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

Worth it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 173 20.9%
  • No

    Votes: 653 79.1%

  • Total voters
    826

Supermanisdead

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
776
saying it’s completely feasible is way overselling how much of a say nintendo would have in that decision. What incentive does the Pokémon company have to roll this into NSO?
its online features for a switch console game. if it's going to have a separate sub like an MMO, then it shouldn't have required NSO. if its going to have NSO, then it shouldn't have a separate sub. but as it stands, they've split cloud storage (a feature switch online should have had) into another paid sub, and kept battles and trading onto the nintendo paid sub.

as it stands now, if my save file for pokemon sword is lost... all my pokemon are lost, unless i pay another 16$ a year for home storage. no cloud saves in NSO, paid cloud storage on home. no battles in home, paid battles in NSO. its honestly ridiculous.
 
Jun 2, 2019
1,934
how is that a lazy dev argument? pokemon games have ran like shit since gen 6 and they are increasingly feature barren. its just the realities of game freak's small team and yearly release schedule. now that they're making HD games, it'll probably be amplified.
GameFreak improved significantly from XY to ORAS and, from there, to SUMO. Your implication that they won't bother to improve is pure lazy dev rethoric

This is a lazy attempt at shutting down criticism
Reaching is saying that they will never improve when they always do inside the same gen

No is not, he's clearly critizing the game features, is this no longer allowed on nintendo products as far as era is concerned?
Mi comment comes from this
they'll probably remain ugly, be feature barren and run like shit.
Wich is basically an implication that they'll never improve, when they always do. Any Pokémon fan able to see beyond his own nose knows this
 

Pancho

Avenger
Nov 7, 2017
842
I never had an attachment for my Pokemon. Never transferred pokemon from one game to the other, so I get the full experience wtih the base game just fine
 

SeanR1221

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,159
That’s the same mindset companies do with DLC instead of releasing everything for free. Of course they want to earn money meanwhile I don’t want to spend money. Looking at it from a consumer perspective it sucks.
or people buying dlc helps keeps games to 60.00. The same price games have been for a looooong time. It’s either up the price or add paid dlc 🤷🏻‍♂️

its online features for a switch console game. if it's going to have a separate sub like an MMO, then it shouldn't have required NSO. if its going to have NSO, then it shouldn't have a separate sub. but as it stands, they've split cloud storage (a feature switch online should have had) into another paid sub, and kept battles and trading onto the nintendo paid sub.

as it stands now, if my save file for pokemon sword is lost... all my pokemon are lost, unless i pay another 16$ a year for home storage. no cloud saves in NSO, paid cloud storage on home. no battles in home, paid battles in NSO. its honestly ridiculous.
but this isn’t Nintendo’s decision. Just because they have partial ownership doesn’t mean they get full say in how this works. Again, your abutment is flawed because you make it sound like a few phone calls can easily make this work.
 

HardRojo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,311
I’d gladly pay if the base game had been worth it, but even $40 would’ve been too expensive for the terrible and disappointing “First console Pokémon game!” we ended up being. Man, I was such a big Pokémon fan, I played Go for like 2 and a half years non-stop, but this shit killed my interest in the franchise so bad. I think I’m gonna get a 3DS and play S&M and ORAS.
 

Niosai

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,252
I am not sympathetic in the least toward the people that were up in arms. Especially not toward those that were taking their outrage specifically toward Game Freak devs on social media. It's an English advertising line from 1998. Get over it.
I won't lie, I was upset about the cuts, but I think the people who were attacking the devs were toxic and disgusting. Clearly there were more factors at play than just "we don't want you to have all your Pokemon" so while bummed, I am sympathetic.
 

Dachhase

Coward
Oct 26, 2017
7,789
nintendo is a part owner of the franchise, the games are developed exclusively for its systems, they sell tens of millions. its completely feasible that pokemon home could be folded into switch online.
that's not how business works. they're only a part owner and the other owners want to make money if nintendo included home into online they would have to pay out the other owners for the money they aren't making or raise the price of online. it just makes no sense to combine them and there's a good chance TPC wouldn't even have agreed to do it anyway. They surely want their own subscription service where they can raise or lower prices as they please. Everyone wants subscription services these days, they aren't handing it over to nintendo.

Nevermind the fact that they can have the service completely removed from any nintendo products by having it on mobile and work with things like Pokemon GO and other Pokemon mobile apps.
 

Swift_Gamer

Member
Dec 14, 2018
2,011
Rio de Janeiro
The real thing is.... They really shouldn't charge for anything beyond game, expansions and online. The other features would be free if this were other series. Yeah, it's ridiculous.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,166
What a dumb, misinformed topic.

There's plenty of things that can be done better regarding Pokemon, but this isn't it.
 

Hamchan

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,878
I actually really enjoyed Sword and Shield. Plus that expansion pass is way better than buying a third version. I'm now working to get the pokedex completed in the old 3DS games.

What I'm really not happy about is having to sub to two separate Pokemon services just to transfer them all.....

Plus what happens when Pokemon Bank is eventually shut down? That link between the games is gone forever.
 

TheOpiate

Member
Mar 26, 2019
257
This feels a tad disingenuous.

If the old games were priced the same as Sword/Shield, that would be $120 before tax on two games ($180 if you wanted all three). Not even counting the expense if you were getting multiple GBs/GBAs/DSes/3DSes for the purpose of trading, and Link Cables for the older handhelds.

The online cost applies to the whole system's online. Odds are quite high if you've bought the Switch and some games, you were going to get the online anyways, not as a Pokemon-exclusive expense.

The DLC is entirely optional to get Pokemon, all you need is the free update to trade.

Hell, I haven't seen anything about losing Pokemon from Home if you aren't subbed, so what's stopping someone from just doing a one month go at $3, trading everything to Home, and letting it lapse until it's needed to add more Pokemon?



Nintendo charges full price for their first party titles and Switch games are $60. They were never going to charge $40 for a Switch Pokemon game under any circumstance.
> Odds are quite high if you've bought the Switch and some games, you were going to get the online anyways, not as a Pokemon-exclusive expense.

Stats on those odds? I play *zero* Switch titles online. I only have online because it was free with something I bought. Its not the first time I've seen that said on the net and I don't know anyone else IRL who plays it online either.
 

Hate

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,916
or people buying dlc helps keeps games to 60.00. The same price games have been for a looooong time. It’s either up the price or add paid dlc 🤷🏻‍♂️
Eh no. A lot of games have no DLCs and they did just fine. Even if there were DLCs, the content you get is absolutely enormous and rich. I’m not at fault if all you ever buy are these mtx type dlcs.

In the context of Pokemon they did up the price and the content and features went down. What now? 🤷🏻‍♀️
 
OP
OP

Everywhere

Member
Jun 12, 2019
747
Let's see how much costs Splatoon:
$60 for the game.
$20 for the expansion
+ online services if you want (and you can buy also 1 month), but just like you I will put $20 because seems that we have just this option.

Pokémon:
$60 for the game.
$30 for the expansion.
+ 20 for online play (that you use also for other games)
+ you can choose also 1 month for global trading and storage service (gts is free)

Let's see a standard multiplayer PS4 game:
$60-70 for the game.
$15-30 for the expansion.
+ 50 for online play (that you use also for other games)

So why are you talking just about Pokémon?
Because I'm interested in the Pokemon series. And Splatoon is totally worth that money. That's the point. I don't mind putting money down if I'm getting a great product in return. Fire Emblem can cost $105 but damn, what an amazing game, arguably the BEST in the series and a big evolution from past games. I'd say worthy of my $100. Can you say the same about Pokemon with all of its missing content and rushed development? The price is too high for what's being offered, and with many complementary services that should be in the base game anyway. It just feels like TPC is super greed.
 
Last edited:

Bjones

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,873
Lol if you add the online fee does that mean almost every PlayStation and Xbox games is $110? Plus a lot have micro transactions and paid expansions $20 -$100.
So going by your logic most games are really around $210 total.
Pokemon not looking that bad actually.
 

foxuzamaki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,391
Oct 25, 2017
3,839
Brooklyn, NY
Of course not but people would still buy it simply because it's mainline Pokemon. The $20 sub has nothing to do with Gamefreak though. Pokemon games hardly if ever go down in price, so unlike games on PS/Xbox and PC, you will most likely pay $90 for the full experience. Given how barebones these games have felt since the jump to 3D, I still find it better to pay $30 for DLC rather than $60 for a redo of the game with sprinkled on endgame content.

Though in a perfect world the $60 would be it, filled with content and features. But that ain't happening anymore and my experience with these games have taught me that Gamefreak don't need to. The majority of the fandom will lap up and defend whatever Gamefreak puts out for mainline Pokemon games and anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.
 

Swift_Gamer

Member
Dec 14, 2018
2,011
Rio de Janeiro
Yeah, he's frustrated enough to add a gratuitous implication that Game Freak will never improve. After more than 25 years constantly improving

But hey the GTS is now on a phone app and not all pokémon are transferable to SwSh so i guess everything is justified amirite?
I don't really think they've improved at all... Look at naughty dog, look at the Mario games... Pokemon is pretty much the same over 25 years. But to each their own.
 
Oct 26, 2017
16,940
Weird framing. Making the games cheaper and making all that ancillary stuff free wouldn't really improve things all that much.
 

Lothars

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
5,802
Yeah, he's frustrated enough to add a gratuitous implication that Game Freak will never improve. After more than 25 years constantly improving

But hey the GTS is now on a phone app and not all pokémon are transferable to SwSh so i guess everything is justified amirite?
They have barely improved, the games have got progressively worst.
 

Kyrios

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,978
For the full experience it'll cost you that much anyway. Is it worth it? Depends on how much you play it I guess. Value is all dependent on personal taste and how much investment you put into it.
 

Camisado

Member
Nov 3, 2017
368
Not even close to worth it. They only get away with it because people are blinded by the brand. EA/Activision would get destroyed on forums for behavior like this.
 

Phellps

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,954
I don't really think they've improved at all... Look at naughty dog, look at the Mario games... Pokemon is pretty much the same over 25 years. But to each their own.
You don't fix what isn't broken. The formula works, is still popular, is clearly what the majority of people want otherwise SwSh wouldn't be beating its predecessors in sales. They have improved the visuals, the gameplay, added much requests QoL improvements, tried some new things and seem to be taking the series in a different direction in terms of its world. They even improved by dialing back the amount of cutscenes since people complained about them so much in Gen 7.
Previously, we've seen visible leaps in design and visuals during the DS and the 3DS eras. Graphics and world design changed considerably from XY/ORAS to SUMO/USUM.

There is a lot to be criticized about SwSh, I will never say it's a perfect game. But claiming a studio will never try to get better at their craft is not criticism, it's a silly reaction from an exaggerated emotional investment in the series. There is no "to each their own" about this.
 

NHarmonic.

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
6,670
Let's see how much costs Splatoon:
$60 for the game.
$20 for the expansion
+ online services if you want (and you can buy also 1 month), but just like you I will put $20 because seems that we have just this option.

Pokémon:
$60 for the game.
$30 for the expansion.
+ 20 for online play (that you use also for other games)
+ you can choose also 1 month for global trading and storage service (gts is free)

Let's see a standard multiplayer PS4 game:
$60-70 for the game.
$15-30 for the expansion.
+ 50 for online play (that you use also for other games)

So why are you talking just about Pokémon?
Splatoon is fantastic and had Free DLC, updates and content for almost 2 years. Lmao at trying to compare it with the shitty stuff gamefreak has been releasing.
 

Illusion

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,247
Yeah, he's frustrated enough to add a gratuitous implication that Game Freak will never improve. After more than 25 years constantly improving
As a hardcore Pokemon fan, this is very disingenuous. Comparing improvement with a company that progresses at a crippled snail with cancer pace isn't a good comparison.

It's not that they can't improve, it's that they can't seem to fix or support even the smallest of things even after 25 years. And when they finally do, the time it took to get there is embarrassing. Especially when those very same features are removed in the next game onwards.

Fans are rightfully frustrated. Don't dismiss that.
 
Last edited:

werezompire

Zeboyd Games
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
3,464
Pokémon Sword/Shield is the first main entry that lets you have multiple saves (one per profile) with a single copy of the game so if you're in a family with more than one person who like to play Pokemon, it's drastically cheaper.
 

EsqBob

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
210
We had to pay $330000 for the full Pokémon experience. Worth it?

$60 for Pokémon Blue + Yellow.
$500 for batteries (yearly)
$2000 for a friend (yearly)
$200000 for the opportunity cost of playing hundreds of hours of Pokémon instead of studying as a kid

Inflation adjusted, that is $330000. I'm inclined to say it's not worth it. What says ERA?
 

Hate

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,916
You don't fix what isn't broken. The formula works, is still popular, is clearly what the majority of people want otherwise SwSh wouldn't be beating its predecessors in sales. They have improved the visuals, the gameplay, added much requests QoL improvements, tried some new things and seem to be taking the series in a different direction in terms of its world. They even improved by dialing back the amount of cutscenes since people complained about them so much in Gen 7.
Previously, we've seen visible leaps in design and visuals during the DS and the 3DS eras. Graphics and world design changed considerably from XY/ORAS to SUMO/USUM.

There is a lot to be criticized about SwSh, I will never say it's a perfect game. But claiming a studio will never try to get better at their craft is not criticism, it's a silly reaction from an exaggerated emotional investment in the series. There is no "to each their own" about this.
I think the problem with Pokemon is it does improve but it’s so incrementally small due to their release schedule. I don’t know how a Gamefreak Pokemon game that is developed for 4-5 years would look like but what I expected was a lot better than what we got. The Switch is known for being one of the biggest leap in handheld computing and I was expecting that kind of leap for Pokemon as well.

Overall it’s less of what Gamefreak itself puts out but more of what they’re forced to compromise with.