Jump to content

Third versions or season passes?


Zapp Branniglenn
 Share

Season passes or third versions?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Season passes or third versions?

    • I'd rather season passes than buying a new game
      14
    • I'd rather buy a new game than download a season pass
      3
    • Must we choose between these two? Must we?
      9


Recommended Posts

So today's Pokemon Direct, which is here if you didn't watch, announced a series first - paid DLC. It's an interesting moment for pokemon fans since the question of whether they would do this sort of DLC content for a pokemon game has almost never been raised. The same is true of free DLC updates. Pokemon games would release, patch out a game breaking bug, and that's it. That's the game, forever. Does it look like ORAS is getting the Battle Frontier cut content in a free update due to a "coming soon!" sign in that area? Sorry bud. In an era of post-launch updates, game developers are often accused of pushing out unfinished products, or unmarked early access products that aren't worth full price on launch day. And when the new content is behind a paywall, they face another layer of accusations about "withheld content" or " things that ought to have been in the main game in the first place".

So Pokemon entering these conversations puts it in a tricky spot in light of Sword and Shield critics claiming the game is too content-lite. But let's not forget the expansion passes pokemon players are used to. I'm talking of course about Third Versions. Games like pokemon Emerald, Black 2 and White 2, and so on. These games were brought up explicitly in the Direct as something they want to move away from. Asking players to buy another game at full price just to see a little bit of new content. However much backlash there was surrounding third versions, it was never enough, in my opinion. So I'm glad we're done with that practice. But I have to ask myself, are season passes the more consumer friendly alternative? In terms of pricing it may be. If you're content with owning just one season pass for your one pokemon game, that's thirty dollars (US), or half the price of a theoretical Ultra Sword/Shield game. Buuuuut, the third version games we've seen were on gb/gba/ds/3DS. New pokemon games for those systems, as far as I can remember were 30-45$, so the discounted price isn't as discounted when you think about it like that. It looks like the amount of money Game Freak would have made on sales of previous generations of third versions. And that Pokemon's recent price hike up to 60 dollars is more a convenient red herring to make us think we're getting a way better deal than an alternative price model that had never happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but Black 2 and White 2 is a sequel, nor a "remake". They improved some stuff over BW1, like PWT, obtainable eevee (before the eevee was a gift from a NPC), more double battle, etc.

To be frank, I would like to see a third game. Pokémon became boorish since X/Y.

 

Edited by link16hit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, link16hit said:

Sorry, but Black 2 and White 2 is a sequel, nor a "remake". They improved some stuff over BW1, like PWT, obtainable eevee (before the eevee was a gift from a NPC), more double battle, etc.

While I agree Black 2 and White 2 were games worthy of being called "sequels" since the plot is not a remix of the previous games, It's Game Freak who lumped them together with other third versions in the Direct. So blame them.

This is also the same Game Freak that still insists Pokemon Let's Go are main series games. And I agree lol.  They're Kanto remakes. Get ready for Johto's soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends. I liked B2W2 and Ultra Sun. But I'd still prefer the season pass thing over something like Platinum or Emerald. So really, I want either straight sequels like gens 5 and 7 got or a season pass.

We need Sinnoh remakes before Johto gets another. We're nearly at 14 years since Sinnoh first became a thing.

Edited by Anacybele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think they should just take their time and release a full quality product. Not the shoddy thing they tried to pass with Sword and Shield. But thats unlikely to ever happen since pokemon makes a lot of money and even if a lot of people (generally an older crowd) refuses to buy pokemon for its lack of quality, they have new fans discovering the series every year.

I'm a cranky old coot though, just give me my sinnoh remakes and i will leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically, you'd expect the 3rd games to usually be like 80-90% the same as the initial 2 versions that came out with some slight changes and additions. I think the season pass is overall a better implementation of these updates as you don't have to play through what you've already done again to continue and play the new content.

Let's just hope said new content is good.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of the Pokemon Expansion Pass and i think it works better than a 3rd version, especially since it's cheaper. However, in the case of SwSh, this feels like something that should've been in the base game. SwSh base has a barebones amount of contet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Armagon said:

I like the idea of the Pokemon Expansion Pass and i think it works better than a 3rd version, especially since it's cheaper. 

My sentiments. I can't judge Sw/Sh due to not having played myself. The era of third versions is past, much as the era of old fighting game things like:

  • Street Fighter II: The World Warrior
  • Street Fighter II: Champion Edition
  • Street Fighter II Turbo: Hyper Fighting
  • Super Street Fighter II: The New Challengers 
  • Super Street Fighter II Turbo
  • Hyper Street Fighter II

 

Online connections allowing for patches and DLC makes enhanced versions, on the original release system, that are mostly the same game utterly obsolete.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Armagon said:

I like the idea of the Pokemon Expansion Pass and i think it works better than a 3rd version, especially since it's cheaper. However, in the case of SwSh, this feels like something that should've been in the base game. SwSh base has a barebones amount of contet. 

It's not even cheaper. Buying D/P and then upgrading to Platinum when it came out costed $80. SwSh with its DLC is $90. Not to mention that you could have sold the 1st entries to get some money back before upgrading to the 3rd version. Or skipped the 1st entries entirely and just pay for the 3rd version. So at its lowest it was just $40 dollars upgrade. You don't get to that with SwSh since you need the base game before getting dlc.

For the record I don't like neither. The only good one in my eyes BW2 because that was a legit sequel. But between DLC and 3rd version I prefer 3rd version

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, link16hit said:

Sorry, but Black 2 and White 2 is a sequel, nor a "remake". They improved some stuff over BW1, like PWT, obtainable eevee (before the eevee was a gift from a NPC), more double battle, etc

This.

If they must make a second pair of games in the same region each generation, let BW2 be the template. Full sequels, not retreads with minor changes.

My second-favourite option is "go back to ONE third game". At least then you get a story involving all three version legendaries.

(For the record, SwSh need none of these; they already have the third-game plot. DP remakes then gen 9, please.)

EDIT: @Anacybele gen 7 didn't have sequels, just paired third versions.

Edited by Seafarer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seafarer said:

gen 7 didn't have sequels, just paired third versions.

Yep. and they made the story worst in Ultra Sun/Mon. They ruined one of my favorite Pokémon characters: Lusamine. She was great in S/M, but kinda meh in US/UM.

My opinion about Lillie, the best support character, is also not the same between both versions.

 

But about the topic, I prefer the expansion packs than a new game. Because it's cheaper and I can continue my savefile  from where I stopped.

I wonder if these new areas will only be available after the Championship... will we have Lv 70+ trainers?

Edited by Diovani Bressan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Seafarer said:

gen 7 didn't have sequels, just paired third versions.

It's still a different story with different player characters. I consider them sequels, just not traditional ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anacybele said:

It's still a different story with different player characters. I consider them sequels, just not traditional ones.

They're the same. And the story is no more different than D/P's is to Platinum's. It's a bit like calling Echoes: Shadows of Valentia a Gaiden sequel because it has slightly different plot and characterisation.

They're only sequels in the sense of "instalments in the same series released later", not in the narrative sense (which is what I meant).

@Diovani Bressan I agree with your assessment of USUM's plot changes. Though Ultra Necrozma was epic. In fact, Ultra Necrozma is everything that I liked about third versions, distilled into pure radiance: an existing legendary given new life with a lore-dump and plot significance.

Edited by Seafarer
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Seafarer said:

They're the same. And the story is no more different than D/P's is to Platinum's. It's a bit like calling Echoes: Shadows of Valentia a Gaiden sequel because it has slightly different plot and characterisation.

Explain to me how two entirely different character designs (in which neither are a disguise or anything) can be the same person. It doesn't make sense.

And the story is different. There's the stuff with Necrozma, the people that came from another world, the Aether Foundation people are treated differently, etc. It's not drastically different, but it still is.

Edited by Anacybele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Armagon said:

However, in the case of SwSh, this feels like something that should've been in the base game. SwSh base has a barebones amount of contet. 

This, 100%. This game has nothing to do at all, events wise. The game is great, sure, but it fell a bit short of the spectacular mark older pokemon games had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, in general, I'd rather get a season pass. Spending a relatively small amount for some additions over essentially buying the same game again + some additions any day. 

That said, I'm glad it's happening now, and not sooner. Outside of the obvious practical considerations in the case of Emerald and Platinum, story-wise, the changes in Platinum and Ultra Sun/Moon make far more sense as reworkings of the original than post-game additions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anacybele said:

Explain to me how two entirely different character designs (in which neither are a disguise or anything) can be the same person. It doesn't make sense.

And the story is different. There's the stuff with Necrozma, the people that came from another world, the Aether Foundation people are treated differently, etc. It's not drastically different, but it still is.

Did you even look at the links? The only difference between the designs of Elio and Selene in SM vs USUM is their default hairstyles. Which, I might add, you can change in-game.

You may as well say that Platinum's story is different from D/P's. There's the stuff with Giratina, the new character from the International Police, Team Galactic's plans are different, etc.

This isn't really the place for this discussion, though. If you want to continue it, would you mind sending a PM?

Edited by Seafarer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, NegativeExponents- said:

It's not even cheaper. Buying D/P and then upgrading to Platinum when it came out costed $80. SwSh with its DLC is $90. Not to mention that you could have sold the 1st entries to get some money back before upgrading to the 3rd version. Or skipped the 1st entries entirely and just pay for the 3rd version. So at its lowest it was just $40 dollars upgrade. You don't get to that with SwSh since you need the base game before getting dlc.

To be fair, it was only cheaper previously because handheld games were $40 at most. Pokemon games are gonna be $60 so in the long-run, the Expansion Pass would be cheaper. Of course, i do see your point about, if you just got the third version, then it's cheaper and i agree. But 3rd versions were more of the definitive version of a Gen (unless it's Gen 2, most people would rather play Gold/Silver over Crystal) whereas an expansion is, well, an expansion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Armagon said:

To be fair, it was only cheaper previously because handheld games were $40 at most. Pokemon games are gonna be $60 so in the long-run, the Expansion Pass would be cheaper.

 

Ok but that isn't some sort of universal price since there's a lot of Switch games sold for less than that and SwSh has no business being $60 dollars while offering less content than every other pokemon game after gen1. The only reason they cost $60 is because they get first party game privileges. Nintendo doesn't believe in pricing any of their stuff less than $60 whether they deserve it or not.

1 hour ago, Armagon said:

But 3rd versions were more of the definitive version of a Gen (unless it's Gen 2, most people would rather play Gold/Silver over Crystal) whereas an expansion is, well, an expansion. 

What difference does it make if it's the "definitive version" or an "expansion" though? It's still just taking the base game and adding or changing some stuff to make it a better experience.

Also, a bit off topic but you got me curious. I would understand if you said SM was better than USUM since they butchered the story and replaced the looker postgame with the recon squad while also not adding all that much but what does Gold/Silver have that Crytal doesn't? Crystal has animated sprites, battle tower, changes some wild pokemon encounters for the better, able to choose player gender, the suicune plot, new gift egg from the daycare couple which hatches into a random pokemon with a special move. Meanwhile G/S has what exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NegativeExponents- said:

Also, a bit off topic but you got me curious. I would understand if you said SM was better than USUM since they butchered the story and replaced the looker postgame with the recon squad while also not adding all that much but what does Gold/Silver have that Crytal doesn't? Crystal has animated sprites, battle tower, changes some wild pokemon encounters for the better, able to choose player gender, the suicune plot, new gift egg from the daycare couple which hatches into a random pokemon with a special move. Meanwhile G/S has what exactly?

Crystal's battle tower was terrible, let's just let some no name trainers bring their Zapdos to the battle tower, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2020 at 3:23 PM, Armagon said:

To be fair, it was only cheaper previously because handheld games were $40 at most.

So, to add to the whole pricing debate, uh... you guys know inflation exists, right? If you paid $40 for, say, RuSa back in the day, that's equal to ~$57 today. We've all actually been paying less for each new Pokémon release, and SwSh are just making a belated adjustment, as far as the base game goes.

For @NegativeExponents-'s example of buying D/P then Pt: in 2007 (for D/P), $40 was equal to $49.32 now. In 2009 (for Pt), it was $47.67. That total is more than today's $90, so Sw/Sh + Season Pass is cheaper than D/P + Platinum was.

Inflation calculator: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Seafarer said:

So, to add to the whole pricing debate, uh... you guys know inflation exists, right? If you paid $40 for, say, RuSa back in the day, that's equal to ~$57 today. We've all actually been paying less for each new Pokémon release, and SwSh are just making a belated adjustment, as far as the base game goes.

As far as I remember, GB and GBA games were 30 new and it was the DS era that moved up to 40.

The dollar amount of a product really depends on the market, though. If you relied on a generalized inflation calculator to figure out how much gas costed back then, you would miss the actual, exponential increase we've seen in that product's value in the last twenty years. Furthermore I could point to the lower cost of most food products and incorrectly say "see? Inflation is just a myth".

But yes it is pretty remarkable how much better of a deal we get on games these days if you look only at MSRP prices. That's not the whole story though, is it? Can I just say that publishers like EA love your inflation argument to justify their practices? We live in an era of "collectors editions", season passes, and lootboxes. Nickle and diming players to "recuperate the increased costs of game development" sounds like a hell of an argument. But If they wanted to sell their game at 80 dollars, there's nothing stopping them. They'll just make more sales off the base game if its price remains stagnant, and the extra content is held over the consumer's head as a premium. Saying any triple A game costs 60 dollars is generally a misinformed statement, because you can only expect the base game. Pokemon never had to be associated with that pricing model until now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

As far as I remember, GB and GBA games were 30 new and it was the DS era that moved up to 40.

The dollar amount of a product really depends on the market, though. If you relied on a generalized inflation calculator to figure out how much gas costed back then, you would miss the actual, exponential increase we've seen in that product's value in the last twenty years. Furthermore I could point to the lower cost of most food products and incorrectly say "see? Inflation is just a myth".

But yes it is pretty remarkable how much better of a deal we get on games these days if you look only at MSRP prices. That's not the whole story though, is it? Can I just say that publishers like EA love your inflation argument to justify their practices? We live in an era of "collectors editions", season passes, and lootboxes. Nickle and diming players to "recuperate the increased costs of game development" sounds like a hell of an argument. But If they wanted to sell their game at 80 dollars, there's nothing stopping them. They'll just make more sales off the base game if its price remains stagnant, and the extra content is held over the consumer's head as a premium. Saying any triple A game costs 60 dollars is generally a misinformed statement, because you can only expect the base game. Pokemon never had to be associated with that pricing model until now.

At least where I live, the price of GBA games was the same as the price of DS games: $80. I remember GB(C) games being more expensive, but I was quite young at the time, so I could be wrong on that count.

It's a fact that money tends to lose buying power with time in modern, western, capitalist economies. It's also a fact that the time (and therefore money) required to develop a game increases with computing power (though not necessarily linearly). It's another fact that EA's business policies are incredibly scummy, and that they use the previous two facts to try to justify it. I'm not quite sure what your point is, but you appear to be trying to poison the well to make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Seafarer said:

It's a fact that money tends to lose buying power with time in modern, western, capitalist economies. It's also a fact that the time (and therefore money) required to develop a game increases with computing power (though not necessarily linearly). It's another fact that EA's business policies are incredibly scummy, and that they use the previous two facts to try to justify it. I'm not quite sure what your point is, but you appear to be trying to poison the well to make it.

Why is it when somebody doesn't understand my point they just send me a link to a tv tropes/wiki page as if that's a substitute for a counter argument?

Whatever. Put the concept of inflation out of your mind for a more appropriate comparison to pokemon pricing: Pokemon in 2016 costed 40 dollars, and its "season pass" game costed 40 dollars the next year. That's 80 total. Pokemon Sword and Shield doing the same thing is 90. That's all the proof you need what we get in 2019/2020 is not a better deal for the consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...