to jump to paid premium features before considering even merely upgrading and updating the game with new content. From a developer's perspective: it IS effectively locking a part of the game with a purchaseable key, be it a part added to the game before the sale, or afterwards.


Ultimately, content is content. But I believe that a more honest way for paid DLC would be more along the lines of New Super Luigi U, rather than locking updates to the game.


So I would be very disappointed if they do make microtransactions before considering significant DLC updates and extras.

 

[Seraphica]

I think it's quite questionable to charge users for a game, and then charge them more to unlock features within the game itself. There's definitely an opportunity for free DLC updates, as well as separate-but-connected features like the Pokémon Bank or Dream Radar - they expand the experience, yes, but not in the same way as, say, a "premium" city.

That said, I would love to see free little bonus updates via DLC or GameSync - things like more customization features, bonus post-game quests, etc.

 

[randomspot555]

Game Freak is certainly no stranger to apps that offer additional content such as Dream Radar and the anticipated Bank, as well as separate games that serve distinct purposes such as Colosseum and ColoXD, PBR, and My Pokemon Ranch (though all developed by non-Game Freak companies).

Game Freak and Nintendo as a whole seem to be (rightly, IMO) concerned about some games that really seem to get released half finished and the rest is thrown up later as DLC. There's also a contrast with developers who swear up and down that DLC will be offered to make single-player games have a long shelf life, but then they release nothing or drop support soon after release.

So yeah, I see what Ken is saying. But I also hope that doesn't prevent them from thinking outside the box. Despite Nintendo's business approach, The Internet isn't some fad that is going to pass away soon and online features like Bank, Global Link, and formerly the Dream World are all good ideas that need to be supported and expanded. Doesn't mean DLC pay for Pokemon needs to happen, but online bonus features and bonus apps are a good thing.

 

[jernflapping]

Real talk, if the DLC is dress packs, I'd buy it

 

[bluestarfish]

I think it's important to consider the type of DLC being employed, just because it's DLC doesn't mean it's something already in the game and locked.

A good amount of nintendos DLC has been stuff made after the release of the game that can be bought which adds to the games but isn't required at all.

I can't imagine pokemon going in the direction of being shipped with locked content that you have to pay for, but rather adding content that wasn't initially there.

 

[Ivysaur]

I've got no problem with DLC, paid or free; my only issue is when certain companies and franchises go too far with it. To be honest, almost everything "third versions" have done can now be done through DLC, and moving on I'd rather be able to pay to download new facilities/features/etc. onto my existing Pokemon game instead of having to go out and buy a brand new game (as long as it isn't too expensive). Bit of a longshot though.

 

[ZoroarkPKMN]

I don't mind DLC as long as I'm not being ripped off. Clothes packs for maybe $1 of DLC doesn't affect me, but one new character and nothing else for $10 is a bit of a rip-off.

 

[DarkLordKitten]

I don't have any real major problems with the concept of Pokémon having DLC as long as the DLC doesn't give X and Y new story line if its pre-post game or if the DLC itself is on the pricey side. If the DLC is just new clothes and what not, I won't mind.

 

[TFerro]

I'll probably not buy DLC or even the next set of games and encourage others to do the same if GF employs behavior too far in an expensive or pay to win direction.
Clothes? IDGAF.

Pokemon? Absolutely not.
Especially not 100 Yen per Pokemon.
Let's say they release 50 Pokemon by DLC. I'm not paying the price of an entire game for 50 damn Pokemon.
Sure you can pick and choose, but damn. It'd be so disappointing unless the proceeds would go to charities or something.

 

[Pikafanboy]

I never want to see the Pokemon themselves as paid DLC, but I'd be cool with clothes DLC. I'd happily pay for it if I could get Ash's Kanto hat for example.

 

[Lufenium]

I'm fine with clothes DLC, or paying a small amount to have a new area to explore, etc.

As for the Pokemon themselves, I think they'll keep those as free downloads for things such as events.

That way, everyone can enjoy the core of the series - the Pokemon themselves - for free without having to pay any extra. The rest is entirely optional.

 

[lugia61617]

I am still very opposed to any paid DLC, and I think the only 'acceptable' payware that should be DLC in these games would be clothing. That is all. That way, it's purely optional, but then we have the issue of "if these clothes are paid and downloaded onto your cart, how will it show up on someone else's cart when you battle or interact?".

By contrast, mass-released Free DLC in an updatery manner (yay, new word!) is acceptable, and naturally event pokemon as free DLC (which technically is what they've been since they were introduced) are fine, if annoying and something that should burn in the fire of a thousand Heatrans.

But honestly? I'd rather just get an updated version of the game like we got in Crystal, Emerald and Platinum. Sure it's expensive, but at the same time I can re-live the adventure again without deleting a save, and I can trade over some eggs if I want specific pokemon from my previous game(s).

Also, I'm not completely sure on how much space on the 3DS carts is actually USED, but since these aren't PS4/XBOX/PC games, there is almost certainly a limit on the extent of what can be added.

In short; Clothes DLC fine, but possibly holds compatibility issues; Pokemon Paid DLC = No.

 

[Ein]

I'd be iffy it was for Pokemon or items or whatever, but if it's clothes, eye styles and hairstyles and skin/hair/eye colours then I'd be fine with it. Especially clothes and hairstyles for guys.

 

[lugia61617]

Oh, something I forgot; there is one exception to the paid clothing DLC rule; making us pay for not wearing a hat would not be ok.

 

[Jeef]

Having clothing as paid DLC would be okay. As for any issues with it showing up in games where people didn't pay, they could put out an update which would contain all the clothing but locked and you would pay to unlock bits. I recall Fable 2 did something similar, where there was a free and paid version of DLC. The free one was just so you could interact with those who paid.

I would love to see free DLC containing new mega evolutions.

 

[Te-em]

Well, I guess paying for DLC is ok if it's easier available, because for some reason I've missed some BW Pokemon even though I kept myself updated with DLC events. I wouldn't buy lots of Pokemon though; I seldom pay for DLC, not that it's expensive . . . it's faster to pay with physical money though, but paying with your card you need to do some extra steps and during that time I think 'why bother' and tell myself I don't really need the new content. I guess once I load my 3DS (because that's where you put your money first right?), then the process will be faster and I can just touch and buy things

I'm actually grateful to that Pokemon DLC is for free, especially since I spend lots of money on the games themselves, buying different versions in different languages. I wish there was better availability of DLC though or that Pokemon were distributed more often. I don't mind the special Pokemon with new attacks or abilities, but the species that are not in the game itself are more important. That it's difficult to get all Pokemon ever in a single game I understand, because you need to trade a lot, but at least it could be easier to get all Pokemon of a single generation in the games belonging to that generation, but no . . . I still can't complete BW, even with both versions, unless I trade with someone, but who wants to trade away DLC Pokemon that are no longer distributed, unless they have a hack?