vondecayle
Long gone are the days
I think that for sure Scarlet/Violet will surpass Sword/Shield on sales, but will any pokemon game dethrone Red and Blue?
Those are the consolidated numbers up to December 31st, so only 1.5 month since the release. It doesn't include 2023.Scarlet and Violet have hit a total of over 20 million sold. In just essentially 2.5 months.
I mean, if the momentum keeps up and the inevitable DLC becomes a success, then Scarlet and Violet can easily do it within a few months.I think that for sure Scarlet/Violet will surpass Sword/Shield on sales, but will any pokemon game dethrone Red and Blue?
I think it is pretty much inevitable that future Pokémon games will follow the same RRP as other AAA Nintendo titles. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't.Is anyone else worried about future price hike given the recent Zelda shenanigans?
These games aren't worth full price but obviously with higher RRP means store discounts will be lower...
Strong sales for SV might sway them too /:
It sucks but there's nothing to be done about it reallyI think it is pretty much inevitable that future Pokémon games will follow the same RRP as other AAA Nintendo titles. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't.
I think the reason may be due to TOTK using a 32 GB cartridge as TOTK is 18.2 GB (For comparison, BOTW was around 14.4) instead of the usual 16 GB. And Nintendo did comment that its not supposed to be a trend.Is anyone else worried about future price hike given the recent Zelda shenanigans?
These games aren't worth full price but obviously with higher RRP means store discounts will be lower...
Strong sales for SV might sway them too /:
Only thing I think that might protect Pokemon is the target audience. In the UK Pokemon is 7+ while Zelda is 12+I think it is pretty much inevitable that future Pokémon games will follow the same RRP as other AAA Nintendo titles. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't.
A few of the bigger games are more expensive when purchased digitally. Skyrim is a good example of this. When it was on sale, the cheapest version was $19.99 and the one with all the digital content and DLC was $34.99. Both were at least 40% off but that is still a lot to pay for one game.I think the reason may be due to TOTK using a 32 GB cartridge as TOTK is 18.2 GB (For comparison, BOTW was around 14.4) instead of the usual 16 GB. And Nintendo did comment that its not supposed to be a trend.
Pikmin 4 was only 59.99$ USD as it normally would be for switch games, and it was basically the only other major title revealed. Unless you count Metroid which was only 40$ USD.
For the record, US$69.99 today would have been US$41.66 in 1996 when adjusted for inflation. So technically, the price of video games have been going down (not counting paid DLC and such). That is, when adjusted for inflation, the price of Tears of the Kingdom is less than the price of Ocarina of Time.Is anyone else worried about future price hike given the recent Zelda shenanigans?
These games aren't worth full price but obviously with higher RRP means store discounts will be lower...
Strong sales for SV might sway them too /:
My guess is it'll probably be the big franchises like Mario, Pokemon, and Zelda that get the price hike since people will still buy those anywayI think the reason may be due to TOTK using a 32 GB cartridge as TOTK is 18.2 GB (For comparison, BOTW was around 14.4) instead of the usual 16 GB. And Nintendo did comment that its not supposed to be a trend.
Pikmin 4 was only 59.99$ USD as it normally would be for switch games, and it was basically the only other major title revealed. Unless you count Metroid which was only 40$ USD.
eh, I think it'll only be that way if the game produced is much bigger than it normally would.My guess is it'll probably be the big franchises like Mario, Pokemon, and Zelda that get the price hike since people will still buy those anyway
I'm not sure. I know that some game developers think pricing a game for $70 is basically wage theft & the developers don't really get anything from it.For the record, US$69.99 today would have been US$41.66 in 1996 when adjusted for inflation. So technically, the price of video games have been going down (not counting paid DLC and such). That is, when adjusted for inflation, the price of Tears of the Kingdom is less than the price of Ocarina of Time.
Bear in mind that if you get the full roster for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate you'll be down US$120.
I think it’s more to do with the data size cart of TotK. If not that directly, then it probably has to do with the scope of the game, justifying the price.I'm not sure. I know that some game developers think pricing a game for $70 is basically wage theft & the developers don't really get anything from it.
Diancie and Mew did not have any events dedicated to them in the Gen 8 period. Mew did become permanently available in BDSP if you have save data for any of the Let's Go games.Question: did all of the Mythical Pokemon with data in SWSH before HOME have event distributions during SWSH's lifetime? Trying to figure out if that means Meloetta may get one since it's transfer only in SV right now.
Also, is it just me, or does it seem like Wi-Fi events are way less common these days?
There's a few ways they could give us Meloetta and other Mythical Pokemon that are on the files:Question: did all of the Mythical Pokemon with data in SWSH before HOME have event distributions during SWSH's lifetime? Trying to figure out if that means Meloetta may get one since it's transfer only in SV right now.
Also, is it just me, or does it seem like Wi-Fi events are way less common these days?