This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

  • 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. Jim Sterling on the Pokemon Business Plan

User Info: JarodLH

JarodLH
1 week ago#61
RaulJenkins posted...
i like Jim Sterling

Switch: 1665-2126-6417 SMM2 ID: 69H-9NR-VPG.
Fan of Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem and Xenoblade.

User Info: bd43

bd43
1 week ago#62
Dumb-Fumbler posted...
how. Ultra sun and Ultra Moon weren’t the only games that did this. But those other games couldn’t be DLC (that I’m aware of) at their times.

Because what they did could have been DLC but was pushed as individual experiences rather than a more well defined experience. B2W2 were at least new stories that filled in the holes of BW.

USUM are entirely uintuitive as purchases *and* have exclusives - even to each other - that strain the model.

The only games that come close are LGPE.

ChibiRidley posted...
I think version exclusivity comes across as particularly scummy when it comes to DLC content

I purchased Pokemon Shield knowing exactly how it differentiated from Pokemon Sword, but now theres going to be downloadable content that takes away the informed part of my informed decision.

I can also 100% agree with this, and think this could be one of the biggest DLC issues.
Thinking is overrated. Like Pants.

User Info: mongopikis

mongopikis
1 week ago#63
DementedDurian posted...
Now you guys are comparing Nintendo to Pol Pot? I want to spew (more) nonsense, too!

...

Lasers are safe to drink. They contain no pineapple leaves and nine out of seven plumbers agree to this.

...

There. Your turn.
I never mentioned nintendo? And you're the one comparing A to B, as if B being worse means that A isn't bad or that A is justified in being bad.

But fine, I corrected my statement to a less inflammatory one.

User Info: DementedDurian

DementedDurian
1 week ago#64
mongopikis posted...
I never mentioned nintendo? And you're the one comparing A to B, as if B being worse means that A isn't bad or that A is justified in being bad.

But fine, I corrected my statement to a less inflammatory one.
I referred to my earlier statement about Skylanders. Skylanders & Genociders (A) and Nintendo & Murderers (B).

Also changed my message, too.
You can pick your battles, and you can pick your nose. But you can't pick your battle's nose.

User Info: LordDiscord

LordDiscord
1 week ago#65
Dumb-Fumbler posted...



Point 1) So then we are in agreement?

Point 2) Obviously they are going to capitalize on it, that is what businesses do. Not every aspect of a business or game is going to be entirely consumer friendly.

Point 3) So your saying make Trade evos, and the starter pokemon the "ONLY" reason to trade? Then that underminds the purpose of trading then. Think of the games as if they are digital trading cards, you require someone to have a "Pokemon/Card" that would be seen as worth trading your "Pokemon/Card" for, if you only include things that was design for the gimmick and nothing else, it not only takes away the incentive to trade other pokemon, but it also makes the completion of the Dex extremely easy and takes away any challenge to it.

Point 4) That's the thing though, who is going to just buy two versions of the same game? If your willing to shill out 120 dollars for two copies of Sword or two copies of Shield, then why not just shill out 120 on both versions. It yet again goes back to the purpose of "Choice". Well then, what are these other ''examples'' then? Regardless of what ''other'' method they could use, the result would be the same. Pokemon would have to be made exclusive somewhere to incentivize trading, otherwise why would little Timmy trade his Charizard to little Tommy, for his Vileplume, if little Timmy could just go capture the oddish himself? I will admit I did not know that, about Braviary and Mandibuzz but then again, that is playing into my point, something is going to have to be exclusive, otherwise why would I trade a Braviary for a Mandibuzz when I can just go capture the Mandibuzz myself?

Point 5) Isn't that the point? Why would they make 2 entirely different games, that have different characters, stories , pokemon and items and possible locations in it? The point of both games being effectively identical to eachother minus the legends and some pokemon is so that you are "NOT" forced two buy both versions, where as they would be if the versions were build purposefully to be different from one another, Think of Sword and Shield's exclusive Gyms and Gym Leaders, but on a more massive scale.

Yes they are a business, businesses exist to make money, if they just did everything in their power to prevent their consumers from "Spending'' money, they would go out of business and many people would be out of a job.

Point 6) By "Locked" content, I mean content, that buy no means, can you access without buying the other version, even in Black and White 2 and the Braviary example, you could still get either Braviary or Mandibuzz in your copy buy having someone trade it to you, you did not require to go buy the other version, you never have been. Also those pokemon you mentioned were promotions for entirely different games that are separate from those titles, its very likely you were going to purchase those games, for their story and what they have to offer more than just buying them to get some pokemon. But even still, you are not required to buy them. The point of the matter is, if you make the decision, they you are only going to give Game Freak and Nintendo 40 to 60 dollars (depending on the era of pokemon game) and no a cent more, you can do that, and still acquire all the pokemon, just because some pokemon was lock other games did not mean you could not obtain them in your game through trading.

Point 7) There has never been anything really anti consumer about it either other than giving Game Freak and Nintendo more money. I never admitted to anything please don't put words in my mouth, the only thing I "Admitted'' to was agreeing that they are a business and this is what busniesses do. They are not going to stop attempting to make money, just because you seemingly don't want them too. Trading is the gimmick of pokemon, its what gives purpose to the collection aspect of it, they go hand in hand. Trading I would argue is far more integral to pokemon than the National Dex ever was, its not something they can just "Remove'' for the supposed betterment of the consumer. And if they did, how would people get Legendaries they happened to miss the event on? Or acquire the other starter pokemon? Or heck even as you stated, evolve pokemon that requires trading? They can't remove trading, and they have to make incentives for people to want to trade.
What fun is there in making sense?
SW-3000-8833-9917 (Switch Code) Sword IGN Discord, Shield IGN Eris.

User Info: mongopikis

mongopikis
1 week ago#66
DementedDurian posted...
I referred to my earlier statement about Skylanders. Skylanders & Genociders (A) and Nintendo & Murderers (B).

Also changed my message, too.

Yeah.

Lets sum up the argument in objective statements.

Argument: A is bad.
Counter-argument: B is worse.

At best, the Counter-Argument is irrelevant to the Argument. In the context of a discussion, the implication is that the user of the Counter-Argument is trying to excuse the faults of A on the basis of B being worse.

The fact that you realize you need to draw a line at murder and genocide (in comparison to video game practices) shows that you understand the argument is hugely flawed and illogical. I'm just taking it to the extreme to show you how illogical those statements are, since you seem to think its logical if the scale is only limited to profit (it isn't. It's still irrelevant at best and illogical if used as a refutation). I don't actually even think DLC is that predatory or that Skylanders is any better. My issue is with the argument itself.

User Info: Rydershigh

Rydershigh
1 week ago#67
even if he agrees with me I don’t care about some random dudes opinion on YouTube of all places, their there to make money not a juicy debate. They care for ad revenue and views nothing more and news like the DLC is free real estate
*FC:414-1957-7120
"Everyone Withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum"

User Info: Dumb-Fumbler

Dumb-Fumbler
1 week ago#68
bd43 posted...
Because what they did could have been DLC but was pushed as individual experiences rather than a more well defined experience. B2W2 were at least new stories that filled in the holes of BW.

USUM are entirely uintuitive as purchases *and* have exclusives - even to each other - that strain the model.

The only games that come close are LGPE.
That means we’re agreeing, did I understand what you said incorrectly initially?
Icicle Crash + Heat Crash = Waterfall

User Info: DementedDurian

DementedDurian
1 week ago#69
mongopikis posted...
Yeah.

Lets sum up the argument in objective statements.

Argument: A is bad.
Counter-argument: B is worse.

At best, the Counter-Argument is irrelevant to the Argument. In the context of a discussion, the implication is that the user of the Counter-Argument is trying to excuse the faults of A on the basis of B being worse.

The fact that you realize you need to draw a line at murder and genocide (in comparison to video game practices) shows that you understand the argument is hugely flawed and illogical. I'm just taking it to the extreme to show you how illogical those statements are, since you seem to think its logical if the scale is only limited to profit (it isn't. It's still irrelevant at best and illogical if used as a refutation). I don't actually even think DLC is that predatory or that Skylanders is any better. My issue is with the argument itself.
I don't know what else to tell you. I like the game. I don't think of Nintendo in the same vein as murderers (who reasonably would?). I just hate talking semantics. It's what this forum seems to been reduced to. I think I'm going to play the game. Good night.
You can pick your battles, and you can pick your nose. But you can't pick your battle's nose.

User Info: ForteEXE3850

ForteEXE3850
1 week ago#70
As much as I like Pokemon their business model has always been scummy.

They're scummy because they know they are so popular they can get away with it.
Mwahahahaha.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon Sword
  3. Jim Sterling on the Pokemon Business Plan
  • Topic Archived

GameFAQs Answers