Pokemon Dev on DLC: "I've Always Said 'No' To Paid Pokemon"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Expansion Pack.

Sell those! Let us go back to Unova, Kanto, Jhoto etc. New leaders, new pokemon, a bit of story. Id pay more than the average dlc for that, since it would be a true expansion pack. What did expansion packs used go for? $25-30? Id pay that.

So having pokemon be available in the form of DLC is bad but making 2 slightly different versions of the same game is standard practice?

What the fuck, Nintendo?

frobalt:
So having pokemon be available in the form of DLC is bad but making 2 slightly different versions of the same game is standard practice?

What the fuck, Nintendo?

The choice of making 2 slightly different versions of the same game is to promote its trading system. Without that, what would be the point of having the trade feature?

Mr Dizazta:

frobalt:
So having pokemon be available in the form of DLC is bad but making 2 slightly different versions of the same game is standard practice?

What the fuck, Nintendo?

The choice of making 2 slightly different versions of the same game is to promote its trading system. Without that, what would be the point of having the trade feature?

The trade feature would still make it easier to get all pokémon.

If you have a single player game, you shouldn't force the players to use a multi-player feature in order to complete the game.

It just seems to me like a cheap way to make more money.

Falterfire:
I don't know about Pokémans themselves, but I would pay $5 for the ability to have multiple saves and/or backups. I bought digital because I wanted to be able to have more than one save and a backup of my precious Pokémans in case anything went wrong and I was more than a bit annoyed to discover that not only did they disable the 3DS's built in save backup tech for X & Y, they also went to the trouble of implementing a system that prevents backup saves of any sort.

Really Nintendo? $40 for a game you're going to intentionally limit? THIS is why people pirate.

Aside from that aggravation: The other DLC I'd want is the ability to visit other regions and run the other gyms. Pokémon has always had an issue with lacking true high level content, with the highest level wild Pokés at level 60ish with nothing to do but grind the Elite 4 (Which are level 60-68 in this gen) all the way to 100.

That's something I could get behind, being able to pay for backing up a save file with boxes and items in case something happens. Pokemon bank is kinda fixing that problem, but it would be nice to send an actual save file to cloud, instead of just the Pokemon.

OT: I would be willing to pay for old event Pokemon, if they came in sets of say three for like 2 dollars, and if you want one by itself, it would be a dollar. I just want to be able to complete the Pokedex legitimately, and while I completed it in Black, I had a few Pokemon hacked by others because there was no other way to get them.

Could you imagine if a company like EA had control of Pokemon? It would be Microtransaction hell.

I'd give 'em a dollar to be able to dress as a member of Team Rocket.

Don't judge me.

There's something amusing about the notion that after having spent years milking every drop of their franchise through trading cards, toys, clothing, movies and other random merchandise, they draw the line at DLC.

frobalt:
So having pokemon be available in the form of DLC is bad but making 2 slightly different versions of the same game is standard practice?

What the fuck, Nintendo?

The excuse for the 'two different versions' thing is to force you to trade with people - which back in the day was largely invented to sell those Gameboy connection cables.

yeah, i'd pay some pocket change for fancier clothes, let's pull those reskinning kid gloves off and put some REAL fancy things in

@poster above: the difference between merchandising and DLC is that you're actually getting a real life piece of swag for your money, and that's fine, but as soon as you start messing with a game's system, a lot of things change, and there are important decisions to consider

nobody's going to start a riot if they sell more pokemon lollipops, on the other hand

weirdguy:

@poster above: the difference between merchandising and DLC is that you're actually getting a real life piece of swag for your money, and that's fine, but as soon as you start messing with a game's system, a lot of things change, and there are important decisions to consider

nobody's going to start a riot if they sell more pokemon lollipops, on the other hand

Sugimori's point against paying for pokemon was that they aren't eager to do it unless they can ensure you get reasonable value for their money. Now while I agree with you that DLC and microtransactions can adversely affect a game, I think it's pretty rich for Nintendo to start taking the high ground after spending years marketing seriously overpriced crap under the relentless 'catch em all' slogan. Especially those damn trading cards, where they arbitrarily assign them different levels of strength and thus give you a good chance that a booster pack turns out to be relatively worthless.

Shamanic Rhythm:

weirdguy:

@poster above: the difference between merchandising and DLC is that you're actually getting a real life piece of swag for your money, and that's fine, but as soon as you start messing with a game's system, a lot of things change, and there are important decisions to consider

nobody's going to start a riot if they sell more pokemon lollipops, on the other hand

Sugimori's point against paying for pokemon was that they aren't eager to do it unless they can ensure you get reasonable value for their money. Now while I agree with you that DLC and microtransactions can adversely affect a game, I think it's pretty rich for Nintendo to start taking the high ground after spending years marketing seriously overpriced crap under the relentless 'catch em all' slogan. Especially those damn trading cards, where they arbitrarily assign them different levels of strength and thus give you a good chance that a booster pack turns out to be relatively worthless.

I can't really hold that against them when M:tG has also been doing the same thing, and they're pretty much the leading example, although that's mostly because insane combinations can come from any kind of rarity card as long as they fall into place, and it's just as easy for something that looks really great to turn out to be garbage in practice

however, since their core concern is the games, they really have to make a strong effort to remain relevant in a time where people try to claim that pokemon doesn't have a role in the gaming world because they think their games are getting samey

Dragonbums:
I'm really glad he's putting his foot down on this.

Any other company would of gladly milked this franchise to death with bullshit DLC like that. It's great to see that the devs behind Pokemon are willing and respectable enough to give you the full game and nothing short of it.

That being said, I find it great that Nintendo "joins the present" with DLC and are still more progressive about it by only charging a fucking dollar for it. That's it. One buck.

The most expensive DLC they ever did was NSLU at $20.00. Yet that came with 80 levels, Luigi and Nabbit as playable characters and an insane spike in difficulty.
So much so, that it might as well be a game within itself.

Just this.

I fear that Microsoft (and possibly Sony) will commercialize their game consoles to death by focusing on graphics that no one asked for, games that don't change and bore everyone, and features no one wanted until people simply stop caring, and Nintendo will win out in the end. They may not be "winning" the console wars, but since the console wars are primarily between Sony and Microsoft anyway, they don't need to win; they've never been competing anyway. They've always won in their specific niche.

I figure having wonder cards for event items up for $1 might be reasonable, particularly for those that don't have access to event locations. Not really buying Pokemon, per say, just opening up events that will eventually lead to Pokemon.

Shamanic Rhythm:

weirdguy:

@poster above: the difference between merchandising and DLC is that you're actually getting a real life piece of swag for your money, and that's fine, but as soon as you start messing with a game's system, a lot of things change, and there are important decisions to consider

nobody's going to start a riot if they sell more pokemon lollipops, on the other hand

Sugimori's point against paying for pokemon was that they aren't eager to do it unless they can ensure you get reasonable value for their money. Now while I agree with you that DLC and microtransactions can adversely affect a game, I think it's pretty rich for Nintendo to start taking the high ground after spending years marketing seriously overpriced crap under the relentless 'catch em all' slogan. Especially those damn trading cards, where they arbitrarily assign them different levels of strength and thus give you a good chance that a booster pack turns out to be relatively worthless.

I don't think I have ever heard Pokemon use the "Gotta catch em all" slogan for a while. People who have claimed as such probably only remember them saying that 8 years ago. They stopped that at around Diamond and Pearl and the new message is literally be a Pokemon Master- ergo, not getting your ass handed to by every single EV trained Pokemon on wifi.

I find it funny though that you claim they are on some high ground. Pokemon has done DLC before. Only difference was that they were completely free and up until a couple of years ago required a simple trip to Gamestop (if your in the states) or a wifi connection.

Over priced? How unless your in the infamous New Zealand or Australian areas Pokemon is no more expensive than the average than the average 3DS/DS game. $35 bucks aint' overpriced pal. The games are especially not crap. You might want to point that accusation at some of the AAA big budget titles that charge you $60.00 for "next gen graphics" with only 10 hours of gameplay, still charges you over $10.00 DLC for map/skin packs, and if you get a PS4, will have to pay for multiplayer through Sony PS+ just to use their online feature.

But a game that's half the price, doesn't charge you for online, gives you much more hours of gameplay time, and the ability to play, trade, show off, battle, with literally ANYONE in the world is overpriced crap and Gamefreak taking a moral high ground.

As others have said, region expansion. I'd pay money to be able to go to Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, Unova so I could fight their gyms. X/Y really does need solid post-game content, as of now it's quite lacking.

Having DLC pokemon would absolutely kill the game, same way the auction house killed Diablo 3. If they are going to do that then they might as well make the game freemium. Now if they were to add more endgame content like visiting other regions and whatnot, that would be sweet. Paid DLC pokemon would just kill the experience though.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here