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: Dumb-Fumbler

Dumb-Fumbler
1 week ago#71
LordDiscord posted...
Point 3) So your saying make Trade evos, and the starter pokemon the "ONLY" reason to trade?
No, I’m saying that they make it more consumer friendly. They still aren’t consumer friendly in that you need to trade but they are the better of the two evils that they have in place, with version exclusives being entirely locked in certain games being the absolute worst they did, for whatever reason.
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?
The thing you literally couldn’t catch a mandibuzz or a braviary. It was impossible to see one on your version of the game same for Braviary in its opposing game. You can’t catch or ever see mandibuzz/ braviary in your game or their pre-evolutions. The act of trading to evolve was already incentive enough to trade despite being a bit annoying, but the person buying it still has an option of going with whatever version. They limit the choice of the consumer or “strain their hand” They can like the exclusives in one half and the other half in their game, it’s not necessarily a “free” choice. And I use that lightly.

Its not the only game that requires you to do more than what you should be doing to complete a task. As someone pointed out, not only do you need the 3DS to use the Dream Radar (a separate application) to access the content in the game but you need the opposing version to access some content that exists in your own game. You can’t access the content in your own game unless you had the opposite version. If you had a DS, the platform the game was released on you couldn’t access the venues unless you had a 3DS. This edit genies in their unique forms were not available in black and white, they locked it to the third version.

Giratina was locked to platinum with its unique form, you couldn’t have that form in pearl or diamond. Necrozma and the new UBs were locked to USUM, if you had SM you couldn’t access them despite being in the same generation.

Pokemon needs to evolve (pun not intended, ok maybe a little) to at least be more modern. Their games already sell tremendously well already, they’ll become even more complacent if they don’t break from old molds that restrict them.
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.
It’s a waste of time. They waste their time on modeling two “completely” different games that can be used elsewhere in other areas where the games were lacking at any point. And the thing is, if they marketed the third versions of games in the same way they marketed the first version of the games or just had the single game as a stand-alone for the generation, they would have sold just as much.
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.
That’s the issue, they are locked to the other game. It’s not only about the version exclusives in your game, it’s about the other person having the opposing version for it to work. If theoretically Game A (like sword) and game B(like shield) are at a differing odds of occurring ie Shield only makes up 1/4 or 1/5 of the available player base, while sword makes up the rest of the player base, you have to hope you match up with someone that has the opposite game to get the Pokémon you need. If you and me have shield, I have no significant need to trade with you. If you have sword, I have a significant need to trade with you. If we had a game that only needed trade evos and no version exclusives, I have a need to trade with you only for those.
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.
I’m not asking them to remove trading I’m asking for it to be made friendlier to the consumer. There’s no need for two versions of the same game in this day and age. And I didn’t put words in your mouth, I simply highlighted what you said, which was the issue and you realize the situation at hand. We may not agree but you at least recognize what’s going on and that it’s been going on for a long time now
Icicle Crash + Heat Crash = Waterfall

User Info: Philip027

Philip027
1 week ago#72
I don't really see the problem with the two versions thing (it was a bit more... innovative at the time I guess, even if by now it seems archaic and done mostly because "that's how it's always been") because yeah, most people aren't gonna buy both games, especially now with the Switch technically allowing you to keep multiple save files with one copy of the game if you so wish. It was really just a simple means to encourage player networking, and still mostly is.

Agreed with pretty much every other point in the video though. It was pointed out here in another thread (where the DLC was being labeled as a ripoff) where someone basically responded that if anything, we've been getting ripped off before with the "third versions" and only now are we starting to get a better deal with the DLC instead.

User Info: ChocoboDreams

ChocoboDreams
1 week ago#73
It should be noted that Jim is a jaded cynic with a hard-on for hating corporations for the smallest slight. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, per se, nor that the things he says in this video aren't particularly true, but he doesn't even play the pokemon games much less like them. I didn't agree with the two versions thing either, I don't think that was a decision made with the intention of screwing over people.

User Info: mongopikis

mongopikis
1 week ago#74
ChocoboDreams posted...
It should be noted that Jim is a jaded cynic with a hard-on for hating corporations for the smallest slight. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, per se, nor that the things he says in this video aren't particularly true, but he doesn't even play the pokemon games much less like them. I didn't agree with the two versions thing either, I don't think that was a decision made with the intention of screwing over people.
Pretty sure he played SwSh, or at least Pokemon, and may have enjoyed it to a degree. Otherwise he wouldn't have ranted about Ekans and the Bethesda Rave wouldn't be him dancing to the Gym theme for a full minute.

User Info: Philip027

Philip027
1 week ago#75
He's played this one at the very least; he's done a review on them where he explicitly talks about his own experiences in the game.

If you view the two versions thing as a "con" though, it's gonna be hard for anyone to write that off as a "slight" when the company releasing them has been continuing to do it over 20 years.

User Info: hereforemnant

hereforemnant
1 week ago#76
mongopikis posted...
Pretty sure he played SwSh, or at least Pokemon, and may have enjoyed it to a degree. Otherwise he wouldn't have ranted about Ekans and the Bethesda Rave wouldn't be him dancing to the Gym theme for a full minute.
Jim did like parts of it, he wasn't as cynical about it as say, SkillUp was. He hates it with a burning passion and opens the floodgates to dump on Pokemon whenever it's relevant.

Jim does hate the corruption of capitalism that we've been getting further into for years now though. Gaming is introducing how profitable it can be through mobile gaming and microtransactions, and it's killing the industry in the process

3DS Friend Code: FC: 0318-7199-1150

User Info: NeonDragon9000

NeonDragon9000
1 week ago#77
RaulJenkins posted...
i like Jim Sterling
Who is Jim Sterling?
nd9k: everything i post is terrible

User Info: Dumb-Fumbler

Dumb-Fumbler
1 week ago#78
NeonDragon9000 posted...
Who is Jim Sterling?
The one in the video
Icicle Crash + Heat Crash = Waterfall

User Info: ai123

ai123
1 week ago#79
I don't mind the two initial versions. There is almost no reason to buy both, and you certainly aren't required to do so to enjoy the game.

Third versions are a bit harder to defend. The differences from the original don't really justify a new release. DLC is a better way to go.
'The sprites is ridiculous polygons'

User Info: Lum_Yatsura

Lum_Yatsura
1 week ago#80
hereforemnant posted...
Jim did like parts of it, he wasn't as cynical about it as say, SkillUp was. He hates it with a burning passion and opens the floodgates to dump on Pokemon whenever it's relevant.

Jim does hate the corruption of capitalism that we've been getting further into for years now though. Gaming is introducing how profitable it can be through mobile gaming and microtransactions, and it's killing the industry in the process

Killing the industry eh? We're staring at the abyss on this board already.
Gaming would die if the dexit whiners won a resounding victory, and totalitarian national dex enforcement went industry wide.
Shouting "what did you do that for?" at a stationary bucket of water.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon Sword
  3. Jim Sterling on the Pokemon Business Plan
  • Topic Archived

GameFAQs Answers