-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Pokémon Let's Go Pikachu & Eevee's Online Service Requires Nintendo Switch Online Subscription
- Thread starter sinonobu
- Start date
Nintendo is going to make so much money this Q4. Not only are millions of people going to be buying Let's Go, but also joining the online service.
I wouldn't have been too surprised if they left online out entirely. They're already making it sound like an after thought.
Nah we had reporting suggesting that yesterday:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/new-pokemon-let’s-go-2019-info-facebook-post.46031/
Didn't stop anyone from baselessly claiming the games online play wouldn't require subscription. Serebii was backing it up and people were trashing anyone suggesting otherwise.
It's been hilarious to see the back and forth messages that it has no online, yes Online, only local wifi battle and trades, and no battle and trades at all!
Such limited online play options, they should have allowed free online play for Let's Go, all the good features have been removed.
Such limited online play options, they should have allowed free online play for Let's Go, all the good features have been removed.
Just to clarify, that wasn't baseless. Of course, once we knew it had online after all, the default thought would be that it would use the Switch's paid online service. That only makes sense of course. The confusion came in because they themselves said otherwise before this and the fact that they said otherwise is what prompted this question from Famitsu itself apparently. In other words, itt was because they're own Q&A on the official site suggested otherwise. See:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/pokémon-lets-go-pikachu-eevees-online-service-requires-nintendo-switch-online-subscription.46143/#post-8600256
That most certainly wasn't baseless and initial mistranslation issues aside, TPCi can really only blame themselves for the bad messaging/mixed issues/people being confused here because that's all on them due to not being able to keep their story straight.
Meanwhile, people using common sense and knowing that an Nintendo paid online system would be weak and less interesting w/o Pokémon were dismissed. The very idea that they wouldn't include this in their offering should have dropped their share price if anyone took it seriously.
I mean it launches after Nintendo's online service so...no shit? I mean isn't that the entire point of even having an online subscription service?
SMH at anyone shocked by this.
SMH at anyone shocked by this.
> Nintendo announce that after their paid online service launches, games with online play features will need the paid online service to be used
> New game with online play features launches, after paid online service launches
> People are surprised that a game with online play features requires aforementioned the paid online service which has been established as required to use online play features
wut
> New game with online play features launches, after paid online service launches
> People are surprised that a game with online play features requires aforementioned the paid online service which has been established as required to use online play features
wut
I can just cancel the pre-order though ( I don't have to do down payments when pre-ordering).
With no GTN I can see myself not bothering with this (don't use bank myself).
LG is already a no sell to me, but you want me to subscribe to a paid online service for what will be the most limited MP enviroment in the series' recent history?
I thought they would've at least made an exception for Pokémon because of the kids...
I thought they would've at least made an exception for Pokémon because of the kids...
for casuals
requires a $300 console + $60 game + $20 online subscription
Plus optional 50€ controller that kids will scream for and that is literally a stick and a button on a plastic ball. Seriously. I predict this game to be hot... in the pre-owned bins of game stores.
As if. It'll do well enough simply for having Pokémon in its title.
No gts, no wonder trade, no battle spot, no ranked battle
Only trading and standard battling
Riveting stuff, Diamond and Pearl is rolling in its grave
Don't forget only battling with friends, this is still Nintendo we're talking about.
What a fucking shit show. The people defending this crap disgust me
I mean they literally put on their website the other day that they weren't doing this, so I can see the surprise.
Wouldnt it be the same for any other console except change the 20 to a $60 for xbl/psn (hell increase the cost more if they're getting the pro/X system for that $300) Paying for online sucks but Nintendo was going to do it at one point and it'd be stupid for them to not have pokemon under that plan.for casuals
requires a $300 console + $60 game + $20 online subscription
Last edited:
I can't think of any game Sony or Microsoft released to try and convert their free to play mobile audience though
Selling well has never been mutually exclusive with filling the pre-owned bins by the truckload. It's not the first time we've seen it happening with other franchises that went sour despite their marketing budget.
Edit: the key of these games is retention, as they're trying to attract a very specific demographic that was not there before. However everything in this game screams the opposite since the featurelist is extremely thin, the potential post-game activities seem scarce and the online multiplayer retention appears to be nearly zero since the Pokédex can be filled very quickly and the unranked battles become stale after facing the same set of 10 pokémon for the 30th time with everybody and their grandma using Mewtwo. I see these games selling well. I also see all their target demographic not even giving a fuck for more next year.
Last edited:
If there are new online features in this game like Pokemon Go raids. They'll need to announce it soon.
This "convert mobile players" is a thing that ~never~ works. There isn't a single game I can think of that was a big mobile game, went console and had similar success. Games like Puzzle & Dragons and Monster Strike tried exactly this and failed.
Mobile players are very sensitive to pricing - just see how F2P games destroy premium mobile games. 380$ to just start a game won't convert any group en mass.
usually yeah, but im guessing a lot of people were already considering buying a switch (or already have one)
Even the smallest nothing game with online is going to require the service. This game was never thought to be f2p so why would anyone even think it wasnt. Nintendo might not even let f2p games off the hook.
I just assumed all online titles will starting this fall? Just like on PlayStation. And like there, maybe games with some online connectivity but no real-time online play won't require it. But this does have real-time online battles, or...? So then this seems obvious.
Not exactly, on PSN if there is a seperate subscription fee for the geme itself, you can play online without PSN, like FF14.
Stuff missing in translation or misinterpreted about not using "nintendo online service" fueled news about first, saying these games won't have online, to have online but not locked by the yearly fee to be confirmed to be locked by the fee. I guess the intention of the response was saying that they wouldn't be using the mobile app service that integrates voice chat and extra services for games (like the Splatoon 2 off-game store and match history)
Why would it cost less than $60? Mainline Pokémon games have always been full price on previous hardware, and you even have cases like HG/SS that wound up being a bit more expensive than that.
Even worse are the ones defending it AND saying it's a mainline title. Pick a lane!
If it supported pokebank, it would only be one way. Since it's limited to the original 151.
I guess the evangelists for this game hate dark and steel types.
A fraction of the content for a higher price has never been a good value proposition, and on the Switch there are retail games ranging from 20€ all the way to 60€. The only justification I find is that finally one copy can be shared by a family since every profile will have their saved game instead of purchasing one game per person like it was the case until now, but i still find it bullshit because that should have been the case since generations ago and it's something GF has been very criticised about for years.
