Why change? Because change can be good. Why did they change from making a 3rd version to expansion pass?
Okay so if as you claim double dippers are 'unicorns' as in a tiny fraction. So less than 0.1%? Because even 1% would be in the hundreds of thousands range.
While pokemon is still very popular, it's not the be all end all. Fortnite is far greater and its live events push social interactivity from kids to adults far greater than Pokemon.
Pokemon is still a worldwide phenomenon that rivals the likes of Star Wars as a media franchise. Pokemon is a juggernaut.
So now we go from talking about the strength of the IP and not the game. ok, then.
Pokemon Go? Pokemon Let's Go being connected to Pokemon Go? The social interactions with raid battles being a big improvements in Sword and Shield? Pokemon Home which will also connect to those things? There's a lot of social integrations that's going to be happening.
Ah, yes, Pokemon Go. Where's the 2nd version for that to help social interactions?
Don't forget the 3rd version, because there are 3 teams there.
And this is disingenious because collecting Pokemon in Pokemon Go is about making the effort to go to those locations and you're not likely to get all of the Pokemon in your area and the game is also ran on microtransactions :O
One, doesn't matter it still reached number 4 above Pokémon Shield By revenue. That means it sold at least half of Pokémon Shield.
It's not a US based phenomenon, it's World wide. What does Fortnite have to be around 25 years later have to do with anything today?
Amazon rankings are poor things to measure by in general and don't give you any real concrete footing for data.
Ah dang, you're right. My apologies. My brain crossed wires.
Exactly so it beating Pokémon Shield by revenue means we know it sold minimum half the units of Shield.
It's the business model in relation to the mainline games. Not the whole IP.
Yes, that's right. Which lines up with that less people are buying the double pack over a single copy, which is what I've been saying.
I believe the post was saying that Fortnite is a bigger game than Pokémon that is able to promote social features through in game experiences rather than version differences. I don't know why the conversation turned to size of the IP. It's not a great analogy anyway. Fortnite absolutely does promote social aspects through exclusive content that you have to pay for, one way or another. It just does it in a different way to Pokémon.
Err no, you said a tiny fraction, you even used the words 'unicorns' in response to me saying it's not a majority but it's still a massive number. Come on now.
So you're saying people who buy the game twice but give one or both away don't count as double dippers in your books? That's fine but the person I responded to used the term double dippers to refer to people buying for their families too. So you can hardly blame me for responding in the same language.
I also said if there is a wider audience buying both games it's usually from bigger families. Which can be very much the case and very likely is. But double dippers from enthusiast hardcore gamers are unicorns. Double dippers are NOT the sole contributor to the double pack being sold.
I did not! Any time I used the term double dipping it has been in the context about the enthusiast hardcore die-hard gamer who is usually dedicated to a specific franchise or franchises.
