• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • 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

Pokémon Bank & Poké Transporter Thread [READ FIRST POST]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Evil Elf

Sand Burial Trainer
@sarysa

It's like your complaining about the PS4 not being backwards compatible because the PS3 used Cell emulation or whatever and the PS4 is different. Simply put, they couldn't make the emulator for it so they scrapped it for Gaikai. Can it not simply be a similar situation?
 

Evil Elf

Sand Burial Trainer
@Puma Italia

I thought it was being released same time? If not, then yes, I can easily wait. I can play the game, complete it, transfer unlocks to my partners X, on release of Pokemon Bank, transfer the pokemon I've caught (special legendaries, starter, etc.) to the Pokemon Bank, transfer eggs to it, start anew with Differetn starter, allowing me to have all 3 starters (partner will be Fennekin so I'll end up with Chespin and Froakie). So actually, that would work out better if that's the case. I've got a PS4 to play as well, so timing isn't an issue
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
I don't think they should axe the system, just properly tailor it to the habits of the average player. If you think I'm lax about it, imagine the millions who -don't- post in this forum.

The player for whom this might be an issue is not the sort of person who's going to "forget" where they left a hundred Pokémon, and again, with today's personal devices and services, it's beyond trivial to set a recurring reminder for yourself annually.

I'm teetering on off-topicness as it is, so the most egregious I can think of is the inability to use Wii Classic Controller (with grips) on Gamecube games. The layout can easily be remapped with a software solution (Wii firmware can be updated, mind you) though I will admit that the sticks can be the most difficult to remap, as values reported to the game may need to be altered from what is reported to N64 games. The awkwardness of key names being incorrect will wear out within 10 minutes. This isn't even proper justification seeing how WiiWare N64 games display the wrong controls as it is. Not to mention the latency issue with controls.

It's sheer laziness, since forcing people to buy a controller is more profitable.

So your beef here is that Nintendo was forcing people to buy GameCube controllers rather than Wii Classic Controllers?

Despite the fact that any number of people still has GCN controllers, and if you didn't, a WaveBird and a Classic Controller (the former of which could serve most any purpose the latter could, if I recall) cost about the same in the relatively brief period where they co-existed. How does that fit your complaint of "forcing people to buy a controller" as you've worded it?

I thought it was being released same time?

No. December 27th.
 

Lord Zoroark

Master Tactician
Are you really sitting there thinking that one has anything to do with the other? That the option to allow held items was there, but that some eeeeeevil executive made the decision on the sole basis of "trolling" people?

If deposited Pokémon can't hold items, then it's for a reason. Simple as that.

This "TrollFreak" business is pure garbage, that Game Freak has nothing better to do than specifically make decisions on the basis of how much it'll ruffle feathers. People don't actually believe it, do they?

Yes, this "TrollFreak" business is garbage if people are being serious. In this case, it's meant to be an expression of irritation.

I can't really think of any complication that'd make it impossible to shift items.
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
Yes, this "TrollFreak" business is garbage if people are being serious. In this case, it's meant to be an expression of irritation.

And you don't think it might be a little easier to take the complaints seriously without the attempted nicknames?

I can't really think of any complication that'd make it impossible to shift items.

Look, don't take this the wrong way, but you aren't on any of the involved development teams, to the best of my knowledge. Certainly you'd agree that because you - or I, or that other guy, or those dudes or that random bystander over there or anyone similarly not involved with the technical and developmental aspects - can't think of the complication is not tantamount to there not being any, yes?
 

BurningWhiteKyurem

Well-Known Member
Dream World was designed to be a daily feature. It was highly advertised in-game and gained further recognition as "important" thanks to fan sites like this one. It sends tons of assets (images, music, etc.) to the user daily and it seems like it doesn't cache anything (outside of a single session), so that's high daily bandwidth usage. Furthermore it does unnecessary things like process every single player action on the server side. (ever wonder why the ice cream minigame is so laggy and unplayable? that's why) Dream World had problems because it had the same usage as an MMO.

A cloud storage service is used sporadically, doesn't transfer any assets (they're already on the cart/DLC) so it only needs to send a few tiny communication packets and raw pokemon data. One dream world session probably uses more bandwidth/CPU than one user's cloud storage for an entire year.

I'm well aware of the differences between the two: the point was it's jumping the gun to assume that the server isn't going to need much space, seeing how many players play Pokemon in conjunction to the # of Pokemon they will need to transfer and/or store. It may seem small at first, but it will add up with the population of Pokemon players we have.

Gen IV and V are no more similar than IV or V.
I didn't state any proof, just showed some evidence that makes the incompatibility claim suspect. To add to my original points that 3DS can send a DS Download Play and communicate wirelessly (and via IR!) with a DS, it also doesn't make sense based on Nintendo's history when DS was the new thing. The DS games (D/P/P) had no problem using the GBA APIs -- it even altered the GBA save files!

Also, you need to understand that the core libraries for the DS and 3DS are stored on the console, not the cart. Though if they were stored on the cart, there's nothing preventing them from being added to X/Y's cart. Since libraries are just compiled code and no assets, they're small.

The only possible way that it could be truly incompatible is with short-sighted design of the 3DS. It may be impossible to load both the 3DS and DS APIs simultaneously. Putting the DS APIs on the cart would also be not impossible, but a very bad idea (a hack) which could cause problems down the line with future revisions of the 3DS.

That explanation seems kind of flimsy to me. You can see why I think it's "won't", not "can't".
But to call it a conspiracy theory is to take it too seriously. :p Unfortunately, Nintendo has earned itself a reputation for unnecessary nickel and diming in the past, so heh...

But how can you even say that IV-V is no less similar than V-VI? That's disregarding the obvious: which is that the internal workings of the 2 carts are not going to be the same, which I will assume means that the software of the carts will also not be the same. Hence you run into the fundamental problem that you're asking a DS cart to talk to something that it perceives as non-existent to its knowledge. (3DS).

You conveniently ignored the second half of my statement, that Hydrohs pointed out. The 3DS working with the DS cart is not a 3DS in terms of software. It's simply emulating how a DS works (same goes for Download Play, which is why your earlier example of DP is not admissible, seeing as how Download Play doesn't prove that a 3DS and DS cart can communicate).

You didn't prove anything with the evidence, or lack thereof. You brought up old technology as if GameFreak could always find a way to link up old with new technology. If that was the case, then the fundamental question still remains, why did GameFreak not link DS with 3DS technology. Masuda already gave us the answer when he said it was problematic. Your internal politics theory also doesn't make any sense because there already a precedent set that GameFreak allowed players to transfer Pokemon for "free." (I use quote because in actuality it's not free).

It's one thing to not believe them, but to come across as a conspiracy theorist saying that GF has an ulterior motive makes your argument sound like a cop-out and disregards a lot of questions.
 

sarysa

Series slave
So your beef here is that Nintendo was forcing people to buy GameCube controllers rather than Wii Classic Controllers?

I missed the sixth generation of gaming. While part of my angst stems from being misdirected into purchasing the classic controller by a store clerk, realizing they're physically compatible (just lacking on the firmware end) didn't make things any better.

But before everyone thinks I'm a raving lunatic accusing Nintendo and/or Game Freak of rampant malfeasance, I will give them this...

BCVM22 said:
Are you really sitting there thinking that one has anything to do with the other? That the option to allow held items was there, but that some eeeeeevil executive made the decision on the sole basis of "trolling" people?

This limitation (I lost track of who you were replying to) is absolutely justifiable. Reasons:
- Items could theoretically be stored, but they have nowhere to return to if they suddenly move on to a later game. They probably figured complaints over lost items are far worse than complaints over inability to store items.
- Game Freak is getting more serious about competitiveness, and they need to retain the ability to remove items in future titles if they become a balance problem. (or if they completely revamp them, like TMs becoming reusable)
- The above two combined, if someone loses their Gen VI cart and their Gen VII poke is holding an invalid item, that poke will be trapped in limbo...or the user will just lose the item. Either way, not good...

It's add the limitation now and take the immediate blowback, or remove the limitation and create a time bomb. They did the right thing.
 

BurningWhiteKyurem

Well-Known Member
And as far as my 'cost ineffective' method it actually does make sense. People who only bought a 3DS, new fans, would have to use the banking system. I wasn't implying that someone who only had a 3DS would be inclined to by another system. Like you said that's ridiculous.

However for old fans such as ourselves who already own both systems it would give the millions of older pokemon fans another option. They've already bought two consoles Nintendo so why make them apply for a subscription service?

It goes back to what I said earlier. Option A) The people with the Bank system only have one console and will only have to pay 5 bucks a year. In total, that's about 120+5, to 200+5 (depending on 3DS selection prices). Option B) You have two systems, that set you back anywhere between 260-400+ dollars. You're essentially saying to them that cost of transferring is equivalent to the cost of a console, while Option A people only have to pay 5 dollars. That was my problem. It was ineffective then, it's still ineffective now. Not to mention, Option B is going to be shafted seeing how it will take at least 24 years for Option A to even pay the equivalent of a MSRP of a 3DS.

You may think it's "free," but at the end of the day, it ends up being the most costly model for the consumer.

The compatibility would have to be programmed into all subsequent Pokemon games, to reformat them upon transfer. We know nothing about this 'hack check' and for all we know it's no better than the Global Trade hack check. And the 'immense' online storage is not the point of the discussion because if you wanted the storage then you would obviously have to pay for the service. This is about transferring old Pokemon. And yes I agree with BCVM22 providing two options does not help Nintendo sell the service any. Especially if they wanted it to be the standard for years to come.

Just playing Devil's advocate here.

And again, I'm not saying that DS to 3DS card communication can be done. It was just my personal feeling on the matter and I was in no way calling them a liar. No one here can say for sure if it can or can't be done. I was just speculating that IF it could be done, or proven then I see few reasons why they can't offer another option.

I'm pretty sure that's GameFreak's intention. Future games would be built around Pokemon Bank so that resources would not have to be allocated towards a new way of transferring (that is, until the technology is obsolete or until the franchise finally ends).

The problem with that position is that it assumes it decided to forgo "free" transferring for the sake of turning a profit (I'm not saying they don't want to make a profit, but to assume they're doing this solely for nickel-and-diming people is hyperbolic). However, we have seen that GameFreak gave the option of "free" transferring to the consumer, so there's a precedent set. Moreover, one can argue that PokeBank has an element of convenience seeing as you no longer need 2 consoles to transfer other than trade evolutions.
 

Eeveon1316

Well-Known Member
Why can't they just blacklist specific items if they want to prevent transfer? Just a simple check.

On Upload to Bank:
CHECK: Is this hold item on the blacklist (newly updated for Gen 7)?
---YES - Sorry, Trainer. This item cannot be stored. It has been returned to your bag.
---NO - Carry on.

On Export to Gen 7: (assuming you stored the item before it was added to the blacklist)
CHECK: Is this hold item on the Gen 7 blacklist?
---YES - Sorry, Trainer. This item cannot be transferred to this game. Please transfer this Pokémon back to Gen 6 and remove the item.
---NO - Carry on.

I could write that functionality on a graphing calculator in no time at all. I'm sure a team of game developers who are being paid $5 by every Pokémaniac in the world can figure it out. It's just really frustrating that when you finally put together your perfect team and acquire the right items for them, the next game is coming out. And while your Pokémon can move forward, your Wise Glasses, Focus Band, and Rowap Berries are all gone now.

Moving on to other aspects, I'm hoping that they'll offer free trial periods that coincide with the release of each new game. (And a free extra month to paying subscribers.) And I'm a bit concerned about how well it can really support titles from Gen 6 into the future. What happens when Gen 10 comes out and Whismur becomes Normal/Sound type? You upload Whismur from X, the Bank rewrites it to Sound type, and then you can't move it back onto X anymore. Surely there will come a point when Game Freak wants to make new radical changes to shake things up or balance things out, and then would they have to stop supporting older titles? And while the Bank may let me get the full set of starters without a need for two systems, my Kadabra's not going to evolve itself.

For all of my cynicism though, I'm actually still on the fence about whether or not I want the pay version of this. It really does have a lot of things going for it. And, as someone else mentioned, breeding is very convenient in Gen 5. Maybe it will be convenient in Gen 6 as well, but we don't know that yet. And what if I want to teach Vaccum Wave to my R/S/E Pokémon before I Pal Park it to D/P/Pt, PokéTransfer it to B/W/B2/W2, and then Bank it up to X/Y? The pay service leaves me free to make that decision later. If I commit to moving everything during the trial period, then I have to make ALL of those kinds of decisions before January 31st. And $5 really is just such an agreeable price point. In spite of my disappointment in the features it lacks, I'll probably still drop five bucks just for the features it has.
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
I'm sure a team of game developers who are being paid $5 by every Pokémaniac in the world can figure it out.

But why do people assume that it's a limitation born of laziness or incompetence or inability? That's my question. Why can't it be a limitation instituted for a specific reason or reasons by the very people responsible for the games themselves?

What happens when Gen 10 comes out and Whismur becomes Normal/Sound type? You upload Whismur from X, the Bank rewrites it to Sound type, and then you can't move it back onto X anymore.

Surely there will come a point when Game Freak wants to make new radical changes to shake things up or balance things out, and then would they have to stop supporting older titles?

They don't support older titles now save for the opportunity to remove your Pokémon from them. Transfers a generation ahead have been that way since Generation IV. Why would it be any different in the future? I have no doubt that when we're all going through all of this delightfulness again in 3-5 years for Generation VII, they'll tell us "once you've downloaded a Pokémon from the Bank into a Generation VII game, it can't go back to a Generation VI game" or something similar with some stipulations, like moving between Generations I and II and back again, conditionally.

And isn't that the beauty of it being linked to cloud storage instead of the systems themselves? That there's no ambiguity about how these Pokémon will get to the next generation, and even the possibility that the trip doesn't have to be a one way journey if you follow the stipulations?

And while the Bank may let me get the full set of starters without a need for two systems, my Kadabra's not going to evolve itself.

No one said it would. They aren't going to get rid of every aspect that requires a partner.
 

Eeveon1316

Well-Known Member
But why do people assume that it's a limitation born of laziness or incompetence or inability? That's my question. Why can't it be a limitation instituted for a specific reason or reasons by the very people responsible for the games themselves?

That would actually make me even angrier, though less with Game Freak and more with all of the cheaters out there. Cheating in a single-player campaign would be one thing, but it has obviously permeated the multiplayer scene and drawn a lot of Game Freak's attention to it.

They don't support older titles now save for the opportunity to remove your Pokémon from them. Transfers a generation ahead have been that way since Generation IV. Why would it be any different in the future? I have no doubt that when we're all going through all of this delightfulness again in 3-5 years for Generation VII, they'll tell us "once you've downloaded a Pokémon from the Bank into a Generation VII game, it can't go back to a Generation VI game" or something similar with some stipulations, like moving between Generations I and II and back again, conditionally.

Well, yes, but this is being marketed as cloud storage, not strictly as a transfer mechanic. I'm talking about if the Bank rewrites my Pokémon's type while it's still in the cloud. I'd say it's an easy fix, but I thought items would be an easy fix too, so...

And isn't that the beauty of it being linked to cloud storage instead of the systems themselves? That there's no ambiguity about how these Pokémon will get to the next generation, and even the possibility that the trip doesn't have to be a one way journey if you follow the stipulations?

That first part definitely is beautiful, I will agree. I just fear that, as time moves on, the Bank will become a cloud for Gen 10, but will only serve as a transfer for Gen 6, you know?

No one said it would. They aren't going to get rid of every aspect that requires a partner.

Or a second console. ;-)

And if I go to the trouble of grinding BP or PokéMiles or whatever else to finally re-acquire the Power Items and IV-Breed the perfect Shelmet, I'm unlikely to trust another player with it and risk getting stuck with the Karrablast they just caught in a Repeat Ball.
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
I'm talking about if the Bank rewrites my Pokémon's type while it's still in the cloud. I'd say it's an easy fix, but I thought items would be an easy fix too, so...

I just fear that, as time moves on, the Bank will become a cloud for Gen 10, but will only serve as a transfer for Gen 6, you know?

To which I would say there's minimal ambiguity, that eventually games will start to fall off the back end of compatibility and certain functions, just like as when cell phone gets to a certain age, it can't handle all of the features of the latest operating system upgrade, if it gets the upgrade at all.

But again, it's been that way in every generation of the modern era, and better yet, the new system means it doesn't by definition absolutely have to be that way immediately, that the jump ahead doesn't by definition have to be a one-way trip. Aren't these things not to be feared, ultimately?
 

sarysa

Series slave
Why can't they just blacklist specific items if they want to prevent transfer? Just a simple check.

On Upload to Bank:
CHECK: Is this hold item on the blacklist (newly updated for Gen 7)?
---YES - Sorry, Trainer. This item cannot be stored. It has been returned to your bag.
---NO - Carry on.

On Export to Gen 7: (assuming you stored the item before it was added to the blacklist)
CHECK: Is this hold item on the Gen 7 blacklist?
---YES - Sorry, Trainer. This item cannot be transferred to this game. Please transfer this Pokémon back to Gen 6 and remove the item.
---NO - Carry on.

This kind of problem that developers face is lesser of two evils.

It's programmatically simple on its face, yes. But it becomes exponentially more difficult to deal with as time marches on...and it sounds like this is the new permanent solution. Lets look at your example.

First of all, server teams and client teams are typically separate. It's not like an indie developer where the left hand always knows what the right is doing. New features require cross-communication, meetings, debates...weighing the pros and cons, etc. What's there was what has been decided for launch. I'm assuming this DLC will work by scraping the carts' save files, using the bank as an intermediary. (since people are saying you need Bank for Transporter, no local storage here)

It is absolutely possible that a future update could allow items, but it's almost 100% unlikely. All the added complication of adding software features in a segmented company aside, the discussion would probably come up with pro's and con's like these...

Pro's
- User satisfaction

Con's
- Increasingly complex tables of what items are permitted in which games
- Increasingly complex tables of what items in one generation equates to in another generation. Who's to say Potion (I'll guess 0x001C) won't be 0x001F in Generation VII?
- The "Pokemon limbo" problem I mentioned earlier, and the customer service time spent manually dealing with it
- Alternatively, if there's a separate cloud item storage system that stores nontransferable items by version...well, this has to get implemented, maintained, and it takes time!
- Exponentially increasing QA (quality assurance) time spent testing all all of the above (per title released) to make sure an exploit or game-breaking bug (the bad kind that destroys all your save data) isn't introduced

That last one is what most people don't know about, but it ended up being pretty sobering when I spouted out ideas left and right in my early mobile days. :D In this case I think development time would be dwarfed by the time spent testing the feature.

There's enough complexity with this system and the mons themselves. Adding items to the equation makes it an absolute nightmare. So they chose the lesser of two evils and disappointed people for a little. (bearing in mind most of us expected it, as item transfer was not possible for IV->V)
 
Last edited:

BlackAngel

Eevee Enthusiast
It goes back to what I said earlier. Option A) The people with the Bank system only have one console and will only have to pay 5 bucks a year. In total, that's about 120+5, to 200+5 (depending on 3DS selection prices). Option B) You have two systems, that set you back anywhere between 260-400+ dollars. You're essentially saying to them that cost of transferring is equivalent to the cost of a console, while Option A people only have to pay 5 dollars. That was my problem. It was ineffective then, it's still ineffective now. Not to mention, Option B is going to be shafted seeing how it will take at least 24 years for Option A to even pay the equivalent of a MSRP of a 3DS.

You may think it's "free," but at the end of the day, it ends up being the most costly model for the consumer.
Cost ineffective to whom? The consumer? Because you're not making sense. It's very cost effective for the consumers who already own a DS as well as a 3DS (they save 5 bucks and the trouble of applying for a subscription service). And it's not costly for someone who doesn't own two systems (just 5 bucks).

It's about a choice for people who already own a DS and a 3DS. I don't know what you gain from adding up the total cost of both options because it's very situational. The people who already own a DS won't feel ripped off because they already own the system. I think you should re-read the post you're replying too. ;)
 

Eeveon1316

Well-Known Member
To which I would say there's minimal ambiguity, that eventually games will start to fall off the back end of compatibility and certain functions, just like as when cell phone gets to a certain age, it can't handle all of the features of the latest operating system upgrade, if it gets the upgrade at all.

But again, it's been that way in every generation of the modern era, and better yet, the new system means it doesn't by definition absolutely have to be that way immediately, that the jump ahead doesn't by definition have to be a one-way trip. Aren't these things not to be feared, ultimately?

As long as it can at least transfer, even if it loses cloud capabilities for older games, then it should be more-or-less fine. It would just become a matter of making sure you take care of all your business in Gen 6 before you upload, ultimately a minor inconvenience. However, if it were to ever stop supporting Gen 6 altogether (even for one-way uploads) then it would become inferior to even something like Pal Park. Because at least I can still use Pal Park today. If they ever break a link in this tenuous chain that currently connects Gen 3 to Gen 6, it will be a tremendous disappointment.

But anxiety over the future of the Pokémon Bank is hardly appropriate at this juncture, just idle speculation. For now, I'll focus on the present. I'll try to just be grateful for the things that are available and for the low cost of the service.
 

~Sam~

Trader and Battler
I'm fairly certain that if we can transfer now, we will be able to transfer a few years from now. Gamefreak already said that Pokemon Bank would not just work with X and Y but also with future games.
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
It's about a choice for people who already own a DS and a 3DS. I don't know what you gain from adding up the total cost of both options because it's very situational. The people who already own a DS won't feel ripped off because they already own the system. I think you should re-read the post you're replying too. ;)

Is there really anyone who has a system from the previous generation and a system from this generation - not two 3DS units, but a DS and a 3DS - who has learned of Bank and Transporter and actually felt ripped off because they don't get to use that second handheld?

One would think that if that hypothetical cross-section of people does exist, their numbers are dwarfed astronomically by the people who see that they won't need a second system and/or a second copy of the game (depending on one's gameplay/transferring needs) and that the same functionality can be achieved for a limited time for free and for a full year for $5.

It would seem more like you're arguing for a cross-section of people whose numbers are small enough that they don't really need to be taken into account, particularly as the option is available to everyone, only costs a small annual fee and can be used for free in a limited period.

And, to put it bluntly, who says you always get a choice? There aren't always options - sometimes life will present you with the non-choice of one way or the highway. And if this is the sole occasion on which that reality presents itself to you over what I hope for you is a long and happy life, you've come out ahead of a lot of people.
 
Last edited:

sarysa

Series slave
Is there really anyone who has a system from the previous generation and a system from this generation - not two 3DS units, but a DS and a 3DS - who has learned of Bank and Transporter and actually felt ripped off because they don't get to use that second handheld?

You've been debating with them! :)

And, to put it bluntly, who says you always get a choice? There aren't always options - sometimes life will present you with the non-choice of one way or the highway. And if this is the sole occasion on which that reality presents itself to you over what I hope for you is a long and happy life, you've come out ahead of a lot of people.

We also get to choose which companies we do business with. A good company keeps its customers happy through reasonable means...contrast the item debate versus the transfer debate.

Though who am I kidding. Most people just take their lumps and gleefully keep coming back for more in spite of better alternatives. That's why (differentCompanyNameWithheldToAvoidAnotherOffTopicDebate) is so ridiculously popular.
(though to be fair, Nintendo has some really nice, high-quality original IP...probably the only reason I'm as loyal as I've been versus that (name withheld) company which I've essentially voted out with my wallet!)
 

BlackAngel

Eevee Enthusiast
Is there really anyone who has a system from the previous generation and a system from this generation - not two 3DS units, but a DS and a 3DS - who has learned of Bank and Transporter and actually felt ripped off because they don't get to use that second handheld?

One would think that if that hypothetical cross-section of people does exist, their numbers are dwarfed astronomically by the people who see that they won't need a second system and/or a second copy of the game (depending on one's gameplay/transferring needs) and that the same functionality can be achieved for a limited time for free and for a full year for $5.

It would seem more like you're arguing for a cross-section of people whose numbers are small enough that they don't really need to be taken into account, particularly as the option is available to everyone, only costs a small annual fee and can be used for free in a limited period.

And, to put it bluntly, who says you always get a choice? There aren't always options - sometimes life will present you with the non-choice of one way or the highway. And if this is the sole occasion on which that reality presents itself to you over what I hope for you is a long and happy life, you've come out ahead of a lot of people.

A choice would be nice, and I would not be so quick to say that the number of people who own both a DS and a 3DS is so small. After all they would of had to have a DS to play the prior Pokemon games. You would be assuming that just about everyone sold their DS for a 3DS. Without data you're assumptions are meaningless.

No one says you always get a choice, most of the time you don't. You made me laugh including a 'life lesson' in you're response on such a light matter, and in a Pokemon forum no less. Still, you made me smile, so thanks. ;)

Edit: However I will say I get your point. Even some people who do own both a DS and 3DS may opt to use the service, and I can understand why Nintendo would rather not go through the trouble of working on that option. So I'll leave it at that. Completely understandable.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top