General Discussion & Speculation Thread

[Bguy7]

games-as-service model

What does that even mean?

 

[Phantump237]

There are a few changes in the beginning. Lillie doesn’t seem to be in her first outfit and from screenshots the Starter ceremony has changed a bit. Plus we don’t know what the Trial Leader order is quite yet and they could have Akala's in any order and we know that Mallow's is completely different. And then Kahili is met before the League at some point and we don’t know if she’s a Trial Leader or just a Trainer that gives the Flying Z-Crystal and show you how to use it like Mina did.

Lillie still has her first outfit. https://www.serebii.net/ultrasunultramoon/pics.shtml Look at september 13th and october 27th.

 

[Trainer Yusuf]

What does that even mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service

It is a marketing buzzword.

 

[Orphalesion]

What does that even mean?

Some publishers no longer view games as products you purchase and then own, but rather as services provided by them. I have seen that mainly in relation to PC games with stuff like you buying a license to install the game rather than being able to install the game as often as you like or having to log into a server provided by the developer even to play an single-player title.

On the (theoretically) more positive side of things this can also include stuff like the game continuously being updated with fixes and/or additional content, like Terraria.

And on the side of things that can be negative and/or positive, depending on your tastes it can involve stuff like the Raid Battles and the migrating Beasts in Pokemon GO and continuous DLC. On one hand that can be seen as fun events, on the other it could be seen as the developers pushing you to focus on one specific part of the game when they decide they feel like it, rather than leaving you to discover and play the various parts in your own time (Want Ho-Oh? Better play this limited time event right now or who knows when you get it again!)

Basically the game "lives" for a while in a constant feedback and involvement between developers and community.

Edit: Greninja'd hehe

 

[Josef Stylin]

There are a few changes in the beginning. Lillie doesn’t seem to be in her first outfit and from screenshots the Starter ceremony has changed a bit. Plus we don’t know what the Trial Leader order is quite yet and they could have Akala's in any order and we know that Mallow's is completely different. And then Kahili is met before the League at some point and we don’t know if she’s a Trial Leader or just a Trainer that gives the Flying Z-Crystal and show you how to use it like Mina did.

People are saying that "most of the major alterations are at the story climax and postgame" and your counterpoint is listing small, non-major stuff? Do you really feel satisfied with your answer?

 

[Bolt the Cat]

I don't like the mention of games as a service either, it does sound like they want to abuse DLC the way a lot of publishers have nowadays with things like on disc DLC, microtransactions, and loot boxes. I'd be fine with paying say $10-$20 for a Delta Episode length story arc and an extra island's worth of new areas, but anything beyond that would be pretty sleazy. This might be a "be careful what you wish for" scenario.

 

[Excitable Boy]

Event Pokemon are already free ondisc DLC js

 

[Bolt the Cat]

Event Pokemon are already free ondisc DLC js

Yeah, free on disc DLC. I'm fine with that. If they start charging us $5 for every event Pokemon though? That would start to feel like a ripoff. I sincerely hope that's not what they mean.

 

[Orphalesion]

Yeah Pokemon has had aspects of the "games as service" thing for a long while now; the event Pokemon, the free trading centres and online battles and things like Festival Plaza and...the thing in B/W (B/W2?) that was sorta like festival plaza.

But the thing is, so far these things have come for free, (with the exception of Pokemon Bank) would feel like quite a ripoff if they started charging for those things now or in the future.

I doubt they will though, GF has been really good about those things and I think it's important to them to keep most features available to a large audience that includes, among other groups, small children that don't have a credit card and who's parents often don't look kindly at games that try to coax the player into micro transactions.

 

[windwakemeup]

If Pokemon goes full-blown "games as service" with microtransactions and the like I will drop this franchise cold turkey.

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

Some events are more expensive as they're only released at certain locations (like Marshadow and Shiny Silvally), so you'd have to make travelling expenses to obtain them. It's especially expensive if you've got to go abroad for them. And there are some, like the current Celebi distribution or Mewnium Z that are also only released with paid services.

 

[BCVM22]

We know nothing of Pokémon for the Switch. We will know nothing of Pokémon for the Switch for several months yet, if even then. We don't know how the Switch's paid online service will affect/integrate with Pokémon for the Switch. Let's all take a breath and hold off on declarations like "Nintendo BETTER not do this this and this or I swear to god I will..." just yet, is all I'm saying.

It's especially expensive if you've got to go abroad for them.

What? Who does this?

 

[Orphalesion]

What? Who does this?

Europeans, I suppose?Way too many itty bitty countries to have specific events for them all? But then again "going abroad" in Europe is often just a matter o a 30 minute train ride so...

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

What? Who does this?

People living close to the borders I guess. There are also people here that go across the border to buy petrol because it's taxed less in Belgium than in the Netherlands. Nobody I know personally goes abroad for event pokémon. But the point is that they are events that you've got to pay for to participate. Maybe not directly to Game Freak, but still...

Europeans, I suppose?Way too many itty bitty countries to have specific events for them all? But then again "going abroad" in Europe is often just a matter o a 30 minute train ride so...

Really depends on where you live. It can be 30 minutes if you live close to the border, but if you live a bit farther away it can take a lot longer. Especially countries like the UK, Germany, France, and Italy are quite big, and if you live in a bit more of a rural area there might not even be a train station there.

 

[BCVM22]

So it's not a particularly effective example. Nor is the "travel costs mean the events aren't actually free." By that definition, an event you can access via Wi-Fi isn't free either - you do have to pay for your home Internet connection and your router/modem equipment. If someone offers to buy you dinner, or you have a gift card to a store, then technically that isn't "free" either, as you still have to travel to the restaurant or the store.

Once you start trying to parse out "well, I had to drive 20 minutes into the next town to get to GameStop, that's a travel cost for me, so the event wasn't free" you get into semantics that are by definition personal and don't apply to the entire pool of consumers. If the event itself has no cost directly associated with it, it's a "free" event. This is why it's a lot easier to, accurately, say that all of Pokémon's in-game "DLC" thus far has been "free" as opposed to paid DLC, instead of trying to prove that semantic differences = directly associated costs.

 

[RileyXY1]

I will seriously quit Pokemon for good if GF puts microtransactions into the games.

 

[BCVM22]

And what if it's microtransactions in the vein of what Pokémon GO offers? What if they enable you to spend a small amount of real-world currency on in-game items like vitamins or capture balls? I do not personally think they would do that, but would that hurt anyone? Would anyone be irrevocably harmed if they did institute a system like that?

I know people like to vent based on very little and we have the right to overreact inversely proportional to the earliest and most theoretical of information, but are we required to? You - not you specifically, necessarily, but also you specifically if you think I'm referring to you - don't have to agree with that and you can say "rar leave me alone I'm venting, I'm allowed" and that's your prerogative. I am just saying - we do have the option to react by saying "it's still really early on and they could go a thousand different ways with this that wouldn't cause me to 'quit the franchise for good.'"

 

[Niormon]

The very idea of spending real world dollars in the game is ludicrous and should be mocked at.

 

[BCVM22]

If it is the sole way of obtaining something essential or exclusive, absolutely, and I don't think they'd do that.

If it's a means of filling up the pockets of your backpack a little faster - again, 100% hypothetical and something I don't think they'd do - I ask again, who is hurt by this?

 

[Orphalesion]

Once you start trying to parse out "well, I had to drive 20 minutes into the next town to get to GameStop, that's a travel cost for me, so the event wasn't free" you get into semantics that are by definition personal and don't apply to the entire pool of consumers. If the event itself has no cost directly associated with it, it's a "free" event. This is why it's a lot easier to, accurately, say that all of Pokémon's in-game "DLC" thus far has been "free" as opposed to paid DLC, instead of trying to prove that semantic differences = directly associated costs.

Yeah I have to drive like an hour and half (or catch a Greyhound) to Brisbane whenever I want to go to an EBGames. And that's without crossing any borders.