Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Glennstavos

Third versions or season passes?

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

Sometime I feel like I'm the only person who really liked SM/USUM. 😛

How should I say this ? I'd prefer to have a game fully made and sold as it without BS after it. But alas...
And that they take their times, we don't need a Pokemon game each years. It's probably to milk the franchise, but geez.

I feel like a boomer, now we can say "it was the good time ! third pokemon version !" Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, B.Leu said:

Sometime I feel like I'm the only person who really liked SM/USUM. 😛

I really liked SM because it improved so much on XY by replacing the ugly chibi models, having a better postgame, finally getting rid of HMs while still keeping the exploration alive with the pokerides, bottlecaps because IVs were a mistake, islands was neat by providing something for boxed pokemon and getting useful rewards, the pokemon refresh actually served a purpose other than just getting Sylveon and it was cute to be able to pet your pokemon with a lot of them having unique effects on certain parts of their body, wasn't afraid to try something new by replacing gyms with the trials, island challenges, champion title defense, and having evolving legendaries, and the story was amazing for a pokemon game. On par with Gen V which is good after the bland and forgettable plot of XY.

I dislike USUM though for being a 3rd version split into two that didn't even add as much as other 3rd versions, causing compatibility issues with SM because of the new pokemon, and changing the story for the worse. It was harder though and the new regional dex was better so I guess it at least did two things right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

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.

Eh. Tell me your point if you want me to understand it. If you don't, there's no real point talking about it. (Also, pointing out the fallacy you're using is a counter-argument.)

Okay, let's ignore inflation. SwSh have more advanced graphics. SwSh + expansion pass seems likely to have more unique content than S/M + US/UM. Two good arguments that the price hike is justifiable. (It's $10 more, jeez).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Seafarer said:

Eh. Tell me your point if you want me to understand it. If you don't, there's no real point talking about it. (Also, pointing out the fallacy you're using is a counter-argument.)

I'm not committing any fallacy if you can't explain it to me in your own words. And since you admit you don't understand what I was saying, I don't have to wait up, do I? You still don't seem to acknowledge the incredible lapse in understanding of inflation by using a general inflation calculator as definitive proof of any product's price supposedly being this or that. Don't talk to me about fallacies Mr. I took incomplete notes in macroeconomics 101. There are other elements to the equation you haven't noticed. Like how the supply of Pokemon games is now infinite when it wasn't before, and the greater competitive nature of the games industry only naturally leads to lower prices, not higher.

Quote

Okay, let's ignore inflation. SwSh have more advanced graphics. SwSh + expansion pass seems likely to have more unique content than S/M + US/UM. Two good arguments that the price hike is justifiable. (It's $10 more, jeez).

Does it have advanced graphics? I don't see anything. Then I counter with: it has less content, so price hike isn't justified. Less mechanics, less pokemon, shorter campaign, less online features (which are an extra charge now when they weren't before), no pokemon bank - esque service, and anything else people complain is missing.

Edited by Glennstavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course that's all assuming you were buying the initial release AND the 3rd version one year later. Which you didn't have to do.
Knowing that Nintendo would just release a more complete version of the game one year later, you were able to simply wait.
You don't have that option with a season pass.

Edited by BrightBow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BrightBow said:

Of course that's all assuming you buy the initial release AND the 3rd version one year later. Which you didn't have to do. Knowing that Nintendo would just release a more complete version of the game one year later, you were able to simply wait.
You don't have that option with a season pass.

It worked out very well whit pokemon Z.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

It worked out very well whit pokemon Z.

Well, they also started to carve out the "3rd edition" into two versions too, so there would be no way to have all the version exclusive content in one game. They really want all players to buy both versions of their releases these days. Or all four versions, as the case may be.

Edited by BrightBow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

I'm not committing any fallacy if you can't explain it to me in your own words. And since you admit you don't understand what I was saying, I don't have to wait up, do I? You still don't seem to acknowledge the incredible lapse in understanding of inflation by using a general inflation calculator as definitive proof of any product's price supposedly being this or that. Don't talk to me about fallacies Mr. I took incomplete notes in macroeconomics 101. There are other elements to the equation you haven't noticed. Like how the supply of Pokemon games is now infinite when it wasn't before, and the greater competitive nature of the games industry only naturally leads to lower prices, not higher.

Does it have advanced graphics? I don't see anything. Then I counter with: it has less content, so price hike isn't justified. Less mechanics, less pokemon, shorter campaign, less online features (which are an extra charge now when they weren't before), no pokemon bank - esque service, and anything else people complain is missing.

Fine. You associated my arguments with an entity you know would cause a negative reaction in any audience that knows anything about the subject. This is fallacious. That EA has used an argument does not make the argument false. This is called "poisoning the well". Also, now you're just insulting me. That's not fallacious, but it's a bit rude.

The graphics are more advanced than the 3DS games, due to now being HD.

Not sure that there are fewer mechanics. Yes, they removed Mega Evolution and Z-Power. And they added Dynamax. The core Pokémon mechanical base is still present, to the point that at least one glitch was inherited from SM. There's also new AI routines for the Pokémon appearing in the overworld.

There are more Pokémon actually capturable in either game than in SMUSUM combined, once the expansion pass is taken into account. I don't see Pokémon not being in the data as much different from simply not being able to catch them in the context of a content argument; either way, you don't get extra gameplay (read: content) from finding and catching them directly.

I'm not convinced about the shorter campaign, either. Is there a reference for that? It took me about as long to clear my first run of Shield as it took me for Moon, Y, and Black 2 at least - about 2 days solid for the credits, then 2-3 more days for the post-game wind-up. If my experience is atypical, I'd like to know.

The online features' extra charge isn't on Game Freak. No GTS is, though - I'll give you that.

Pokémon Home is coming. Just like Pokémon Bank didn't come for a few months after XY's release.

 

To be honest, I never studied economics, so you'll have to explain this to me. Are you saying that, because there's infinite supply, any price is going to be artificially fixed to match or beat the industry standard? Or is there something I'm missing?

My inflation argument was from a consumer perspective, anyway - assuming that income is adjusted for inflation*, a flat price becomes a smaller fraction of a consumer's buying power over time.

*Yeah, I know it often isn't in the USA. Again, that's not on Game Freak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seafarer said:

Fine. You associated my arguments with an entity you know would cause a negative reaction in any audience that knows anything about the subject. This is fallacious. That EA has used an argument does not make the argument false. This is called "poisoning the well". 

EA talks about the rising costs of game development to illicit false sympathy from people willing to excuse their dirty practices. It's predatory half truths. I only made an offhand comment that they do this. But to call my points as a whole fallacious just because you feel attacked only seems to divert attention from what you and I are actually trying to argue. So excuse me for brushing up against internet fallacy #067, but I felt it necessary due to how close you were coming to the territory of EA business philosophy. If we want to talk about our feelings, I'm annoyed that your immediate response to me doing so was to do a "I'll just leave this here" link of an unrelated wiki page in place of a counter argument addressing the things I actually said. What a waste of both our times. Mostly mine.

Quote

The graphics are more advanced than the 3DS games, due to now being HD.

Is that it? Game Freak explicitly named the visuals as an area of the game they were hoping to improve on in pre-release interviews. And the only difference is that the game came out on a system that supports higher resolution? That's not Game Freak, that's the Switch. People have uploaded footage of Sun/Moon in HD via emulator and it looked virtually the same as Sword and Shield's standard for graphics. So what did Game Freak actually do to advance those graphics?

Quote

Not sure that there are fewer mechanics.

wait wait wait. Before we move down this list. Am I really expected to go to bat for even half of these? It's not enough for me to point out one thing to equal the supposed addition of "advanced graphics?" How unfair that I get penalized for bringing five examples instead of one. Especially when there's one you agree on. That alone should have been satisfactory.

Quote

Not sure that there are fewer mechanics. Yes, they removed Mega Evolution and Z-Power. And they added Dynamax. The core Pokémon mechanical base is still present, to the point that at least one glitch was inherited from SM. There's also new AI routines for the Pokémon appearing in the overworld.

Last I checked one minus two is negative one, and the AI routines for Pokemon in the overworld are from Let's Go. Complete with all the obnoxious issues like pokemon appearing directly in front of your path with no time to react. But yeah picking and choosing which pokemon you want to encounter is a great step forward for the series. They should make a whole game out of that idea, is what I'd say if Let's Go didn't already exist.

Quote

There are more Pokémon actually capturable in either game than in SMUSUM combined, once the expansion pass is taken into account. I don't see Pokémon not being in the data as much different from simply not being able to catch them in the context of a content argument; either way, you don't get extra gameplay (read: content) from finding and catching them directly.

Just because they weren't all catchable didn't mean they couldn't still be used in battling, breeding, or just ported into a new playthrough on day one. Being able to use more pokemon than what exist natively in the game is absolutely "more content". You say them not being catchable means they shouldn't count, but that argument only holds up if Pokemon Bank - and the various other transfer methods over the years - never existed. Previous games don't need to step down to Sword and Shield's standards just because it's missing pokemon bank compatibility. It's unfair to the games that absolutely could have dexited, but did not.

Quote

I'm not convinced about the shorter campaign, either. Is there a reference for that? It took me about as long to clear my first run of Shield as it took me for Moon, Y, and Black 2 at least - about 2 days solid for the credits, then 2-3 more days for the post-game wind-up. If my experience is atypical, I'd like to know.

If you care about other's experiences across the series, I've got just the polling place for you. According to Howlongtobeat, a website where people post approximations of their times in beating games, Sword and Shield has an average 25 hour campaign from start to credits. Compared to the 30-35 that has been standard among previous generations. Just type pokemon into the search bar to compare. Is this a definitive measurement? No, but the sample size is good (500+ entries in Sword and Shield's case, far more entries for older games), and I've heard from more than a few people that the game just tends to end abruptly despite the slow pace of so much of the early game. If you're going to tell me you don't trust this polling website, by the way, I hope you've got an alternate measurement to prove I'm wrong about the shorter campaign. Otherwise I don't particularly care if you agree it's shorter or not. Yours is just one experience.

Quote

The online features' extra charge isn't on Game Freak. No GTS is, though - I'll give you that.

Out of curiosity, what would you prefer, Sword and Shield releasing 100% how it is for the 3DS with its oh so inferior resolution, or having GTS in the game? Because if you're willing to admit GTS is about as good as looking at HD resolution, if not better, then I think we can cut this argument short right here in saying the price hike isn't quite justified.

Quote

Pokémon Home is coming. Just like Pokémon Bank didn't come for a few months after XY's release.

I thought we were comparing to Gen 7, primarily, but yeah the situation sucked then as it did now. Can you give me any reason why Pokemon Bank is inadequate for Sword and shield and must be recreated from the ground up? I can't think of any. Game Freak hasn't provided any. If the answer is "because Dexit" then that's no issue because Pokemon Bank distinguishes pokemon from game of origin. So Gen 7 pokemon can't go to Gen 6, even if they're originally from gen 6 in the first place. Pokemon Bank was late to Gen 6 because it was built from the ground up, but it was also straight up better than the transfer methods of previous generations. Far Easier and quicker to use, didn't require multiple systems, costed money sure, but a perfectly reasonable amount at 5 dollars a year. We were quite happy to wait for all these new features. We can't even get a straight answer on what Pokemon Home even is at the end of the day besides a replacement for Bank.

Quote

To be honest, I never studied economics, so you'll have to explain this to me. Are you saying that, because there's infinite supply, any price is going to be artificially fixed to match or beat the industry standard? Or is there something I'm missing?

The laws of supply and demand are a core tenet of economic theory when it comes to how price is decided for a product. More demand raises the price, more supply lowers the price, both are trying to reach an equilibrium where consumers buy all they could ever want while producers don't make more than what will be consumed so that profits are maximized. Pokemon Sword and Shield's case is an interesting take on the concept, because it is a game with infinite supply - thanks to digital distribution. If you go to your local shops and none of them have a copy of the game, you can still download it, which is unlike most products of other industries. It's also interesting when you consider the cost of Game Freak producing one digital copy of Sword and Shield is absolutely zero. No money out of pocket, no share goes to retailers, and no risk of overestimating supply, just a list of infinitely produced download codes until the Switch's eshop servers shut down in ten or so years. You might be thinking "couldn't GF sell the game at a lower price if it costs nothing to produce?" and the answer is certainly yes, but that's not fair to retailers, or consumers that prefer physical copies. Why does GF need physical copies of their games to exist? Because if they didn't exist in store shelves across the world, tens of thousands of uninformed potential buyers would never know the game existed quietly on the eshop, and the lesser sales would outweigh any increase in profits they'd see from only going digital. So there's still a vital balance that must be maintained in how publishers price their games.

All of this is only barely related to the topic, by the way. I'm just saying if you're going to bring up esoteric ideas like inflation and "what games should cost in 2020", you gotta remember that publishers can sell their games at whatever price they think is fair. And us consumers aren't unfairly getting our games at lower prices just because you think publishers are failing to account for inflation. They're not failing to account for inflation, they're terrified of the prospect of selling a game at more than 60 dollars. Sword and Shield is going to sit on a shelf next to Pokemon Let's Go. If Let's Go is 60, and Sword and Shield are 80, that's gonna hurt the sales of the new release, big time. And that's before we account for competition between franchises. The games industry is way more competitive than it was twenty years ago. Your 60 dollars could get you all kinds of games better than Sword and Shield on the Switch and other platforms. It can also get you a small handful of older (yet still very good) games at much lower prices. But if you were browsing GBA games 20 years ago, your 30 dollars is really best spent on Pokemon, especially as an "average consumer" who didn't read game reviews of any kind to know about the existence or appeal of Metroid, Fire Emblem, etc.

And only theeeeennn do we get to post release paid DLC. Why settle for the maximum 60 dollars on a sale when you can go for more? Season passes can absolutely be whatever price they want to be, since they're not going to sit on store shelves. So complaining that a price point seems unfair for the content is always valid, 100% of the time. It's just a matter of opinion. If Savy businessmen were pricing DLC at "what they think is fair" instead of "what they think they can get away with", then frankly, they'd be bad businessmen. And if Game Freak thinks that the content they cut can be re-added as paid DLC, they won't be stopped from doing that. And they will make any excuse that sounds reasonable for it in order to give us reasonable doubt that's not what's really happening. We're in the EA playbook now whatever the truth actually is.

Edited by Glennstavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Glennstavos Yeah, I didn't actually expect you to go out to bat for all those points (actually, any of them, though I didn't phrase it well. Sorry to make you go to the effort). Originally, I was going to post an extensive essay on my views of why SwSh aren't substantially worse in value than previous releases (not that they're good value overall), but thankfully I'm too lazy. Thanks for the detailed explanation.

EDIT: Graphics from the experts:

Takeaway: Graphics are shit compared to other Switch games but a distinct upgrade from 3DS Pokémon (better lighting, longer draw distance, more consistent frame rate).

Edited by Seafarer

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...