80-100 isn't enough to sustain an interesting, modern game. Arguably, 150 isn't enough either. SMT games have had way, way more satisfying catch/breed mechanics when they've sat in the 200-350 range than when they are sub-100.
-
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.
Think Nintendo will pull a dick move and have paid Pokemon DLC to complete National Dex?
- Thread starter Majadamus
- Start date
- Status
80-100 isn't enough to sustain an interesting, modern game. Arguably, 150 isn't enough either. SMT games have had way, way more satisfying catch/breed mechanics when they've sat in the 200-350 range than when they are sub-100.
Pretty much. If it work that hasn't been started, shouldn't they be compensated?
I don't think they will but if they do I definitely don't think it's a dick move. I just wanna play this game. Give it to me. I have no issue with companies charging for additional content after release. I personally don't buy it usually but it's new work and they have to pay to operate so why wouldn't they charge for it?
It's DLC no matter what way you want to frame it. "New editions", games that are 95% exactly the same as the previous version with such little differences that it could easily be implemented as a simple $10 story dlc.
Your post reads like the usual defense this company gets whenever people call them out on shady things they always pull off.
So you admit it is scummy. It's the norm because Gamefreak is one of the few that created it and continues to abuse it. How many games released after Red and Blue that took advantage of the two version double dip model that gamefreak popularized? They literally released 4 games within the span of one year that is 95% the same game for $40 a piece ( SM/USUM).
You do realize DLC stands for Downloadable content right? he said it isn't DLC by definition which is right since it's not downladable content for the game it's a new release, before calling out someone's post please undersand what it actually means first lol.
I'm ok with paid DLC as far as post-game content, it seems a pretty common thing in games these days, and is a vastly superior option to their age-old practice of releasing "third" games. Gating the national dex behind a paywall though would be pretty horrible, although I guess in a sense that's what they may be doing with Pokemon Home more or less...
OP
OP
Well, they are the publisher. The publisherS are the ones that force developers to make business decisions like this. Developers passion is to make the video game, publishers are there to get money back from investing in the game.
I'm pretty sure if Nintendo dared to lock any Pokemon behind gacha mechanics, the internet would riot.
Complete Dex should never exist again if there is any meat to the reasons Complete Dex doesn't exist right now in Sword/Shield.
The "goty edition" content is usually purchasable as dlc for the base version of the game, not requiring you to buy an entire full priced game, unlike pokemon.
No but attitudes and management can change, decisions can be reversed. With the huge backlash and the rumours of low morale, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see an effort to include all Pokemon in a future game.
Gamefreak is also getting a lot of flak that may be better aimed at their publisher, like what would happen if it was an EA game. It wouldn't surprised if PMC is pushing for yearly games and short generations for example.
Gamefreak is also getting a lot of flak that may be better aimed at their publisher, like what would happen if it was an EA game. It wouldn't surprised if PMC is pushing for yearly games and short generations for example.
People seem awfully optimistic that they're going to reverse this decision relatively soon.
I think unless sales take a massive hit (and they probably won't), this is how things will be.
I think unless sales take a massive hit (and they probably won't), this is how things will be.
But isn't this whole thread based on the assumption that paid Pokémon dlc would be a "dick move?"
The sad part is, the only way for me to buy Sword and Shield is if they patch/add dlc for content that should have been there from the start. Like the exp.share toggle and Battle Frontier. If this was paid dlc, I would be paying an additional 20 for the game, 20 for online, probably 5-10 for home, and then the dlc price, making the game cost 3x or more than what I used to spend on a pokemon game when they were just $40. And on hardware that was double the price of past handhelds.
You asked about goty versions of games versus third versions in your post.
If they were going to do it at all, it would either be in the initial release, or they'd have announced it by now.
Ain't happening. Maybe next installment.
Ain't happening. Maybe next installment.
They've gone against a lot if things they've said. Nothing is off the table anymore.
Aside from the fact that they've already gone on record saying that this exact scenario isn't happening (yeah I guess they could just flat-out lie about it but given all the heat they've taken for the decision you'd think if there was any internal planning that could lead to the full dex being in they'd have mentioned as much to quell the mob), it would defeat what I believe is part of the purpose of going through with the cuts in the first place.
Yes there's their talk of the work needed to put in all the models and animations, there's the efforts to update stats and movelists and hopefully some attempts to balance the games slightly better around a smaller roster, but I also view this as a long-term plan that will ease development of generational leaps in future games as well as a marketing strategy. Now every future generation comes along with inbuilt "look who's back!" that can drum up support and introducing scarcity to pokemon can be leveraged as a way to tempt people away from skipping a generation, since you can't necessarily be sure when that particular favorite of yours might come around again (unless your favorite is Pikachu I guess). Keeping the dex rotating gives them some advantages that the full dex doesn't, and if you ever brought the full dex back in a game, they'd never be able to get away with cutting it back again after this attempt "fails." This is just how pokemon is gonna be now.
Yes there's their talk of the work needed to put in all the models and animations, there's the efforts to update stats and movelists and hopefully some attempts to balance the games slightly better around a smaller roster, but I also view this as a long-term plan that will ease development of generational leaps in future games as well as a marketing strategy. Now every future generation comes along with inbuilt "look who's back!" that can drum up support and introducing scarcity to pokemon can be leveraged as a way to tempt people away from skipping a generation, since you can't necessarily be sure when that particular favorite of yours might come around again (unless your favorite is Pikachu I guess). Keeping the dex rotating gives them some advantages that the full dex doesn't, and if you ever brought the full dex back in a game, they'd never be able to get away with cutting it back again after this attempt "fails." This is just how pokemon is gonna be now.
Haha god no. Not even Gamefreak would waste their time with this. They got a schedule to keep. Once a game is done, they move onto the next. If you want your favorites, hope they make the cut next game and debate about who got cut in the next installment.
I'm not sure I'd call it a dick move based on the work required. And quite frankly, if it was wrapped up with maybe something fun added in the post game I'd plunk down for it in a heartbeat...I probably would if it was just a national dex by itself. I like my living Pokedex and I like bringing it with me.
My heart!Gamefreak did this and never followed through on it
No, Pokemon is a mostly yearly series now. They get the games out and then move on, other than the giveaways where you have to go to GameStop or Target or somewhere else to get a code. The next games are very likely to be gen 4 remakes, which is part of the reason why gen 4 got the fewest amount of Pokemon in Sword and Shield. They're not going to undo that by releasing DLC.
Game Freak makes the game with Nintendo's money? Where is your source on this?
I don't think they will. And there would be some backlash if they would, but if I was them I would. It's no different than if Street Fighter 6 leaves out an original cast member then brings them back as dlc later
I guess not.
Plans change, but...
Plans change, but...
This. They won't change. They'll just keep on doing what they do. More money to be made doing it the Gamefreak way anyway.
Just got an idea: Why not implement online trading directly into Pokémon Home instead then? Since it will become the "home base" of Pokémon in the future.
Well they're publishers but they're not the people who yknow make the decisions
For free? Uh, Sword and Shield costs $60 ($20 more than the previous Pokemon games), so I would think that given the higher price point, the game at the very least shouldn't have less content in it than previous games.
No chance. It'll be blasphemy... The only comparison I can draw is if Blizzard had the audacity to have cosmetic micro transactions in a Diablo game. It's just not going to happen!
It has different content. Not necessarily less. We haven't played it yet as far as I know. Less pokemans doesn't necessarily mean less content.
- Status