• Light/Dark
  • 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.

We now have to pay $126 for the Pokemon experience. Worth it?

Worth it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 174 21.0%

  • No

    Votes: 653 79.0%
  • Total voters
    827
Hailinel

Hailinel

Shamed a mod for a tag
Member
Oct 27, 2017
35,527
EllipsisBreak said:
Yes. It works in the sense that you don't need to buy a bunch of GBAs to get the full experience because your group of friends who have agreed to play through a Final Fantasy game with you are likely to have their own game systems already. That's the point. It's a "you already have those things, so stop acting like this game is costing you hundreds of dollars" argument. That's why it uses all that hyperbole about needing a TV and a house.

I think I've made my position on this clear. That comic doesn't apply to things that no one already had. Can we agree on that and move on?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, because the GBAs still cost money. You, at some point, have to buy a GBA, and a link cable, if you wish to play multiplayer Crystal Chronicles.

You just don't have to buy four by yourself.

Similarly, you do not need to buy a Home subscription or the Expansion Pass to play Pokemon Sword. They are not hidden costs. They are extras (one DLC expansion, the other an external service) that can be bought in addition to Sword/Shield if you so desire, but you do not need either in order to play the $60 game with other human beings.
 
Sandfox

Sandfox

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,743
matrix-cat said:
Like, if you're OK with dropping the cash, go for it; they're happy to take it from you. But we're talking about a company with the most valuable IP on Earth, more money than God, more clout with Nintendo than any other developer. They don't have to do anything they don't want to. A $40 game with $20 DLC and free online/no app would still have made them record profits. They have chosen to do all this because they want more of your money than you used to give them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
By that logic games like CoD and Mario Kart should be $40 with free online.
 
abellwillring

abellwillring

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,939
Austin, TX
matrix-cat said:
The thing that gets me is people who will act like The Pokemon Company had to do this. Like they had to charge $60, it's the law, no Switch game has ever cost less than $60. Or they had to lock the online stuff behind Nintendo's paywall, they couldn't have negotiated anything else. Or (the best one) they couldn't possibly have delayed Sword/Shield to give them the extra six months of work and polish they needed, because of the anime and the merchandising! Won't someone think of the cross-promotional marketing schedule?

Like, if you're OK with dropping the cash, go for it; they're happy to take it from you. But we're talking about a company with the most valuable IP on Earth, more money than God, more clout with Nintendo than any other developer. They don't have to do anything they don't want to. A $40 game with $20 DLC and free online/no app would still have made them record profits. They have chosen to do all this because they want more of your money than you used to give them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why don't they just charge $5 for it while they're at it. Hell, just give it away.
 
matrix-cat

matrix-cat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,284
Sandfox said:
By that logic games like CoD and Mario Kart should be $40 with free online.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Both have always been full-price games and have typically increased the value they provide with time and each subsequent release (barring the one year COD didn't have a singleplayer campaign, admittedly).

A better comparison might be, say, Fire Emblem Three Houses, which was also in the position of being a longtime handheld series making the jump to a full-price console game. Fire Emblem only got bigger in its transition to the Switch; a longer campaign, more replay value, easily the longest game in the series and with plenty of free DLC and updates. I don't think I've seen anyone saying Three Houses didn't earn its higher price tag. In comparison, Pokemon got smaller and less fully-featured with its Switch debut and price hike; a shorter campaign, less content, once-standard features missing or locked behind paywalls.

abellwillring said:
Why don't they just charge $5 for it while they're at it. Hell, just give it away.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This demeans us both.
 

Mudo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,115
Tennessee
Sandfox said:
You don't need to pay for Home unless you want to transfer Pokemon from older games.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh lol ok I don't need it then. I own a lot of them but haven't played much so I wouldn't even know what I would want to transfer. So they gonna get me for 90 bucks. Hmm. I do like the new game but I won't pay that much if this is like a yearly thing going forward (doesn't look like it is though at least not this round)
 
Le Dude

Le Dude

Member
May 16, 2018
4,709
USA
Shouldn't this thread just be locked?

You could literally say the same thing about just about any game. $60 + $40 season pass + $60 for online would be a whopping $160 for the "whole experience".

If people have an issue with that it's a wider issue than just Pokemon.
 
Sandfox

Sandfox

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,743
matrix-cat said:
Both have always been full-price games and have typically increased the value they provide with time and each subsequent release (barring the one year COD didn't have a singleplayer campaign, admittedly).

A better comparison might be, say, Fire Emblem Three Houses, which was also in the position of being a longtime handheld series making the jump to a full-price console game. Fire Emblem only got bigger in its transition to the Switch; a longer campaign, more replay value, easily the longest game in the series and with plenty of free DLC and updates. I don't think I've seen anyone saying Three Houses didn't earn its higher price tag. In comparison, Pokemon got smaller and less fully-featured with its Switch debut and price hike; a shorter campaign, less content, once-standard features missing or locked behind paywalls.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you don't feel the game is worth $60 that's for you to decide, but your other post said that because it's a huge franchise they could've charged $40 with free online and that's what I was commenting on. TPC/Nintendo charged the normal price for a Switch game and if consumers don't agree with that price point for these games they need to speak with their wallets.

JamFlan said:
Shouldn't this thread just be locked?

You could literally say the same thing about just about any game. $60 + $40 season pass + $60 for online would be a whopping $160 for the "whole experience".

If people have an issue with that it's a wider issue than just Pokemon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
OP also bailed after the first post lol
 

Deleted member 60096

User requested account closure
Banned
Sep 20, 2019
1,295
JamFlan said:
Shouldn't this thread just be locked?

You could literally say the same thing about just about any game. $60 + $40 season pass + $60 for online would be a whopping $160 for the "whole experience".

If people have an issue with that it's a wider issue than just Pokemon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yep basically. While Pokemon has always had a shit sales model and complaints about it are fine, this particular thread is basically "are you okay with the effects of capitalism on the gaming industry" but for some reason focused on a single video game series rather than the industry at whole
 
Le Dude

Le Dude

Member
May 16, 2018
4,709
USA
SoZetaSlow said:
Yep basically. While Pokemon has always had a shit sales model and complaints about it are fine, this particular thread is basically "are you okay with the effects of capitalism on the gaming industry" but for some reason focused on a single video game series rather than the industry at whole
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Basically just "How can we make the value of Pokemon SwSh look as bad as possible?"

Like, if people are upset over cut Pokemon and paid online trading/bank, that's fair enough. Complaining about the DLC is dumb as that seems to replace the third version of the game, which is a much better solution. Adding in online is ludicrous, and if someone has an issue with that they should probably look at games on consoles where online is three times the cost.
 
tsampikos

tsampikos

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,613
if you're going to be disengenuous you might as well add in the cost of the switch, electricity, the cost of roads, your education, and etc

smh entitled people out there acting like this isn't a feature complete game
 
Andri

Andri

Member
Mar 20, 2018
6,017
Switzerland
Where is the "OP is disingenuous and mad about Pokemon, so they make up shit but bail from the thread after people dont just jump on the bandwagon" option in the Poll ?
 
Deluxury

Deluxury

Member
Dec 3, 2018
716
80% voted no. I hope Gamefreak learns their lesson. SwSh could have sold 5x more and reach 100m lifetime sales if they bring the 80% in.
 
Raijinto

Raijinto

self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
10,091
This 'argument' has always been nonsense and were it presented around any other game than Pokemon I doubt that the thread would've been open long enough for me to post.
 
matrix-cat

matrix-cat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,284
Sandfox said:
If you don't feel the game is worth $60 that's for you to decide, but your other post said that because it's a huge franchise they could've charged $40 with free online and that's what I was commenting on. TPC/Nintendo charged the normal price for a Switch game and if consumers don't agree with that price point for these games they need to speak with their wallets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I said they could have made record profits charging $40 because every previous mainline Pokemon game to date has been $40. I mean, I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer, but I think interpreting my post as "Every major franchise should be $40" is a bit of a stretch.
 
Hailinel

Hailinel

Shamed a mod for a tag
Member
Oct 27, 2017
35,527
matrix-cat said:
I said they could have made record profits charging $40 because every previous mainline Pokemon game to date has been $40. I mean, I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer, but I think interpreting my post as "Every major franchise should be $40" is a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's an HD home console game published on Switch cards, which are not cheap to manufacture. The larger size Switch cards can put a squeeze on profits from individual unit sales even at $60 because of how much they cost to produce, and is why we haven't seen games on 32GB cards yet.
 
Dazraell

Dazraell

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
1,843
Poland
Does it, though?

The main entry fee is only 60 dollars for Sword and Shield. Expansion Pass is only if you're interested in more content. The rest are about services that are completely optional. Counting multiplayer service for Switch is kinda weird, considering it's for all games on that platform.

I only payed for a vanilla game, will probably buy Expansion Pass sooner or later. I'm not interested in trading and storing Pokemon between games, never used those features on 3DS.
 
Murfield

Murfield

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,425
This seems like a moot argument, considering in previous gens you had to buy whole new game and you got a lot less in it.

I'd rather have dlc expansions than have to go buy pokemon greatsword or towershield.

I also feel like the poll is biased to make OP's point. I have no interest in pokemon bank, and think consoles changing for internet is a scam. For this reason,
I would vote no but I don't agree with OP about the current gen being bad value.
 
matrix-cat

matrix-cat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,284
Hailinel said:
It's an HD home console game published on Switch cards, which are not cheap to manufacture. The larger size Switch cards can put a squeeze on profits from individual unit sales even at $60 because of how much they cost to produce, and is why we haven't seen games on 32GB cards yet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's fair enough, I hadn't thought of that.

OK, I'm punching out of this one because I'm just being toxic internet guy here. This isn't how I'd planned to spend my day, my apologies :P
 
Cyberclops

Cyberclops

Member
Mar 15, 2019
1,444
I'm sure Gamefreak regrets every feature they've ever put in a game when fans complain non-stop that those features aren't present in future games.
 
Lelouch0612

Lelouch0612

Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,200
Adding the cost of the Online makes as much sense as counting the price of the Switch.

Also 20$ is the maximum yearly price, I am paying less than 5$ personnally.
 
Madao

Madao

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,697
Panama
lvl 99 Pixel said:
You pay for the game then for the DLC expansion like any other game does? Seems cheaper than buying the Ultra/Third version to get the "full experience"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

if you were the kind of person that skipped the initial release and only got the third release, you're getting completely boned this gen since you need both the base game and DLC. ($40 vs $90)
 
Cudpug

Cudpug

Member
Nov 9, 2017
3,558
Had Sword and Shield been better, I might have done it. But for me they were easily the worst Pokemon games, and I therefore don't see myself purchasing any of the add-ons.
 
ShadowFox08

ShadowFox08

Banned
Nov 25, 2017
3,524
Everywhere said:
$60 for the game.
$30 for the expansion.
$16 for global trading and storage service. (yearly)
$20 for online play. (yearly)

Total of $126, compared to $80 from past generations (vanilla plus third version).

And if you pay $126 you are still not getting the whole thing. There are still missing features and Pokemons from past games.

I was planning to get Sword/Shield when the full DLC drops, but when you put all those prices down on paper you have to question yourself: is Pokemon in its current state worth all that money?

I'm inclined to say no. What says ERA?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
if you like pokemon just get it. Decide for yourself after you beat the game if the expansion is worth it. The global trading is optional. You can play the free version.. Also for nintendo online, its not just this game you are paying for online.. it applies to all nintendo games that have online play, as well as the nes and snes games, cloud saves, etc.
 
oofouchugh

oofouchugh

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,972
Night City
The complete experience also includes content from the other versions of the game, Pokemon and now different gyms. While this isn't significant, a lot of Pokemon fans have been buying both versions of the games for a long time. There is a reason they sell Dual Packs and damn near every retailer has their own version of this dual pack. When the portable games topped out at $40 each it wasn't a big deal but now we're paying $120 for both copies instead of $80. This is actually the first gen I've skipped doing this on because the cost isn't worth it.

I'm ok with the DLC structure though, its not unusual for single player content to be released as an expansion that is paid for. Splitting the DLC across both versions of the game is extremely scummy however. The price of Home is a little much but it does have added functionality over Bank and is still cheap in the grand scheme of things. The only issue I have there is the removal of the GTS from the base games and shoving it into Home.

The raw cost of things isn't necessarily awful, but the base games not being worth $60 and feeling extremely lackluster compared to $40 portable games and maintaining the split version model makes everything seem so much worse.
 
AdamE

AdamE

3D Character Artist
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,050
Japan
That's cheaper than before because when Ruby/Sapphire came out, I needed to buy the remakes, an extra GBA, Pokémon Colloseum and a GameCube, some link cables...
 
NotLiquid

NotLiquid

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
34,775
This is an oddly loaded question, one that doesn't feel all that constructive when I'd wager a large amount of people's "experience" begins and ends with buying the game itself.

It's also disingenuous when you didn't pay "just $80" to get all of what you're describing in the OP in past generations.
 
noyram23

noyram23

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,372
No it wasn't worth it even with $60, there's just too many good games out there to waste time on this franchise anymore.
 
cw_sasuke

cw_sasuke

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,401
Weird phrased question - could be said for pretty much every current series that offer DLC or season passes. The "full experience" in every big console games is more expensive than the flat 60 of the last - games are much more expensive to develop than during the GB or PSX days.
 
ResetGreyWolf

ResetGreyWolf

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,429
I got it for $60 though

Yesterday said:
Don't forget the Switch. and the electric bill to charge the switch. and the house to keep the electricity in.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Plus if you play Pokemon for an entire day you gotta factor in the cost of the food you consume while playing, and I only eat lobsters and Russian caviar so my Pokemon experience quickly rises to $400/month.
 
Noppie

Noppie

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,770
ResetGreyWolf said:
I got it for $60 though



Plus if you play Pokemon for an entire day you gotta factor in the cost of the food you consume while playing, and I only eat lobsters and Russian caviar so my Pokemon experience quickly rises to $400/month.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly gaming cost time and time = money, so might as well charge an hourly rate as well!
 
dreamlongdead

dreamlongdead

Member
Nov 5, 2017
2,641
Cost me $49.99 + tax, and I regret it.

Not personally excited about the DLC, but it does seem like good value for people who are enjoying the base game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.