-
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 now have to pay $126 for the Pokemon experience. Worth it?
- Thread starter Everywhere
- Start date
Not exactly, you have to pay for the online storage.
People being satisfied don't mean much, look at McDonald's, it's been doing the same for years, people say it's good but we all know it isn't.
So, yeah, there's nothing about emotional investment. I really don't see improvements in the games, specially considering how this is the biggest media franchise of the world...
I mean, monster Hunter uses the same formula but it evolved a lot and the jump from mobile to consoles were drastic. You can't say the same for Pokemon though. I mean, it's fine to not be happy about what GF's been doing, you won't be able to convince me or anyone else that what they've been doing is fine because it simply isn't. Not by my quality standards. I won't go to Twitter to harass GF developers but I won't support then anymore.
I didn't think paying $60 was worth it, that's clearly a budget $30 title at best and would still be a lacking experience even for that price. Not a franchise I plan on buying ever again tbh.
I never understood those arguments ... like I played Train Simulator but I didn't felt the need to spend 10k dollars on it
Because the game didn't got into me.
Like first you pay 60 for the pokemon game and then if you REALLY liked and want more you buy the dlc
Because the game didn't got into me.
Like first you pay 60 for the pokemon game and then if you REALLY liked and want more you buy the dlc
The $20 for Nintendo online is only a problem if you only have 1 or 2 games that does online integration.
The $30 expansion is not that big of a deal given it 2 large areas and other stuff to do.
The online cloud storage is definitely is the mix part since it major features need you to pay for and it is over price for the year. I'm lucky enough that the pokemon I need to transfer over, as well as leave for safe keeping in home, that it isn't a big deal and I just need a few month sub to get want I need.
To the younger player who started around the Sun Moon release it problematic since they may not have the funds to support this type of system and will be left out.
The $30 expansion is not that big of a deal given it 2 large areas and other stuff to do.
The online cloud storage is definitely is the mix part since it major features need you to pay for and it is over price for the year. I'm lucky enough that the pokemon I need to transfer over, as well as leave for safe keeping in home, that it isn't a big deal and I just need a few month sub to get want I need.
To the younger player who started around the Sun Moon release it problematic since they may not have the funds to support this type of system and will be left out.
Of course, it feels very iterative, much like the improvements in, say, Call of Duty. There is only so much a studio can do with the amount of time they're given. But I do think SwSh was the one they decided needed to take one for the team so they could prolong their release schedule. Everything that has happened since SwSh launched seems to suggest they are reworking the franchise as a whole; the anime is no longer focusing on a single region or generation, giving the anime studio more content to work with which would be helpful if the next generation is taking longer to arrive. The decision to move to DLC instead of releasing an entire reworked game, not releasing another game this year, it all sounds like they're making plans to increase the gaps between games so they have more time to work. But SwSh needed to be released last year to get this ball rolling.
What other non-GAAS, non-multiplayer series provides free online storage for your progress?
That is a weird sentence. People don't buy McDonald's despite disliking it, that makes no sense. We all know McDonald's isn't gourmet, but people obviously like it. People being satisfied is exactly what matters. They're game developers, they're making entertainment.
Obviously, the jump from the 3DS to PS4 and Xbox One would be a lot more drastic than the jump from the 3DS to the Switch, so that's a rather unbalanced comparison. Still, to say the jump from the 3DS to the Switch was not big is dishonest. It's bordering on saying it looks like SuMo running on Citra.
It's absolutely fine to not like what GameFreak is doing and I'm not here to convince you of the contrary. I'm here to tell you claiming they don't/will not improve is false.
Yeah it's "free", but you cannot catch the old Pokémon or transfer them from your 3DS without paying. You have to rely on others (through the GTS on your phone or regular trading) to get access to those Pokémon. It's far from ideal. Completing your Pokédex without paying extra money has basically become impossible.
I wonder if the people defending have realized they already spent more on this game than past gens.
I'm not saying people don't like it, I'm saying it's not good. People liking it and being good are two different things. McDonald's is not good.
What aboutism is not a valid argument. Nintendo online exists, we shouldn't have to pay anything more than this. Even worse, Xbox offers cloud saves for free, so what gives?
Power has nothing to do with it. Look at Zelda BOTW and Luigi's Mansion. Hell, look at Xenoblade.
Stop making excuses. Yeah, they're selling a lot and it's not going to stop but what they're doing it's not good by MY quality standards and you won't convince me otherwise. Give up.
But can't you use the GTS in the free mode? I though it allowed you to exchange Pokemon without requiring the paid version.
So you're saying people specifically like something they actually don't think is good? That makes even less sense. Quality can be subjective. What you think is good is not what I think is good. When you're making anything that depends on people's opinion, it ultimately comes down to how many people think what you make is good. Collectively, the Pokémon formula is considered good. Because a lot of people like it.
What you think does not collectively change that.
You were to one who said other series would be providing features TPC is charging for for free. So make up your mind, do you want to compare Pokémon to other games or not?
Power has everything to do with it. The power discrepancy between the 3DS and the PS4/Xbox is much larger than the one between the 3DS and the Switch. There is a lot more that can be done on those consoles. So obviously the leap from Monster Hunter on the 3DS to the home consoles would be a lot bigger than the same on the Switch. That much is a given and that was my point. Because you brought Monster Hunter's changes into the discussion and I can only assume you're talking about graphics, because gameplay-wise, not a lot has changed.
And, again, I am not trying to change your "standards". I'm saying the claims that GameFreak never improves are full of shit.
Smash doesn't make you pay an additional $16 a year to transfer literal kilobytes of data
Eh, I haven't played a Pokemon game since the older 3DS games and I enjoyed Sword for what it was, but yeah, I don't see myself buying anymore new Pokemon games after this or the expansions. The whole experience has soured me moving forward.
Putting you on ignore list since you still couldn't understand you won't be able to convince me and you keep replying...
What are you on about, I got my full value's worth out of $60, and I didn't feel obligated to spend this additional $60 your OP implies to get it. What a ridiculous way to measure the cost of a game.
It's all I ever think about.
A game shop is closing near me (they are part of a regional franchise) and I'm hoping to find Platinum or HGSS when I stop by.
I'm getting really tired of these disingenuous takes that focus on the wrong issues with Sword/Shield dominating the discourse around the game. You're creating arbitrary lines in "What is the complete experience" that Pokemon has never worked with in the first place. The "Full Experience" from Day 1 has required more than the standard purchase of a single game. Whether it be link cables, a second or third or even fourth game, Pokemon Bank, etc. This is indicative of how Pokemon operates and it has always been capitalistic money grabbing to a tee.
But the price is just the wrong area to really criticize Sword/Shield from because things like it costing $60 were a given as a major Switch title. People who continually point out $60 for less content just continually miss the point of that's how console games vs handheld games work. The included content has little to no relevance in that price because its a standardized unit. And similarly, there is a complete experience for the price of just the base game, at least as much as any single previous release of a Generation's first titles has ever been.
Keep criticizing the story, the linearity and lack of dungeons, the incredibly poor communication from Game Freak on basically all issues Sword/Shield related, and criticize the online's instability in game. The price of the "Full Pokemon Experience" is just a poor lane to tackle as an unsatisfied customer. Focus on the individual issues, and focus on the price of Pokemon Home if you have to focus on a price, but when you start casting the widest possible umbrella to criticize Pokemon, you're just missing the priorities here.
Now, I do say this as a fan of Sword because I got 40+ hours of enjoyment out of it because it's still an enjoyable, if somewhat lackluster and undercooked Pokemon title, but I just find stuff like this really dumb. Especially the whole "I have to pay $20 for NSO" angle since if you're given access to lots of other content and if you play literally any other title besides Pokemon online that $20 is not going JUST towards Pokemon.
But the price is just the wrong area to really criticize Sword/Shield from because things like it costing $60 were a given as a major Switch title. People who continually point out $60 for less content just continually miss the point of that's how console games vs handheld games work. The included content has little to no relevance in that price because its a standardized unit. And similarly, there is a complete experience for the price of just the base game, at least as much as any single previous release of a Generation's first titles has ever been.
Keep criticizing the story, the linearity and lack of dungeons, the incredibly poor communication from Game Freak on basically all issues Sword/Shield related, and criticize the online's instability in game. The price of the "Full Pokemon Experience" is just a poor lane to tackle as an unsatisfied customer. Focus on the individual issues, and focus on the price of Pokemon Home if you have to focus on a price, but when you start casting the widest possible umbrella to criticize Pokemon, you're just missing the priorities here.
Now, I do say this as a fan of Sword because I got 40+ hours of enjoyment out of it because it's still an enjoyable, if somewhat lackluster and undercooked Pokemon title, but I just find stuff like this really dumb. Especially the whole "I have to pay $20 for NSO" angle since if you're given access to lots of other content and if you play literally any other title besides Pokemon online that $20 is not going JUST towards Pokemon.
Well, be my guest. Honestly don't understand why you're on a discussion forum if you don't want your views to be challenged, but okay.
I paid $60 for the Pokémon experience and loved the hell out of it. Also, I'm glad I don't have to buy an entirely new game, beat the whole story again just to see the new parts of the update content... and if I want to, I can just buy the update content for half the price of the original game separately.
You don't "have to pay $126" for the experience, that's ridiculous. Most people don't transfer their Pokémon from game to game to game to game and breed hundreds of Pokémon.
Even if you did, every PS4 game that had an online component costs $60 for PS+ PLUS whatever the cost of the game is. That's a dumb way to talk about the cost of a game.
Guys! Elden Ring is going to cost:
$299 for the PS4
$59 for the game
$59 for PS+
$59 for a controller
FROM Soft is really ripping us off!
You don't "have to pay $126" for the experience, that's ridiculous. Most people don't transfer their Pokémon from game to game to game to game and breed hundreds of Pokémon.
Even if you did, every PS4 game that had an online component costs $60 for PS+ PLUS whatever the cost of the game is. That's a dumb way to talk about the cost of a game.
Guys! Elden Ring is going to cost:
$299 for the PS4
$59 for the game
$59 for PS+
$59 for a controller
FROM Soft is really ripping us off!
I do not trust subscription services and this ticks another 'fuck that' box.
you could easily make a reverse of this where the little bird is saying "you know, I get the complaints but I bought the game and had fun with it. not everyone is super hardcore about Pokemon and as a casual fan I had very few complaints about my time with the game" and then the big bird comes in with "HOW DARE THEY CUT HALF THE POKEMON FROM THE ROSTER AND NOW THEY'RE FLEECING CUSTOMERS THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS WE SHOULD BE MARCHING ON THEIR OFFICE WITH PITCHFORKS" etc.
It lets you play online, lets you play Tetris for free, has some cloud storage and lets you play some old games...gives you discounts on some other stuff in the eshop. It's a relatively bare bones system but it's at a bare bones price. Explain to me how it isn't worth $20 as is -- I'm curious. I 100% agree it isn't worth $60 (I didn't sign up for it until I got the free 9 months from Twitch Prime personally), but to say that a system that lets you play online at 1/3rd the price of its competitors isn't worth that price is hard for me to fathom. That's really all that actually matters with PS+ to me. I'd love to pay less and not get some games every month -- I think I spent like 3 minutes on the entirety of last year's freebies.
BOTW and Mario Kart 8 both had paid DLC, and Mario Kart needs a NSO sub to play online.
cloud saves are unsupported on the only games that i would want them for. its crazy that in 2020, my pokemon and animal crossing data will still be at risk of disappearing on a current gen console with the ability to cloud save. that makes it less than worthless to me.
This OP feels extremely disingenuous especially since most people just buy the base game and are fine with it. Also counting the $20 for NSO when it includes online for every other game on the system is a stretch.
It reminds me a lot of that old Penny Arcade comic where a guy says "Not only do I need a gamecube and four GBAs for Crystal Chronicles, but I also need a house! And food!"
Also completely ignores that if they handled this like they did any other previous gen where they had a separate release instead of DLC, that would be an extra $30 because it would be two separate $60 releases. People always conveniently leave this out.
Honestly, I personally think this thread should be locked. The OP is using shaky logic to try to manufacture outrage and debate.
Edit: And I should be clear that I do think the price bump from Pokemon Bank to Pokemon Home feels a little unfair considering it doesn't seem to have much more in the way of features and they know diehard Pokemon fans will sub no matter what. But lumping everything else on top of that (the game price, the DLC, NSO) is where the OP loses me completely.
It reminds me a lot of that old Penny Arcade comic where a guy says "Not only do I need a gamecube and four GBAs for Crystal Chronicles, but I also need a house! And food!"
Also completely ignores that if they handled this like they did any other previous gen where they had a separate release instead of DLC, that would be an extra $30 because it would be two separate $60 releases. People always conveniently leave this out.
Honestly, I personally think this thread should be locked. The OP is using shaky logic to try to manufacture outrage and debate.
Edit: And I should be clear that I do think the price bump from Pokemon Bank to Pokemon Home feels a little unfair considering it doesn't seem to have much more in the way of features and they know diehard Pokemon fans will sub no matter what. But lumping everything else on top of that (the game price, the DLC, NSO) is where the OP loses me completely.
Last edited:
Yeah, including the $20 for NSO is silly. That said it still leaves you at over $100, and due to not being able to import all Pokemon into Sw/Sh you'll have to continuously pay for Home in perpetuity (as opposed to just paying for it once to get everything transferred over in one go).
Previous releases were also cheaper in the first place. You could buy the original and the second version for cheaper than you can buy the original release of Sw/Sh and the DLC.
The age of data doesn't affect the cost of storage, which is next to nothing
Yeah, like no joke the reverse version of this is far more accurate. Literally every tweet Pokemon makes from its official account has people tweeting back that exact stuff.
Of course I know that. But that comes down to the fact that DS/3DS games were $40 and Switch/PS4/XBO games are $60. And that hasn't stopped companies like Atlus from selling updated versions of games like P5 Royal as a full separate $60 release. Nintendo easily could've kept the same model if they wanted to and they decided not to. So it bothers me when people claim the $60+$30 for the game plus DLC is some obscene expense when 1) it's extremely normal for games these days and 2) it could've been considerably worse.
The bump in price between Pokemon Bank and Pokemon Home from $5/yr to $15/yr is the one case where I think it's valid to complain about it since it doesn't sound like Home adds all that much compared to Bank. But including the DLC and NSO in their argument makes the OP's claim feel a lot more disingenuous than if it was just focused on Home.
Yeah, for me the main rub is Pokemon Home and their design philosophy now locking you in to a continuous sub with no end in sight (for those of us that previously had all the Pokemon).
believe or not, storing data for years with full redundancy is expensive
I mean it counts because the data has a lot of variables from all the gens that they still keep like the contest stats, if you keep a max beauty Feebas and transfer it to Gen 7 it still evolves even though the stat doesn't exits
man, post like this should be as bannable as the lazy dev arguement. people use it on this board as a threat to end discussion to much.