1 out of 20 is statical noise you don't design your game around.
Ever. Unless it'S a whale catching game which Pokémon isn't
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Jim Sterling: Pokémon's Business Model Has Always Been Trash
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Ever. Unless it'S a whale catching game which Pokémon isn't
If my wording was poor and made you think I was implying one child, I apologize. But I was most definitely not being intentionally disingenuous.
And I'm arguing with you because with the vast majority of games, parents buy only one copy for the household. Trying to sell multiple copies to a single household, even if it's for multiple children, is still a financial motivation for the two-version model.
Firstly 1 in 20 is not statistical noise. Secondly I've said before I don't believe the game was designed around making people buy two copies. I do think TPC takes advantage of the fact they know people do, but I also think if you're enough of a mug to buy two copies of the same game on day one, you've got it coming to you.
Yes and I don't see any problem with that. Those people either someone else to play with (share with partner, family, friends, etc) or just like to collect.
Why is this an issue? Those people are just minority.
Having 2 versions also encourage social interaction. I know for me at least, having 2 versions encourage me to discuss with friends which version to get, share and trade. If I can get everything in 1 version, I will just play like any other single player RPG.
Most of my friends with kids buy games for a specific kid. especially handheld ones. As such, doubles exist (and happen) because it creates less friction/tension if kids have their own games instead of fighting over them among themselves.
And Pokémon is an excellent example of that, each kid has his/her version and everyone's happy. Growing having to share computers and games with 3 brothers was miserable :( But as the oldest, I made the rules!
In game/software development/project management it's pointless chatter that would distract from it. So yes, 5% of your potential customers are not beeing targeted as a design goal, it'S the other 95% that make the bulk of the decision making.
Again unless you design a gatcha, exploitative game specifically targetting whales but this isn'T the case here.
Oh come on, don't act like he didn't mean that he was talking about siblings.
The thing is that people still defend the two versions thungs when it's really fucking useless. Version exclusives? Is that the whole point? Trading?
Did you guys forget trade evolutions, or even trading that doesn't imply exclusives? Sometimes you just don't want to struggle at finding a dreepy and may just trade one with a friend whi breeds them. There's also shinies, natures, etc.
But instead we keep on believing that having to version of the same game is necessary and that it's important for trading. And of course, GF uses that as a way to sell more copies. It's understandable because they're a company but maybe it's time to actually give a damn about making one big complete game
I did, and it's a bad take. We never design around those people, ever. You never design your software around a voical minority, contrary to what you seem to believe.
Fair, I can see that happening... especially if the parents can afford multiple systems. As a former kid, I know they don't like to share. lol
But I think most households would probably expect their kids to share, say, a copy of Dragon Quest XI instead of each getting their own copy... even if the game was originally a Christmas present given to a specific kid who asked for it.
Dragon Quest is a single player game. Pokémon has multi at its core.
I did and saying it a third time won'T change it. TPC isn't taking advantage of anything since it's not part of their design process. You're creating a link of correlation that doesn't exist because it fits your ill concieved belief of what is exploitative in those games.
Listen mate, if you're going to argue with me, argue with what I actually say. Not with whatever you find easiest to argue against.
Local multiplayer is feasible with a single copy.
It would only be an issue if each kid has their own Switch and wants to take it to school to trade/battle, at which point yes multiple copies would be needed even if there were only a single version.
How does local multiplayer work when half the strategy involves hard reads on what your opponent is going to select? Watching them choose moves kind of defeats the purpose just like playing poker with both players cards on display.
Pokemon Stadium found a solution to that decades ago.
If you are unfamiliar with it, it works similar to Persona 5's menu system. Moves are mapped to buttons, so you don't choose them by navigating a menu in a way that'd allow your opponent to see what you selected. You simply press the button that the move is assigned to.
Button shortcuts? sure, but it still shows their options. The move pools are shown as well as all the hold items.
Pretty sure it also gives away which ones equipped with Dynamax or whatever but I don't have SwSh.
That is true. But the alternative is no local multiplayer, so I'd still rather they have it as an option even if it's not perfect. And one could argue that being able to see what the opponent's options are simply changes the multiplayer experience, rather than making it objectively worse.
I dunno, not knowing they have a focus sash and going for the one hit KO is pretty huge for example.
You know what? I think I've worked out an actual use for the Nintendo Online App
Well, they sure milk those games a lot for not being their core business...
By making a Pass so you could own multiple DLC by buying only one...?
Oh yay, I'm one of the rare "non-collector" ones ...
As said here
These are some big numbers.
Uhhh, how bout this?
Game comes in ONE version.
You pick a Fire starter.
Prof: Ohhh, you picked a fire starter! Good choice, not too as many of those in these parts as there use to be ... maybe you can find someone willing to trade you some of the rarer fire type Pokemon on your journey.
Boom, game has a list of idk ... 9 pokemon that are divided between the water/ grass/ fire types, whatever type of Pokemon you pick as your starter blocks out that selection of Pokemon or just makes them extra fucking rare, encouraging you to trade with others to get them BUT you already have a strong Pokemon of that type anyway so you don't suffer in the main game from having 3 fewer options for that type in your play through.
And in your fire type play through you can catch the 3 water types and 3 grass types other players would be missing so it's no prob getting someone to trade you the fire types you can't get.
Would actually make more sense to me then the often times random seeming version exclusives.
"Hey, I picked Grookey and you got Sobble, right? Do you have these grass types yet?"
Last edited:
Pretty much. I've been a Pokemon fan since the beginning and at no point I felt that I needed to buy the two versions. I remember getting Red and my best friend getting Blue, and we managed to complete the Dex together with some other guys. At the time that was pretty cool.
I don't know if the whole thing with the two versions came from a technical limitation that they somehow turned into an arguably genius marketing move, but it has been a staple of a wildly successful series for a long time, so why change?
I guess so. I just don't think it's a big deal to have two slightly different versions of a game but like I said, I would never get both versions.
The funny thing about this conversation is that reducing Pokemon to 1 version does not solve the problem of needing to buy two copies of a game for the houshold if they have two kids, for example. It actually does nothing at all because there are hardly any double dippers. This goes for any game, double dippers are the tiniest minority, statistical noise for every game in existence.
but the entire reason why you need to trade is that you can't have all the pokemon in one version.
You trade because people are offering up Pokemon which are harder to acquire (or if you just want to trade something with a friend). Even if there was only one version people would still use trading features a lot.
Like every other game in existance? I think it'd fine.
So they could just make one version without little exclusive differences, which stopped making sense ever since online became a thing.
The core tenants of Pokemon are about socializing, friendships, and bonding. Reducing it to 1 version is definitely going to remove a majority of the socializing outside of just battling.
1 version of Pokemon would need to see drastic changes to the formula and how Pokemon appear in the game, where they appear in the game, and the frequency that they appear in the game. How much is too much Pokemon in a single game up front? Would it become overwhelming to have 700+ in a single title so that it's better randomized and different from player to player (as some seem to be suggesting in this thread)? How does one balance the amount of new Pokemon and the old Pokemon so there doesn't feel like too much of either or? There's many more questions to be asked here but I'm sleepy as it's 4:30 in the morning.
None of these questions are being answered, but everyone is readily throwing around how easy the solution is without going into the specifics. This isn't even going into the development side and how Pokemon is generally a logistics nightmare with the amount of Pokemon there are.
Kids and adults save scum all the time for those harder to acquire Pokemon. Trading would definitely have reduced impact and less socializing around it. There are a lot of people streaming Pokemon and asking their chat what versions they got, hunting down certain Pokemon they cannot obtain. If most could just simply obtain everything then there's going to be a lot less people asking for trades.
1 version of Pokemon would need to see drastic changes to the formula and how Pokemon appear in the game, where they appear in the game, and the frequency that they appear in the game. How much is too much Pokemon in a single game up front? Would it become overwhelming to have 700+ in a single title so that it's better randomized and different from player to player (as some seem to be suggesting in this thread)? How does one balance the amount of new Pokemon and the old Pokemon so there doesn't feel like too much of either or? There's many more questions to be asked here but I'm sleepy as it's 4:30 in the morning.
None of these questions are being answered, but everyone is readily throwing around how easy the solution is without going into the specifics. This isn't even going into the development side and how Pokemon is generally a logistics nightmare with the amount of Pokemon there are.
I dunno. This thread has been making me think about Dragon Quest Monsters. Single copy version, but the socializing feels hardly there, though you can breed and trade with people in the Joker games. You can get all the monsters on a single cartridge and could do so since the very first Dragon Quest Monster on the Game Boy Color.
Last edited:
I think some people fail to understand that, while having two versions nowadays is perhaps not necessary and there might be other solutions, it has been part of the series DNA since the very beginning. And I do remember that at in the Gameboy this definitely promoted the social aspect that made the series such a huge hit. Hell, I can recall the school trips bringing my Gameboy along with my classmates to trade and battle. Since the series continues to be very much successful, why would you want to change a business model that works? Sure, if people double-dip Game Freak won't complain, but that's not the point of the game.
Wait a sec and I'll develop their games too in my spare time. What's even your point? All those questions are ones that are also in consideration in the two versions model.
Look, asking what version you want to play at the start of the game would change nothing in the formula, would still encourage people choosing a version and trading just like with two versions. The two version thing made a little bit of sense in the old days, now it's a glorified tradition to make more money. I can't believe this is even something that needs to be argued about. It's one of the smallest problems with the franchise because; yes, companies want money and they will take any opportunity to get more.
And you'd still need to buy two copies for the 2 kids in your household so they can play together locally and trade. What difference does that make?
Those cases are not the ones people are talking about, it's the die-hard fans, kids or not, who buy both versions just for completion's sake. It's barely scummy, in my opinion, but it IS scummy.
And they're going to do this regardless. How many people do you know that have bought multiple limited editions of something or every re-release. They have money to burn and they are the minority. Collectors have deep pockets and they don't care if they have to buy two versions or multiple versions of a game.
I know a guy who buys every copy of Fire Emblem from every region around the world. Multiple versions are nothing.
I like how you think this is some gotcha for actually needing to have 2 versions. What about the multiple other games that have only one version that would require multiple copies to be bought if you wanted to play them multiplayer?
Again they are the minority and are not what is keeping Pokemon afloat. Majority of people buy 1 version and only 1. If the majority of people were buying both then Sword and Shield would be more even in the charts.
They are tiny, they are statistical noise, they are irrelevant.
Because the whole concept is not doing any harm and isn't a "shady business practice". Anyone who says otherwise hasn't looked at how the market actually is or likely hasn't even played the games as they keep pushing the "two versions for the FULL EXPERIENCE" when it's not the case
Who has been saying you need to play both games for the full experience?
You've also provided zero evidence that no one buys both versions of the game, except when they're for two people (like siblings or friends) despite the other thread clearly showing there are people like that.
You keep crying 'evidence evidence evidence' despite the fact that it's you making the unlikely claim without anything to back it up.
Hardly anyone double dips. Even people on this forum don't often double dip and this is a forum of enthusiasts, veterans, die-hards, and collectors. The poll in that other thread regarding Pokemon and double dipping even shows a very, very, tiny minority buy both copies. The types who do double dipping are not a dime a dozen. They are unicorns.
And collector types are also unicorns. They'll often buy 1 copy to keep sealed, this could be a limited edition or not, and the other is a copy for them to play.
And collector types are also unicorns. They'll often buy 1 copy to keep sealed, this could be a limited edition or not, and the other is a copy for them to play.
As I said before, the thread on era shows 1 in 6 sometimes buy both games. But if we assume that that's not representative of the wider population and it's instead something like 1 in 20...1 in 20 of 15 million copies is an insanely high number.
If two versions aren't needed for the full experience, then why do we even have two versions?
But plenty of games push social interaction far greater than pokemon does today with only one version.
This reminds of people who think publishers release late ports to purposefully make people double dip rather than for... Finding a new audience.
I feel like with the expansion pass and the raids GF is really pushing for new social game features so I definitely think social is a core tenet of everything they do. And I also think having two game versions helps with that for kids. Yes there are alternatives, yes they're probably partly still doing it because they can make more money doing it that way, but it's also a tradition, and one that I'm sure most Pokémon fans like. I like it! And I like it better knowing there aren't many differences because I don't feel like I have to buy both.
He's talking about what kids do at school. Not what you do behind your computer on discord.
It's how you can spread awareness of the game beyond those that are game enthusiasts.
Pokémon Go is another example of this.
It's why Pokémon is so popular in the first place and has remained popular for years.
Again, unicorns. Era's not representative of the overall market, nor is any enthusiast forum where you're usually going to see collectors and double dippers. Outside of these spaces and circles they are practically non-existent. But it does speak a lot that even on this forum, the amount of double dippers are still pretty low.
Enthusiasts make up a tiny amount of the gaming population overall.
If there is double dipping in the wider population, it's more often coming from bigger families and this would happen regardless if it was 2 versions or 1 version.