• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Future Let's Go Remakes Discussion Thread (ex. Johto or Hoenn)

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
Yeah. Let me iterate that Let's Go, Pikachu and Eevee are aimed at NEWCOMERS to the franchise, and there are some longtime players, like myself, who are willing to give it a try. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Exactly.

I stopped playing Mortal Kombat - my first and favorite video game franchise - after I felt the series had made a bad turn, but never did I insist the games should fail or that all subsequent games will suffer. I simply stopped playing.

The same applies to everyone upset with Let's GO.

Since LGPE is based off of Pokemon Yellow, wouldn't it be likely that the next games would be based off of Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum?

That would be most sensible.

Crystal wasn't that much different than Gold & Silver, though, but it would make a great excuse to have legendaries as starters. I mean, Pokémon Let's GO Suicune!. Who wouldn't want that? I'm totally biased, though. Suicune is my favorite pokemon.
 

shoz999

Back when Tigers used to smoke.
Since LGPE is based off of Pokemon Yellow, wouldn't it be likely that the next games would be based off of Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum?
Huh... I never thought about that. I wonder if we would see the return of the Battle Tower in Johto?
 

_Proteus_

Member
Only 1% spend money on mobile game is mainly because the 99% of mobile games are a pile of crap !
But Pokemon Go has proven, still nowadays, to be huge hit, with people spending a lot of money on it.

This doesn't mean I'm convinced GF has made a good job, the fact you can't send back your pokemon to GO will ruin the experience.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Only 1% spend money on mobile game is mainly because the 99% of mobile games are a pile of crap !
But Pokemon Go has proven, still nowadays, to be huge hit, with people spending a lot of money on it.

This doesn't mean I'm convinced GF has made a good job, the fact you can't send back your pokemon to GO will ruin the experience.

It has little to do with the quality of the games. The market just doesn't like paying. These are people that are just looking for something to kill time when they're waiting at the bus stop or in the doctor's office or something and aren't particularly interested in games to the degree that most people on this forum are. They just see games as part of a greater entertainment package they can have on mobile that also includes things like movies, TV, music, internet, social media, etc. That's why only 1% of them are spending money. So out of the 800 million people that downloaded Go, only about 8 million of them were willing to spend anything money on this game. The other 792 million aren't even in consideration for LGPE, as they're probably not interested in a dedicated gaming device like the Switch and definitely wouldn't spend $300 for it + $60 for a copy of LGPE. And not even all of that 8 million spent $60 on Go, so not all of them would even be interested. It doesn't matter than Go was a success. The issue is that Go has a completely different business model that won't translate well to console.
 

Nockturne

Well-Known Member
The problem is that it shows that Game Freak isn't making sound business decisions. They already made one when it's proven to be a bad decision, so whose to say they won't make another? It makes it hard to trust them.

I don't think its fair to judge GameFreak for doing something unorthodox or taking a risk in trying to come up with a way of directly benefiting from the success of GO. I don't think businesses should be risk adverse all the time (especially game companies) because things would just get stale. And its premature to say LGPE have proven to be a bad decision. Granted a lot of people have been complaining about them on the internet, but that's par for the course in 2018, those negative attitudes need to translate in to poor sales in order to prove the games were a bad idea.

Plus, the negativity towards the games came about after they been green lit/developed significantly, its not like they floated the idea publicly, the fans complained and then they decided to go ahead and start developing anyway. So to use the backlash towards LGPE as a way of trying to argue that GameFreak might continue to produce commercially unviable games, because they didn't halt production on this pair of games after people got bent out of shape on Twitter is just silly.
 

Ducolamia

SAYYYY WHAT???
If Let's Go actually works out, I'm interested to see if they'll make more games alongside those types. For example, for a Crystal based game let's go with:

Let's Go! Togepi/Marill v Pichu.

Pichu is obivously a choice to make for the mascot, but I went with Togepi to represent the baby Pokemon stage because that was thing heavily mentioned in gen 2. Marill might also work, but I assume Togepi is more popular due to the anime.
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
I don't think its fair to judge GameFreak for doing something unorthodox or taking a risk in trying to come up with a way of directly benefiting from the success of GO. I don't think businesses should be risk adverse all the time (especially game companies) because things would just get stale. And its premature to say LGPE have proven to be a bad decision. Granted a lot of people have been complaining about them on the internet, but that's par for the course in 2018, those negative attitudes need to translate in to poor sales in order to prove the games were a bad idea.

Plus, the negativity towards the games came about after they been green lit/developed significantly, its not like they floated the idea publicly, the fans complained and then they decided to go ahead and start developing anyway. So to use the backlash towards LGPE as a way of trying to argue that GameFreak might continue to produce commercially unviable games, because they didn't halt production on this pair of games after people got bent out of shape on Twitter is just silly.

The main issue in this case is the majority of people complaining aren't in the game's target demographic.

Also, it seems a lot of the people insisting there isn't a big enough market may not be thinking about sales on a global scale, but simply sales within their own nation (or even city). The research Game Freak conducts to determine the viability of a game within its intended market would be on a global scale, and it would have to account for the various gaming and cultural practices of each major country their games are sold in. If after all this, they still decided to make the game, which means they saw something we don't see.

Something the naysayers themselves don't see.

From as far as what I myself can see, I know this. The longtime Pokémon fanbase includes roughly 16 million fans. At most half are upset about this game (and I'm being generous), which leaves 8 million that could potentially buy it. And then there's the Pokémon GO base, which includes a monthly global activity of roughly 70 million players. Out of this amount, if even 10% were interested in Let's GO, that would be another 7 million sales.

That totals 15 million potential sales.

And even with all this brujaja I'm spewing, there's still more Game Freak knows that I don't. There's no telling how far these sales could go. But we'll find out soon enough.


If Let's Go actually works out, I'm interested to see if they'll make more games alongside those types. For example, for a Crystal based game let's go with:

Let's Go! Togepi/Marill v Pichu.

Pichu is obivously a choice to make for the mascot, but I went with Togepi to represent the baby Pokemon stage because that was thing heavily mentioned in gen 2. Marill might also work, but I assume Togepi is more popular due to the anime.

I like the idea of Marill being a partner pokemon, even though I'm not sure if I myself would use it.

My hope is that in future installments, the starters are able to evolve. I think that would make traveling with them even more special and impacting, because they would be literally growing with us.
 

Pokemon Power

Well-Known Member
And again, these aren't a good group of newcomers for them to target. The BotW/Odyssey fans offer much more potential to expand the fanbase on the Switch than mobile gamers as they'll actually be willing to buy a $60 game on a $300 console as long as it's a quality game full of open exploration and extra content.
Let me remind you that next year will be the beginning of a new generation, so they'll probably do open exploration in that game. Don't be impatient.
 

Nockturne

Well-Known Member
If Let's Go actually works out, I'm interested to see if they'll make more games alongside those types. For example, for a Crystal based game let's go with:

Let's Go! Togepi/Marill v Pichu.

Pichu is obivously a choice to make for the mascot, but I went with Togepi to represent the baby Pokemon stage because that was thing heavily mentioned in gen 2. Marill might also work, but I assume Togepi is more popular due to the anime.
I've been thinking about it and I think Togepi and Elekid could be a cool combo. I just can't see them going with Pichu right after Pikachu.

My hope is that in future installments, the starters are able to evolve. I think that would make traveling with them even more special and impacting, because they would be literally growing with us.
That seems unlikely if they carry on with the player carrying the starter and having a separate following Pokemon. Can you imagine trying to go about your day with an Azumarill sat on your head?
 

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
That seems unlikely if they carry on with the player carrying the starter and having a separate following Pokemon. Can you imagine trying to go about your day with an Azumarill sat on your head?
According to the Pokedex, Azumarill is only 2'07'' tall and only weighs 62.8 lbs.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
I don't think its fair to judge GameFreak for doing something unorthodox or taking a risk in trying to come up with a way of directly benefiting from the success of GO. I don't think businesses should be risk adverse all the time (especially game companies) because things would just get stale.

Nothing wrong with taking risks every once in a while, especially when things are getting repetitive, but the kind of risk you take matters. Risks like this that practically throw away the core identity and fans rarely work out, the most successful risks tend to be ones that add to what's been done before, not take things away.

And its premature to say LGPE have proven to be a bad decision. Granted a lot of people have been complaining about them on the internet, but that's par for the course in 2018, those negative attitudes need to translate in to poor sales in order to prove the games were a bad idea

Again, look at the sales data. The mobile market's behavior vs. the console market's behavior is what makes this a bad decision, not even the strength of Pokemon's brand can overcome that.

Plus, the negativity towards the games came about after they been green lit/developed significantly, its not like they floated the idea publicly, the fans complained and then they decided to go ahead and start developing anyway. So to use the backlash towards LGPE as a way of trying to argue that GameFreak might continue to produce commercially unviable games, because they didn't halt production on this pair of games after people got bent out of shape on Twitter is just silly.

When did I say they should halt production? I'm saying they shouldn't have started on this to begin with. The backlash was inevitable, the very concept of these games is so divisive that there was no way they could go about doing this without pissing off a major chunk of the fanbase. They should've known all of this before they even started.

The main issue in this case is the majority of people complaining aren't in the game's target demographic.

Also, it seems a lot of the people insisting there isn't a big enough market may not be thinking about sales on a global scale, but simply sales within their own nation (or even city). The research Game Freak conducts to determine the viability of a game within its intended market would be on a global scale, and it would have to account for the various gaming and cultural practices of each major country their games are sold in. If after all this, they still decided to make the game, which means they saw something we don't see.

Something the naysayers themselves don't see.

From as far as what I myself can see, I know this. The longtime Pokémon fanbase includes roughly 16 million fans. At most half are upset about this game (and I'm being generous), which leaves 8 million that could potentially buy it. And then there's the Pokémon GO base, which includes a monthly global activity of roughly 70 million players. Out of this amount, if even 10% were interested in Let's GO, that would be another 7 million sales.

That totals 15 million potential sales.

And even with all this brujaja I'm spewing, there's still more Game Freak knows that I don't. There's no telling how far these sales could go. But we'll find out soon enough.

Wow. So you're complaining about me relying on opinions, views, and beliefs and passing them off as facts and this is your reasoning for thinking the games are going to be a success? Talk about hypocrisy.

Eyeballing internet communities and then claiming only half of the fans are upset about the game or that 10% of the active userbase would buy the game aren't concrete facts, sorry. You pulled those numbers out of your ass. I had links to verified sales data backing up my numbers, where are your studies supporting these claims?
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
Wow. So you're complaining about me relying on opinions, views, and beliefs and passing them off as facts and this is your reasoning for thinking the games are going to be a success? Talk about hypocrisy.

Eyeballing internet communities and then claiming only half of the fans are upset about the game or that 10% of the active userbase would buy the game aren't concrete facts, sorry. You pulled those numbers out of your ass. I had links to verified sales data backing up my numbers, where are your studies supporting these claims?

Looks like someone can't read very well.

Unlike you, I actually admitted that what I said was only my opinion, referring to it as "brujaja." I'm completely honest that all that I stated could end up being complete fooey in the end. You, however, don't possess that level of understanding, because you're too deep in your feelings over a video game you aren't obligated to buy.

Again, count me out. It's starting to get pathetic.
 

_Proteus_

Member
It has little to do with the quality of the games. The market just doesn't like paying. These are people that are just looking for something to kill time when they're waiting at the bus stop or in the doctor's office or something and aren't particularly interested in games to the degree that most people on this forum are. They just see games as part of a greater entertainment package they can have on mobile that also includes things like movies, TV, music, internet, social media, etc. That's why only 1% of them are spending money. So out of the 800 million people that downloaded Go, only about 8 million of them were willing to spend anything money on this game. The other 792 million aren't even in consideration for LGPE, as they're probably not interested in a dedicated gaming device like the Switch and definitely wouldn't spend $300 for it + $60 for a copy of LGPE. And not even all of that 8 million spent $60 on Go, so not all of them would even be interested. It doesn't matter than Go was a success. The issue is that Go has a completely different business model that won't translate well to console.
The games makes difference instead. Only an insane 'd spend money on "Pikachu doctor: remove pimples", just to have additional bistoury or 60 more sec to operate.
But there're big hit, like Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Fortnite and, for some reason, Pokemon Go that is still on the top.
Just read the news Go 's just made on IOS 300 milions in 113 days.

You can start a mobile game for your spare time, but then it' d come out the addiction. This is the reason they milk so much money.
Just not a case almost every regular spinoff has vanished (Mystery dungeon, Ranger, Stadium), but we're plenty of Shuffle, Magikarp, Pokemon Quest, .. kind of game.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Looks like someone can't read very well.

Unlike you, I actually admitted that what I said was only my opinion, referring to it as "brujaja." I'm completely honest that all that I stated could end up being complete fooey in the end. You, however, don't possess that level of understanding, because you're too deep in your feelings over a video game you aren't obligated to buy.

Again, count me out. It's starting to get pathetic.

And yet you felt the need to give a sales projection based on absolutely nothing. There's really no point in doing that if you don't have concrete data to back that up. Which again, I did and you continue to ignore them. So I'm not passing opinions off as facts. You're just confusing facts and opinions.

The games makes difference instead. Only an insane 'd spend money on "Pikachu doctor: remove pimples", just to have additional bistoury or 60 more sec to operate.
But there're big hit, like Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Fortnite and, for some reason, Pokemon Go that is still on the top.
Just read the news Go 's just made on IOS 300 milions in 113 days.

You can start a mobile game for your spare time, but then it' d come out the addiction. This is the reason they milk so much money.
Just not a case almost every regular spinoff has vanished (Mystery dungeon, Ranger, Stadium), but we're plenty of Shuffle, Magikarp, Pokemon Quest, .. kind of game.

They milk so much money because of microtransactions that allow players to spend as much as they want on a game. The handful of people that spend $100+ dollars on the game make up for the millions that pay nothing. LGPE does not have that business model, it's a flat $60 price to play the game so those handful of high spenders are non-factors. It's about the raw size of the userbase.
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
And yet you felt the need to give a sales projection based on absolutely nothing. There's really no point in doing that if you don't have concrete data to back that up. Which again, I did and you continue to ignore them. So I'm not passing opinions off as facts. You're just confusing facts and opinions.

Did you even READ your own links? They contradict your point.

This article, which you shared, proves my point far more than yours.
https://www.businessinsider.com/gamers-prefer-mobile-but-dont-spend-money-there-2016-11

It literally states that the gamers who also play mobile perfer spending money on PC and console. That is EXACTLY what Game Freak is looking for. You were so busy trying to make a point, you didn't even realize you made mine.

The other two articles only confirm most mobile gamers don't spend much money on mobile games. They say nothing about their preference towards console games, but the article above does. So you know what your three articles did? Nothing.


But since you seem so determined to keep me in this with you, allow me to give you a harsh truth:

Game Freak couldn't care less about how any of you feel. They found what they needed, and it's not you. Nothing you have to say about it actually matters. Your money doesn't even matter. Let's GO, as with any other game, will sell without you.
 

Nockturne

Well-Known Member
Nothing wrong with taking risks every once in a while, especially when things are getting repetitive, but the kind of risk you take matters. Risks like this that practically throw away the core identity and fans rarely work out, the most successful risks tend to be ones that add to what's been done before, not take things away.

Again, look at the sales data. The mobile market's behavior vs. the console market's behavior is what makes this a bad decision, not even the strength of Pokemon's brand can overcome that.

When did I say they should halt production? I'm saying they shouldn't have started on this to begin with. The backlash was inevitable, the very concept of these games is so divisive that there was no way they could go about doing this without pissing off a major chunk of the fanbase. They should've known all of this before they even started.

This still all seems very premature. Its a risk yes, but its too early to say if it paid off or not. Backlash always seems intense when its happening but we won't know if that backlash will translate into poor sales or just turn out to be a storm in a teacup. To me it seems like its already started to die down.

No one knows if the strength of Pokemon's brand will be enough to pull gamers from mobile to console yet. You can predict what will happen based on the information you've looked up, much as GameFreak will have done with their own market research, but its folly to think you're thinking of things and considering angles GameFreak didn't. And unless you can Google yourself up a time machine you can't say the games have proven to be a bad idea. Yeah people got mad, but its whether they stay mad that is the issue.

Assuming GF didn't know that there would be a backlash or they didn't think these games would piss anyone off doesn't seem a reasonable assumption. I imagine they did know the reception would be mixed before they even started, and that's why the announcement of the 2019 games came hot on the heels of the LG announcement. To try and assuage some of the fears that the LG format would become the new norm. Clearly it was to no avail, but like I said it's 2018 and when people don't have anything else to say, they default to outrage. GF did what they could but the pessimistic immaturity of social media users, for whom saying nothing just isn't an option, can only be curbed so much. And that last comment isn't aimed at you particularly or intended as a personal attack, its more in reference to twitter users and YouTube commenters (and a few YouTubers) who dog pile with vitriol on anything LG related.

And like I said surely this is good for you. The games are coming out whether you like it or not so the best you can hope for now is they don't sell and GameFreak scraps the idea, because there is nothing to suggest GF would continue to produce a new series that has proven (and I mean actually proven based on something practical like sales figures) to be a commercial flop.

Backlash was inevitable in the sense that whatever they announce, outside of a run of the mill Pokemon RPG, would receive backlash so to expect them to scrap ideas based on the fact people would be pissed off by them is silly as well. People hate change and people have never had more platforms to voice that opinion on. You never know if its accturate or an amplified minority till after the fact If they avoided anything that would create a backlash they'd never deviate from the norm, and the franchise would get more repetitive and stale. They've even sort of compromised by taking the new GO integrated format and sticking it in an old region. A little bit repetitive, a little bit different.

TL;DR If the games sell well, then we'll know they were a good idea. If they sell poorly then we'll know they were a bad idea. If they sell well but cause a mass exodus of fans, depending on how many kids LG bring in they could be a bad or good idea. The few links you found on Google will be nothing compared to the market research that GameFreak conducted, so what ever you're opinion on the games, its flawed to come at this situation from a perspective that GF must be acting out of ignorance because their decision isn't backed up by your Google search. You may not understand GF's decision to go through with these games but that doesn't mean GF made it blindly or didn't understand the situation themselves.
 
Top