Pokémon Sword - Pokémon Shield (Isle of Armor, June 17, 2020) [NSW]

[Hitou]

I'm not sure how I feel about the expansion pass. It doesn't surprise me at all given the current gaming environment of paying 100+ bucks for "full games." Nintendo was slower to adopt it but many first party games now feature it. The content doesn't look like it will be bad but I'm sure it will be way too short for the $30 price. Even $20 for breath of the wild expansion pass felt a little steep given what all it included. At least you can transfer or trade for the extra pokemon without having to buy the pass if it's not something you want. I'll probably end up getting it because I'm stupid but we'll see.

[Madeline]

It's alright. Temtem will save us all.

*laughs in hopelessness*

[Serra]

https://twitter.com/BlueWestlo/statu...26107803144192

[Prothescar]

Ignoring the fact that buying a copy of a DS/3DS game and a 2nd copy of the DS/3DS game later down the line still cost less than buying SWSH and the DLC for no appreciable increase in value, and the fact that the DS/3DS had no reasonable way to accommodate larger expansion-lite DLC and sure. SWSH is $60 because that's the switch/console game standard, not because it had the content and uptick in value to be worth 33% more dollars. The Switch is going the route of DLC because it's far easier to sell and create than shipping an entire new SKU out to stores and producing a heap of new physical product in general and the Switch actually supports such a delivery platform, not because good guy Game Freak wants to save you money. Also ignoring the fact that you can't resell SWSH to buy USWUSH or GN or whatever the fuck it would have been because now you need to keep the base game to use the shiny new DLC (and don't tell me "NO WOULD WOULD BUY IT HEHE", yeah you're wrong. People still buy the 'normal' versions of each generation for nearly the same price as the 3rd/4th rerelease versions. Just don't be a lazy sleaze and bring it to GameStop. Put in a modicum of effort and thou shalt be rewarded.)

Math is hard, and so is realizing that those ridiculous arguments are an effort in false equivalency.

Maybe Gen 2 of this brave new Pokemon world will be where they put their money where their mouth is, but I won't be holding my breath. They don't have to push the envelope very hard to get millions of people to buy their product, and SWSH has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Kaslo]

These is also no indication that these expansion are "cut content" and "giving it another year in the oven" would have put this content in the main game. That's not how development works. But hey, I'm not some twitter pokeshitposter.

[Kirin]

These is also no indication that these expansion are "cut content" and "giving it another year in the oven" would have put this content in the main game. That's not how development works. But hey, I'm not some twitter pokeshitposter.

Well, announcing DLC that begins to address the issues that almost all of the negative release (and pre-release) media coverage referenced after a scant 2 months of release is a pretty big PR "Hey, sorry we fucked up" flag. Charging for it is just falling in line with current DLC models, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is also a little bit of a worry position on GF's part if their relationship with Nintendo is as tenuous as reported and they anticipate big pokemon changes coming.

It may not be cutting room floor content, but it absolutely is QoL improvements and an expanded vision supported by stronger hardware over previous games in the franchise that should have allowed the dev team to incorporate had this not been a half-cocked effort in the first place. They almost would have been better off doing S/S on the 3DS and then began working on Gun for the Switch to release Nov. 2020.

[Prothescar]

I doubt they're cut content. But I would agree with the dirty anti-poor-indie-dev-studio-known-as-Game-Freak dissenters that SWSH as a whole were woefully under populated with content regardless of whether you believe the DLC to be cut content or not, and adding back a generation or two worth of pokemon and two new wild areas that will undoubtedly get old after a couple hours doesn't solve that particular problem. Neither would a 3rd entry in the generation.

The problem is unsolvable because the generation is dog shit.

You hate to see it.

[Kaslo]

Well, announcing DLC that begins to address the issues that almost all of the negative release (and pre-release) media coverage referenced is a pretty big PR "Hey, sorry we fucked up" flag. Charging for it is just falling in line with current DLC models, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is also a little bit of a worry position on GF's part if their relationship with Nintendo is as tenuous as reported and they anticipate big pokemon changes coming.

It may not be cutting room floor content, but it absolutely is QoL improvements and an expanded vision supported by stronger hardware over previous games in the franchise that should have allowed the dev team to incorporate had this not been a half-cocked effort in the first place. They almost would have been better off doing S/S on the 3DS and then began working on Gun for the Switch to release Nov. 2020.

I cannot tell what your argument against my post exactly is... you agree with me, but want it to be free?

[Kirin]

I cannot tell what your argument against my post exactly is... you agree with me, but want it to be free?

I'm saying you're right in that it may not be cutting floor content.

I'm also saying that GF knows they botched this. Instead of trying to fix at least some of it before asking for more money, after delivering a weaker product for $10 more compared to previous entries, they expect $30 dollars to access content that should have been included based on previous entries.

In my mind, people paid $60 for under half of National pokedex and then are now expected to pay $30 more for an additional 20%. Good faith in fixing the problem would have simply been to add the pokemon for everyone, and have the DLC strictly be new areas and story. But to obtain these pokemon, I either have to rely on people who bought the DLC or purchase it myself. That does not fly with me.

I never expect "new" content, cutting floor or not, to be free. I do expect the base game based on 100% of previous generations to be included for the original retail price. That is where this franchise is losing a lot of good faith with me and my wallet.

[Kaslo]

I didn't know prices should be equivalent to pokedex size. That's a weird metric for game pricing.

[6souls]

I didn't know prices should be equivalent to pokedex size. That's a weird metric for game pricing.

Let's go full Pokemon Go and give the Pokemon for free, but charge for items.

[Kirin]

I didn't know prices should be equivalent to pokedex size. That's a weird metric for game pricing.

I didn't know excluding half of a franchise's concept for "PS2 limitations", but then asking for more money to access that content on the same hardware is a great business decision. That's a greedy metric for game pricing.

Gamefreak has literally No Man's Sky-ed Pokemon. At least a lot of those fixes were free.

Should we expect only half of Zelda dungeons to be included in future retail releases, with $30 expansion packs along the way? Is Animal Crossing going to start charging us a monthly $15 mortgage fee before we pay off Tom Nook or get locked out of the game?

Let me ask this a different way. What, in how GF has approached this gen, makes you okay with how they are presenting the pricing for this title?

[Serra]

Except they weren't excluded due to limitations? They were excluded to balance the game. A lot of people took that to mean competitive balance, but I don't think that's entirely the explanation.

There are nearly one-thousand pokemon. Let's say there are twenty routes. That means, on average, each route houses fifty pokemon. No one wants to run around a route for five hours because there's a sub 1% chance of getting the one pokemon you want.

Beyond that though, they had to draw the line at some point. If not one-thousand, then when? At two-thousand pokemon? Five-thousand? Ten-thousand? At what point, is it okay to limit the number of available pokemon?

[6souls]

No one wants to run around a route for five hours because there's a sub 1% chance of getting the one pokemon you want.

Good thing shiny pokemon don't exist in this game.

[Serra]

I actually think shiny hunting helps my point -- how many people actually shiny hunt?

If you don't limit the number of pokemon, you would eventually get to the point that a specific pokemon on a route has the same chance of catching a shiny.

[Obsidian]

I'm saying you're right in that it may not be cutting floor content.

I'm also saying that GF knows they botched this. Instead of trying to fix at least some of it before asking for more money, after delivering a weaker product for $10 more compared to previous entries, they expect $30 dollars to access content that should have been included based on previous entries.

Ah yes, previous entries where you could wild encounter all 900+ pokemo- what?

The pokedex update is free. You've never been able to catch previous gen pokemon in bulk in the wild. You've always had to buy every version you wanted a pokemon from, connect them together through two+ devices/services, and then catch just the thing you transfered over through the Battle Frontier or some other bullshit that was always locked behind completing the game. It's never been cheap, easy or convenient to "catch 'em all." This revisionist history is total bullshit.

If you don't like the game then you don't like the game, but let's not plug our ears and pretend the process of catching older pokemon was at all any better than it is now, or that it was any cheaper.

[Karbuncle]

Except they weren't excluded due to limitations? They were excluded to balance the game.

They were absolutely excluded because of the unfortunate production cycle. This isn't even conspiracy theory level, you can just google it. Theres the corporate answer and the actual answer, the actual answer being they couldn't do what they wanted too in the time frame given so they had to cut them.

Though your idea of it being because there would be like 50 pokemon per route does raise a valid concern about an ever growing dex and how they could possibly handle that without vastly expanding the scope of these games (which, I'm all for, and should have happened by now) --edit--: I should also mention that in most if now all games when it came to the National Dex, Pokemon just weren't capturable in the game, only transferable... so they do have work-arounds to that particular problem in place. I think the only game that "added" Pokemon to capture lists post game was Black+White?

[Kirin]

Ah yes, previous entries where you could wild encounter all 900+ pokemo- what?

The pokedex update is free. You've never been able to catch previous gen pokemon in bulk in the wild. You've always had to buy every version you wanted a pokemon from, connect them together through two+ devices/services, and then catch just the thing you transfered over through the Battle Frontier or some other bullshit that was always locked behind completing the game. It's never been cheap, easy or convenient to "catch 'em all." This revisionist history is total bullshit.

If you don't like the game then you don't like the game, but let's not plug our ears and pretend the process of catching older pokemon was at all any better than it is now, or that it was any cheaper.

You're so right. I'm sorry.

Gamefreak. Here is my $90 dollars. Ill boot up right now and transfer my Pokebank stuff to SS so that I can finish my national de....wait a minute.

In your example, please show me where I missed you had to pay for an expansion on top of retail to access PalPark, Frontier, Transfer Lab, etc. The worst offender, you could argue, was the monthly sub to Pokebank but that was more understandable because of format shifts between the generation gaps, which is why we're getting Home.

I fail to see what is so difficult that GF can't do everything you described in opening up a national dex at the end of the game (like they have every other gen, development or hardware limitations aside) and leave the $30 money-grab to additional story content and new areas. X/Y handled 700+ just fine even after limiting the first playthrough to the regional dex. I don't recall having any such issue with 800+ on USUM. Suddenly the Switch needs to be fed money to accomplish what the 3DS did for free? That's not flying with me.

[Kaslo]

You're so right. I'm sorry.

Gamefreak. Here is my $90 dollars. Ill boot up right now and transfer my Pokebank stuff to SS so that I can finish my national de....wait a minute.

In your example, please show me where I missed you had to pay for an expansion on top of retail to access PalPark, Frontier, Transfer Lab, etc. The worst offender, you could argue, was the monthly sub to Pokebank but that was more understandable because of format shifts between the generation gaps, which is why we're getting Home.

I fail to see what is so difficult that GF can't do everything you described in opening up a national dex at the end of the game (like they have every other gen, development or hardware limitations aside) and leave the $30 money-grab to additional story content and new areas. X/Y handled 700+ just fine even after limiting the first playthrough to the regional dex. I don't recall having any such issue with 800+ on USUM. Suddenly the Switch needs to be fed money to accomplish what the 3DS did for free? That's not flying with me.

You don't need to pay the additional $30 to transfer in the new 200 pokemon in the dex...

[Kirin]

You don't need to pay the additional $30 to transfer in the new 200 pokemon in the dex...

I must have missed this. How do you transfer those pokemon to SS then without buying the expansion?