Hes probably thinking about characters exclusive to a version of a game that may have story attached to them that you cant experience in the other version.
-
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
Hes probably thinking about characters exclusive to a version of a game that may have story attached to them that you cant experience in the other version.
I choose to be wrong and doubt there was any thought behind it
Or you know, how you needed both versions to get all the difficulty modes in Black and White 2; genius idea if you ask me.
In my model you wouldn't need to buy both versions. Also, skins and most items in lootboxes don't actually affect gameplay so the model is actually better.
Lootboxes suck, i'm talking about pokemon because unlike gacha games you can get everything only with one purchase, you can only compare the two until someone sells their car or wasted over $10000 in order to get all the pokemon
Last edited:
Of course it's to sell more games, in fact the idea came from the attempt at selling Gameboy Link Cables to people.
But the thing is that's its not intrusive to the player experience. It's why only a small number of Pokémon are exclusive to each version instead of straight up splitting the Pokédex in two for each game.
It's so that you and your friend have a reason to connect the your games with each other. It was to popularize multiplayer in a gaming format that, at that point in time, was still a decade away from having it as a regular feature.
I agree with Jim that the only reason Pokémon is still doing that is because of tradition. The split versions are unnecessary nowadays since completing the Dex would require trading anyway, even if there was only one SKU. But it's also far from being a scam or anything similar because the differences between the SKU's are minimal.
No, they don't have to. Listen, we all know EVERY SINGLE POKEMON are coded into both versions (ie, trading is not actually "trading" but just unlock the pokemon inside the code). Selling the same game as different versions is just one way to artificially set up the barrier to encourage people to trade. GF could have sold the game with only one version, but instead letting your first starter/route dictates what wild pokemon spawn. It still encourage people choosing side & trade, but without luring a portion of their consumer base into double dipping it for completion sake.
Yes there are, there's something that makes people want to voice the support for thier team of choice and again you can get everything with trading (also it's trading you get the same pokemon with the stats as the one in the other game).
Honestly it's weird how people get mad for others who don't mind, you don't see this level of complaining about special editions of games with exclusive skins or missions
Am I mad? No, my stance on this issue is always the same. They don't have to but they choose to. Pokemon to me is just one of the many JRPGs I have come across in my life. GF is not some evil corp I should get mad at (unlike some certain publisher charging players for a $100 year subscription which is literally a scam). But sure as hell I am not going to sugarcoat it like making the same game with different box art is the only way to create a "social aspect".