• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon Sword
  3. Would you be opposed to DLC Pokémon costumes?

User Info: LordDiscord

LordDiscord
1 week ago#21
Only if they were limited to a certain mode or the camping feature. If the costume would appear, everywhere, regardless if they are in battle or just messing around in the camping function, then I am totally fine with it. But the one thing they would have to make it is, that trading the pokemon would automatically either return the costume to you once traded or would not allow you to trade said pokemon as long as said costume is equipt to it. Because that would be kind of dumb to pay for a costume, put it on a pokemon and then trade that pokemon, while forgetting to remove the costume and then trade the costume( you had to pay real money for) away, by accident.
What fun is there in making sense?

User Info: LordDiscord

LordDiscord
1 week ago#22
Baha05 posted...
Yeah most likely just on the notion that:

A. Most likely will not transfer

B. Will most likely also just rot kind of like Notch Pichu, Cosplay Pikachu, all these f***ing hat Pikachus in Go along with the other variants

I don't think TC is meaning that the costumes will be like pokemon like Ash Hat Pikachu or Pikachu Libre, I think they mean actually costumes you can dress your pokemon up, like what you can do in Let's Go with your partner pokemon only to every pokemon.
What fun is there in making sense?

User Info: TigerTycoon

TigerTycoon
1 week ago#23
Careful.

First, it's "cosmetics don't effect game play", so it's okay to charge for them.

Then it's "yeah, the game in intentionally extra grindy, and they're selling "time savers" for real money that make the game less grindy, but you can earn everything in the game without paying extra.

Then before you know it you have Ghost Recon Breakpoint, which is selling everything for real money, cosmetics, skipping progression, and pay to win.
YOU COULDN'T AFFORD IT!

User Info: Mulate

Mulate
1 week ago#24
TigerTycoon posted...
Careful.

First, it's "cosmetics don't effect game play", so it's okay to charge for them.

Then it's "yeah, the game in intentionally extra grindy, and they're selling "time savers" for real money that make the game less grindy, but you can earn everything in the game without paying extra.

Then before you know it you have Ghost Recon Breakpoint, which is selling everything for real money, cosmetics, skipping progression, and pay to win.
IMO, its too late for the "give em an inch and they'll take a mile" speech for the franchise. Pokemon GO and Masters are things.

User Info: TigerTycoon

TigerTycoon
1 week ago#25
Mulate posted...
TigerTycoon posted...
Careful.

First, it's "cosmetics don't effect game play", so it's okay to charge for them.

Then it's "yeah, the game in intentionally extra grindy, and they're selling "time savers" for real money that make the game less grindy, but you can earn everything in the game without paying extra.

Then before you know it you have Ghost Recon Breakpoint, which is selling everything for real money, cosmetics, skipping progression, and pay to win.
IMO, its too late for the "give em an inch and they'll take a mile" speech for the franchise. Pokemon GO and Masters are things.

I'm just tired of people using the "it's okay to charge extra for cosmetics because they don't effect the game play" excuse, like publishers haven't moved way beyond that point already.

And the argument that "cosmetics don't matter" is a lie in the first place, if they really didn't matter then they wouldn't be selling them for extra. People like dressing up their characters.
YOU COULDN'T AFFORD IT!

User Info: c0mpu73rguy

c0mpu73rguy
1 week ago#26
TigerTycoon posted...
And the argument that "cosmetics don't matter" is a lie in the first place, if they really didn't matter then they wouldn't be selling them for extra. People like dressing up their characters.


Not in J-RPGs (speaking for myself here). That goes against the very principle of these types of games for me. You're supposed to play a character like in theatre, not like in a tabletop rpg. That's W-RPG's thing.
It's always too soon until it's too late.

User Info: Wetterdew

Wetterdew
1 week ago#27
If they're gonna make new designs of old pokemon, they might as well just make them regional forms instead of "costumes" IMO
Touch fuzzy get dizzy.

User Info: NeoArashi

NeoArashi
1 week ago#28
Dumb-Fumbler posted...
Castform, simple and ethereal.

i like.

It looks like what it should have looked like under Shadow Rain in Pokemon XD
My signature is not important.

User Info: Kajagogo

Kajagogo
1 week ago#29
Yes, because then what would stop them from having DLC based evolutions?
By Grabthar's Hammer....what a savings.

User Info: Boreale

Boreale
1 week ago#30
Since there's a lot of possible customization possible for ou trainers this time, I'm guessing they'll make DLC costumes for the trainers.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon Sword
  3. Would you be opposed to DLC Pokémon costumes?
  • Topic Archived