The huge problem with the argument for Pokemon Let's Go appealing to casuals.

[erickexl]

I doubt the LGPE spin offs will make more than the main games. This is a remake afterall, and remakes never outsell a new generational game.

There is honestly nothing to worry about it.

 

[Creyk]

It's casualizing the more hardcore aspects, like post-game, you should be worried about.

I am.
I really...am

 

[Creyk]

I doubt the LGPE spin offs will make more than the main games. This is a remake afterall, and remakes never outsell a new generational game.

There is honestly nothing to worry about it.

You just better be right, or we are done forever.

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

You just better be right, or we are done forever.

Overly dramatic? It's just a game.

 

[Nockturne]

You just better be right, or we are done forever.

OK I really feel like you're just being overly dramatic to troll people at this point. You've had it explained to you multiple times why there are a variety of reasons that your fear that the Let's Go format will replace the tradition games entirely is irrational. From the total lack of business sense such a decision makes to the quote from Masuda that the LG games could become a spin off series if successful. If you are still sincerely concerned its obvious that no amount of common sense is going to be enough to quell your fears, sooo look forward to spending the next few years freaking out about something that will never happen I guess.

 

[Creyk]

OK I really feel like you're just being overly dramatic to troll people at this point. You've had it explained to you multiple times why there are a variety of reasons that your fear that the Let's Go format will replace the tradition games entirely is irrational. From the total lack of business sense such a decision makes to the quote from Masuda that the LG games could become a spin off series if successful. If you are still sincerely concerned its obvious that no amount of common sense is going to be enough to quell your fears, sooo look forward to spending the next few years freaking out about something that will never happen I guess.

This is silly, I was worried, but the explanations in here did make me feel better.
In the cold light of day things just seem different, for some reason I have this thought that they are evil and have it out for us and will ruin a great thing we have going...like how they KNOW we all wanted the battle frontier but did they put it in? No. Or more mega evolutions. Omitted as well. Everyone has been complaining for a game with following pokemon, it took them 15 years to do that again when it should have always been the norm. Let's face it they don't do the right thing and there have been countless examples of this you can't honestly think there is no reason to worry.

 

[BCVM22]

it took them 15 years to do that again when it should have always been the norm.

"Should have."

Yellow had a single following sprite, and that came about solely because of Yellow's anime imprinting.

HG/SS had all 493, but there was a reason for that - the following sprites were shared with the Pokéthlon, giving them an actual purpose beyond simply "should have," and while I don't know which is the chicken and which is the egg, the same sprite set serving dual purposes is essential for maximizing storage space on the media. Generation V couldn't claim that dual usage AND the Pokédex had gone up another hundred-plus Pokémon.

LGP/E are the first 3D Pokémon games on a system that can actually handle Pokémon following you - if they had tried it on any of the 3DS titles, your system would have started smoking and sparking, because Generation VI and especially Generation VII were already making that hardware huff and puff as it was.

It isn't a matter of "should have." It's never a matter of "should have." People never seem to like to hear this because it conflicts with made-up narratives like "Let's face it they don't do the right thing," but they are limited by hardware and by storage as to what can be included in a game and what can't, and including four additional sprites for every Pokémon in the game, for no reason other than "eh, might be fun" is the sort of thing a game developer recognizes as unnecessary. The feature wasn't omitted randomly, because nothing is done randomly.

you can't honestly think there is no reason to worry.

Can.
Do.

You might try it, instead of fabricating reasons to "worry" about these games and what terrible things they could do to the franchise. I would hope you realize how intensely silly it sounds to say things like "I have this thought that they are evil and have it out for us and will ruin a great thing we have going."

 

[Arcanineblitz]

Yeah they’re going to take away hardcore Pokémon away rip them right from our hands and make us all play let’s go =< oh btw did all hear that the sky is falling? Rough times.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

This is silly, I was worried, but the explanations in here did make me feel better.
In the cold light of day things just seem different, for some reason I have this thought that they are evil and have it out for us and will ruin a great thing we have going...like how they KNOW we all wanted the battle frontier but did they put it in? No. Or more mega evolutions. Omitted as well. Everyone has been complaining for a game with following pokemon, it took them 15 years to do that again when it should have always been the norm. Let's face it they don't do the right thing and there have been countless examples of this you can't honestly think there is no reason to worry.

TBH this is kind of an exaggeration but Game Freak does have a habit of ignoring complaints. Either they just stay the course or they remove the feature completely, they don't really look at fan criticisms and find ways to improve the feature, they tend to be very all or nothing. A good example of this is with difficulty modes. Everyone hated the way they implemented difficulty modes in BW2 because it was awkward tying them to the key system and then having to beat the game to unlock them. But Game Freak didn't listen to that, they just yanked difficulty modes completely and now everyone wants difficulty modes back, but they want them available from the start with no strings attached. Game Freak hasn't really done this since.

They're also pretty adamant about having "region exclusive features" to make the games feel like special snowflakes to help them sell. To some degree this is understandable, but they've gone a bit too far with this with making Megas a unique feature to Kalos, it has such a dramatic impact on the gameplay that it feels inconsistent to stop making them and shift to another gimmick.

Ultimately they just seem to do what they want and seem to expect the fans to just shut up and play the games regardless. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way because fans don't like being forced to put up with mechanics and design decisions they don't like. And they wonder why fans won't just sit down and play the game together when they don't bother addressing the problems they have with the games. The increasing amount of bickering and discontent towards the series is on them, if they made the game as diverse and universally appealing as possible instead of having a my way or the highway attitude towards the game the fanbase wouldn't be as toxic as it is now.

 

[Nockturne]

Let's face it they don't do the right thing and there have been countless examples of this you can't honestly think there is no reason to worry.

Yes I can, because choosing to omit a few fan favourite features here and there isn't remotely comparable to discontinuing an entire format in favour of a watered down version, off the back of one title selling well. That such an irrational basis for an argument. Why they left the BF out of ORAS I can't tell you, but I can guarantee it wasn't to ruin the games for the fans. What's silly is viewing a game developer as evil because they didn't include some features you wanted, or didn't implement them in a way that was personally satisfying to you. As long as people continue to buy the games, GF will continue to makes them, its really that simple. But like I said, some people just refuse to be told so I'm done trying.

 

[BCVM22]

The increasing amount of bickering and discontent towards the series is on them, if they made the game as diverse and universally appealing as possible instead of having a my way or the highway attitude towards the game the fanbase wouldn't be as toxic as it is now.

This is the single funniest thing you’ve ever posted, until I realize you’re completely serious. Do you hear yourself when you type?

*complains about every possible detail at every possible opportunity, endlessly and without pause, regarding past games, present games, and future games that are years away*

“Damn you Game Freak for making us so toxic! This is on you!”

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

This is the single funniest thing you’ve ever posted, until I realize you’re completely serious. Do you hear yourself when you type?

*complains about every possible detail at every possible opportunity, endlessly and without pause, regarding past games, present games, and future games that are years away*

“Damn you Game Freak for making us so toxic! This is on you!”

Sometimes I wonder what the point is of posts like this. All this post really is is just ridiculing another person, without actually even trying to understand what they're trying to say. What does it actually add to the discussion?

I mean seriously, of course it's fans like you that choose to be toxic in the end, but Bolt does have a point in that Let's Go does seem to abandon a portion of the fanbase which didn't need to be abandoned (for instance, the portion that liked to battle competitively on the battle spot). Let's be honest, keeping all else equal, would the presence of a battle spot really have deterred a large portion of the market they are currently trying to target with Let's Go? I highly doubt it, and I guess a lot of other people also doubt that. Plenty of people that bought Sun or Moon never play on the Battle Spot, nor do they have a problem with the Battle Spot existing in those games. At least I never heard people complain about it being present. People that like playing competitively essentially get sacked on Let's Go without (in their eyes) adequate reasoning. It's natural that they're upset. This is the next mainline game. And you ridiculing them, regardless of how well those fans actually phrase their arguments, does not help the discussion whatsoever, all it does is invoke more toxicity.

Toxicity on these forums is first and foremost caused by those fans themselves. Secondly by the complete and utter lack of moderation tempering said moderation here (yes I'm critiquing the moderation policy here, it's meant respectfully that I think it should be stricter), and maybe tertiary by GameFreak inadequately predicting fan response to their announcements. I could have predicted a portion of the fanbase would be unhappy with the removal of (at this day and age) core features like battling wild pokémon, the GTS, and the Battle Spot. And my expertise lies very far from market research. They can say "well, next year's game will be like the old games again" all they want, but that doesn't do anything for the 2018 games. It just makes them look worse by comparison, if anything. As stated by GameFreak, these are mainline games. Their words. So inevitably they will get compared to the previous mainline games, Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon. Each game will get compared to the game it's succeeding. And looking at that simple comparison, Let's Go is over 40% more expensive, and does drop features that a lot of people liked or at least used, without really showing a whole lot of new content to make up for it plus to make up for that significant price increase.

I can also say that you complain about every possible critique towards Let's Go on these forums, endlessly and without pause, ridiculing people that have a different opinion to yours. You can say that if you don't like it, don't buy it. Fair enough. I can also say that if you don't like negative comments towards Let's Go, don't read them or just ignore them instead of ridiculing them. It's the same thing really.

 

[Sαpphire]

There is one place on this forum to discuss these games for anyone who likes them. One. There is a near-infinite number of spaces to enjoy and discuss other things for those who don't. There is a finite amount of criticism, fearmongering, and complaining that is reasonable to tolerate, and you're certainly completely wrong in assuming that those defending the game contribute the majority of the "toxicity." It's definitely, easily, a two-way street.

Competitive players do get sacked in these games - because they are not in the scope of the intended audience, at least insofar as their competitive interests. That is not going to change.

These games are more expensive than previous entries in the series - because they are brand new Switch titles and are priced at the current market rate for brand new Switch titles (and titles on any format now, actually). That is not going to change and was inherent to their existence on a modern platform.

You're choosing, actively, to view this game as Game Freak having considered the concept of a Pokemon game, and then specifically removed elements in the name of appealing to casuals and kids. Instead, consider that as this is the first game on the system, they started from zero, and included items they deemed necessary for the kind of experience they wanted to provide - rather than singling out things competitive players liked and specifically excluding them. Consider that the development time and costs of fully implementing those features as a bonus, when they are not the point and not relevant to the intended audience or purpose, were deemed to be unnecessary expenses, at least when considering the specific intent and scope of the project.

As a side note, commercial and critical evidence suggest that literally nobody outside forum fans cares about any of this. There is no active decline in sales, either by system or for new generational entries, and no evidence of any "discontentment" within the vast majority of players. The vast majority.

Pointing fingers at Game Freak and implying they have specifically, intentionally singled out tiny portions of the fanbase to screw over is as much part of the problem, and indeed easily as annoying, as anyone making comments and posts that mock, or insult, or ridicule, or what have you. Game Freak, TPCi, and Nintendo are very experienced, very profitable companies composed of intelligent developers and experienced businessmen - they know what they're doing. They have entire departments devoted specifically to researching what the market would respond to, and implementing that as a part of their creative vision. They have very specifically, in a total break from their past behavior, addressed the concerns being reiterated literally right now. They are aware. They know. They are still confident in their plan, and have not changed it.

 

[Arcanineblitz]

Sometimes I wonder what the point is of posts like this. All this post really is is just ridiculing another person, without actually even trying to understand what they're trying to say. What does it actually add to the discussion?

I mean seriously, of course it's fans like you that choose to be toxic in the end, but Bolt does have a point in that Let's Go does seem to abandon a portion of the fanbase which didn't need to be abandoned (for instance, the portion that liked to battle competitively on the battle spot). Let's be honest, keeping all else equal, would the presence of a battle spot really have deterred a large portion of the market they are currently trying to target with Let's Go? I highly doubt it, and I guess a lot of other people also doubt that. Plenty of people that bought Sun or Moon never play on the Battle Spot, nor do they have a problem with the Battle Spot existing in those games. At least I never heard people complain about it being present. People that like playing competitively essentially get sacked on Let's Go without (in their eyes) adequate reasoning. It's natural that they're upset. This is the next mainline game. And you ridiculing them, regardless of how well those fans actually phrase their arguments, does not help the discussion whatsoever, all it does is invoke more toxicity.

Toxicity on these forums is first and foremost caused by those fans themselves. Secondly by the complete and utter lack of moderation tempering said moderation here (yes I'm critiquing the moderation policy here, it's meant respectfully that I think it should be stricter), and maybe tertiary by GameFreak inadequately predicting fan response to their announcements. I could have predicted a portion of the fanbase would be unhappy with the removal of (at this day and age) core features like battling wild pokémon, the GTS, and the Battle Spot. And my expertise lies very far from market research. They can say "well, next year's game will be like the old games again" all they want, but that doesn't do anything for the 2018 games. It just makes them look worse by comparison, if anything. As stated by GameFreak, these are mainline games. Their words. So inevitably they will get compared to the previous mainline games, Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon. Each game will get compared to the game it's succeeding. And looking at that simple comparison, Let's Go is over 40% more expensive, and does drop features that a lot of people liked or at least used, without really showing a whole lot of new content to make up for it plus to make up for that significant price increase.

I can also say that you complain about every possible critique towards Let's Go on these forums, endlessly and without pause, ridiculing people that have a different opinion to yours. You can say that if you don't like it, don't buy it. Fair enough. I can also say that if you don't like negative comments towards Let's Go, don't read them or just ignore them instead of ridiculing them. It's the same thing really.

If a post boils down to “thing I want isn’t in the game so I’m gunna stomp my feet and make sure to let everyone know how angry I am” it’s really not worth a serious reply especially if they post it repeatedly no matter what other bring to to table conversation-wise. By posters own admission they are being toxic.

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

There is one place on this forum to discuss these games for anyone who likes them. One. There is a near-infinite number of spaces to enjoy and discuss other things for those who don't. There is a finite amount of criticism, fearmongering, and complaining that is reasonable to tolerate, and you're certainly completely wrong in assuming that those defending the game contribute the majority of the "toxicity." It's definitely, easily, a two-way street.

I think you guys have a different definition of toxicity from me. I view toxicity as flamebaiting. Ridiculing others for their opinions. Personal attacks and name calling (either explicit or implicit by the use of for instance ridicule or sarcasm). Giving arguments and discussing these games, either in a positive or a negative light, is not by definition toxic. Nowhere have I ever said that those defending the game contributing to a majority of the toxicity here. In fact, I have claimed this:

To be fair, I have never said anything of the sorts that these games would be the end of the franchise. I have only stated that these games are not for me for various reasons. And to be fair, there's been toxicity and generalisation spread from both sides in this thread. I don't feel like calling out names, I'm not going to minimod here, but there have been sarcastic flamebaiting and just degrading comments made in this thread towards people that don't like these games too.

What you seem to be implying in the quote above with "There is a finite amount of criticisim, fearmongering, and complaining that is reasonable to tolerate" is that people unhappy with these games are apparently unwelcome and/or implicitly banned from discussion. It is a trend that is also implied with BCVM22's ridiculing of people that don't like these games. Discuss people on arguments all you want, rebuke and disprove their arguments, but don't go to personal attacks, banning people, or name calling. You're crossing a line there.

These games are more expensive than previous entries in the series - because they are brand new Switch titles and are priced at the current market rate for brand new Switch titles (and titles on any format now, actually). That is not going to change and was inherent to their existence on a modern platform.

That's just a way of what you compare the games to. These games are main-series pokémon games, so I am going to compare them to main-series pokémon games. I mean, the argument can also be made that these aren't brand new Switch titles either. They're at least to a certain extent Yellow remakes in that they re-use the region and a large portion of Yellow's story. They're re-using battle animations from the Alola games, they're re-using the models from gen 6 and 7.

You're choosing, actively, to view this game as Game Freak having considered the concept of a Pokemon game, and then specifically removed elements in the name of appealing to casuals and kids. Instead, consider that as this is the first game on the system, they started from zero, and included items they deemed necessary for the kind of experience they wanted to provide - rather than singling out things competitive players liked and specifically excluding them. Consider that the development time and costs of fully implementing those features as a bonus, when they are not the point and not relevant to the intended audience or purpose, were deemed to be unnecessary expenses, at least when considering the specific intent and scope of the project.

But they aren't starting from zero. Like you state later in your post, GameFreak has made pokémon games for a long time. They aren't starting from scratch. Nowhere have I ever said or implied that GameFreak ditched the Battle Spot specifically or intentionally to spite competitive players. A Battle Spot already exists for the Alola games, it's not like they'd have to go through a whole design and development phase for including them. Besides, nowhere have I ever said or even implied that GameFreak specifically removed the Battle Spot, GTS, wild pokémon battles, breeding, and so on, just to spite people or upset people. Don't put those words into my mouth, as while I may not hold GameFreak in as high regard as you do, that doesn't mean I honestly believe they'd make decisions like that.

As a side note, commercial and critical evidence suggest that literally nobody outside forum fans cares about any of this. There is no active decline in sales, either by system or for new generational entries, and no evidence of any "discontentment" within the vast majority of players. The vast majority.

These games aren't even on the market yet, as far as I know we don't have any sales figures yet, so it's very premature to actually draw any conclusions like this.

They have very specifically, in a total break from their past behavior, addressed the concerns being reiterated literally right now. They are aware. They know. They are still confident in their plan, and have not changed it.

So where could I possibly find where they addressed these concerns?

 

[Sαpphire]

I think you guys have a different definition of toxicity from me. I view toxicity as flamebaiting. Ridiculing others for their opinions. Personal attacks and name calling (either explicit or implicit by the use of for instance ridicule or sarcasm). Giving arguments and discussing these games, either in a positive or a negative light, is not by definition toxic. Nowhere have I ever said that those defending the game contributing to a majority of the toxicity here. In fact, I have claimed this:

No. I do not consider legitimate debate toxic. I consider constant explicit pessimism, attacks on the companies, and outright refusal to consider these games on any legitimate basis - and on the premise upon which they are built - to be toxic and to inspire further toxicity in its accumulation and its propagation of exhausted, exasperated responses from individuals who, quite frankly, are sick of it. Legitimate discussion? Sure, let's have some!

What you seem to be implying in the quote above with "There is a finite amount of criticisim, fearmongering, and complaining that is reasonable to tolerate" is that people unhappy with these games are apparently unwelcome and/or implicitly banned from discussion. It is a trend that is also implied with BCVM22's ridiculing of people that don't like these games. Discuss people on arguments all you want, rebuke and disprove their arguments, but don't go to personal attacks, banning people, or name calling. You're crossing a line there.

No, sorry - I didn't imply that and can't say I understand how I "seemed" to. What I stated - not implied, but explicitly stated - is that there is a finite amount that is tolerable. Reasonable. Sensible to put out into the world if you're trying to legitimately, constructively criticize. You misreading that as me thinking people shouldn't be allowed in this section doesn't indicate that you're willing to actually hear out my point in that regard. I'm not asking that anyone stop posting, whether they like these games or not. I'm asking that we post in a manner that incorporates sense, logic, and the recognition that not everyone despises these games' concept and existence or thinks Game Freak is incompetent. There are individuals, here and there, and not necessarily you, who would have to change their tune a bit to levy legitimate, reasonable, discussable criticism - which, then, I would happily and enthusiasticslly engage with!

That's just a way of what you compare the games to. These games are main-series pokémon games, so I am going to compare them to main-series pokémon games. I mean, the argument can also be made that these aren't brand new Switch titles either. They're at least to a certain extent Yellow remakes in that they re-use the region and a large portion of Yellow's story. They're re-using battle animations from the Alola games, they're re-using the models from gen 6 and 7.

But they aren't starting from zero. Like you state later in your post, GameFreak has made pokémon games for a long time. They aren't starting from scratch. Nowhere have I ever said or implied that GameFreak ditched the Battle Spot specifically or intentionally to spite competitive players. A Battle Spot already exists for the Alola games, it's not like they'd have to go through a whole design and development phase for including them. Besides, nowhere have I ever said or even implied that GameFreak specifically removed the Battle Spot, GTS, wild pokémon battles, breeding, and so on, just to spite people or upset people. Don't put those words into my mouth, as while I may not hold GameFreak in as high regard as you do, that doesn't mean I honestly believe they'd make decisions like that.

They are more or less starting from scratch; the primary assets for this game appear to built new, for the Switch, with other assets then pulled in from external sources. Note that this is just assets - models, animations. Not functionality, not features - there is a clear difference in terms of development. These aren't built like USUM were, where they could pull in the core engine, assets, functions, features, text, and source code of the previous games and develop from there.

Either you view these games as having elements excluded or removed, or you view them as including specific elements from a baseline zero-state, with the exception that story elements and regional layout are adapted from Yellow as the starting premise. That's not me putting words in your mouth - that's just the full set of possible cases. There is no alternative. There's also no indication these games are built on quite the same engine as previous titles, and no reason to believe that features and functionality that are more complex than simple graphical assets should or can be simply ported and included.

These games aren't even on the market yet, as far as I know we don't have any sales figures yet, so it's very premature to actually draw any conclusions like this.

I'm referring specifically to commercial trends over the last eight years, not these games alone. There has been no decrease in the first titles in a generation; there is no decrease from B2W2 to the comparable USUM. There is thus no indication of decline or discontentment.

Notably, though, these games are available for preorder and have seemingly done very well in that regard already.

So where could I possibly find where they addressed these concerns?

I would hope, with all the discussion done so far, you're aware they've made statements clarifying that the 2019 games are "more traditional" and geared toward "long-time players" enjoying them? Multiple times, if I recall?

 

[BCVM22]

BCVM22's ridiculing of people that don't like these games.

False. I have never once ridiculed anyone for not liking these games. Elect to not like these games all you want. I have absolutely ridiculed the notions - not people, but notions - of "I hate these games so that makes them terrible" and "these games are the worst thing to ever happen" and notions adjacent to those.

but don't go to personal attacks, banning people, or name calling. You're crossing a line there.

And if you can provide examples of me doing that, by all means, do so. The very post of mine that you claimed "added nothing to the discussion" specifically addressed an opinion while saying nothing of the person who spawned it.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

Competitive players do get sacked in these games - because they are not in the scope of the intended audience, at least insofar as their competitive interests. That is not going to change.

And again, you have to question is it really wise to target mobile gamers on the Switch? How many Go players do they seriously expect to buy a Switch? Even the very core concept behind this game is questionable at best.

These games are more expensive than previous entries in the series - because they are brand new Switch titles and are priced at the current market rate for brand new Switch titles (and titles on any format now, actually). That is not going to change and was inherent to their existence on a modern platform.

Problem is that when you increase prices, it decreases demand. This is Economics 101. So in order to keep demand up they need to add more value to the game. So what are they doing to make this game $20 more valuable? That's why the removal of online features is a big deal. Because not only are they not making the experience more valuable, but they're making it less valuable. They have the audacity to give us the kind of experience that their target audience may not even want to pay a cent for and gave it a full $60 price tag.

You're choosing, actively, to view this game as Game Freak having considered the concept of a Pokemon game, and then specifically removed elements in the name of appealing to casuals and kids. Instead, consider that as this is the first game on the system, they started from zero, and included items they deemed necessary for the kind of experience they wanted to provide - rather than singling out things competitive players liked and specifically excluding them. Consider that the development time and costs of fully implementing those features as a bonus, when they are not the point and not relevant to the intended audience or purpose, were deemed to be unnecessary expenses, at least when considering the specific intent and scope of the project.

In general you don't want to think that way with an established IP, unless you're doing a reboot. You already have an audience to work with, the best approach would be to consider how to continue to appeal to them while drawing in new fans. What Game Freak has been doing, and especially with this game, where they've been targeting casuals and stripping down everything for their sake, is a surefire way to fracture your fanbase and turn them against each other. This is why I say Game Freak is the cause of the toxicity, their decisions are very divisive and ironically in trying to be as broadly appealing as possible they've actually reduced their appeal by turning off the players that didn't want the experience stripped down.

Pointing fingers at Game Freak and implying they have specifically, intentionally singled out tiny portions of the fanbase to screw over is as much part of the problem, and indeed easily as annoying, as anyone making comments and posts that mock, or insult, or ridicule, or what have you.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said this. What I said was that they're continually forcing the fanbase to conform to their views on the series. That doesn't really work because people like what they like. What they should be doing is taking a closer look at what the difference groups of fans want and figuring out ways to balance them into one experience.

Game Freak, TPCi, and Nintendo are very experienced, very profitable companies composed of intelligent developers and experienced businessmen - they know what they're doing. They have entire departments devoted specifically to researching what the market would respond to, and implementing that as a part of their creative vision.

Could've fooled me. Their takeaway from the market seems to be "Mobile good. Mobile get big numbers. Let's make everything mobile!". Remember, they thought the Switch would fail because no one would want it with mobile devices dominating. That right there shows that they don't really understand the market as well as they'd like us to believe. If they've done as much marketing research on consoles as you think, they'd surely have thought the Switch had at least a reasonable shot of succeeding and they'd know gamers would respond well to games like BotW and Odyssey. There's been two decades worth of sales data backing that up. But nope, they just seem to believe that mobile is going to be what drives the Switch when mobile and console have completely different business models and its gamers have completely opposite expectations. That doesn't exactly speak to savvy business decision making.

They have very specifically, in a total break from their past behavior, addressed the concerns being reiterated literally right now. They are aware. They know. They are still confident in their plan, and have not changed it.

Actions speak louder than words though, and their actions for the past 5-8 years have told us that they want to make this series increasingly casual. So it's difficult to trust them when they say they're listening when they've had multiple chances to prove it and mostly failed. Don't believe it until you see it.

 

[TwilightSpooky]

And again, you have to question is it really wise to target mobile gamers on the Switch? How many Go players do they seriously expect to buy a Switch? Even the very core concept behind this game is questionable at best.



Problem is that when you increase prices, it decreases demand. This is Economics 101. So in order to keep demand up they need to add more value to the game. So what are they doing to make this game $20 more valuable? That's why the removal of online features is a big deal. Because not only are they not making the experience more valuable, but they're making it less valuable. They have the audacity to give us the kind of experience that their target audience may not even want to pay a cent for and gave it a full $60 price tag.



In general you don't want to think that way with an established IP, unless you're doing a reboot. You already have an audience to work with, the best approach would be to consider how to continue to appeal to them while drawing in new fans. What Game Freak has been doing, and especially with this game, where they've been targeting casuals and stripping down everything for their sake, is a surefire way to fracture your fanbase and turn them against each other. This is why I say Game Freak is the cause of the toxicity, their decisions are very divisive and ironically in trying to be as broadly appealing as possible they've actually reduced their appeal by turning off the players that didn't want the experience stripped down.



Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said this. What I said was that they're continually forcing the fanbase to conform to their views on the series. That doesn't really work because people like what they like. What they should be doing is taking a closer look at what the difference groups of fans want and figuring out ways to balance them into one experience.



Could've fooled me. Their takeaway from the market seems to be "Mobile good. Mobile get big numbers. Let's make everything mobile!". Remember, they thought the Switch would fail because no one would want it with mobile devices dominating. That right there shows that they don't really understand the market as well as they'd like us to believe. If they've done as much marketing research on consoles as you think, they'd surely have thought the Switch had at least a reasonable shot of succeeding and they'd know gamers would respond well to games like BotW and Odyssey. There's been two decades worth of sales data backing that up. But nope, they just seem to believe that mobile is going to be what drives the Switch when mobile and console have completely different business models and its gamers have completely opposite expectations. That doesn't exactly speak to savvy business decision making.



Actions speak louder than words though, and their actions for the past 5-8 years have told us that they want to make this series increasingly casual. So it's difficult to trust them when they say they're listening when they've had multiple chances to prove it and mostly failed. Don't believe it until you see it.

Stepping into this conversation. Not to say your points aren't warranting discussion but it really sounds like your arguments come down to "I don't feel like Nintendo is doing what I want so it's not a good idea to make this game."

First off you ask is it wise as a marketing strategy, well I don't see how it's unwise. Will people who play pokemon go only, be enticed to buy a Switch? It's far from implausible and it certainly won't hurt sales of the system. It also makes sense for older players who now have kids and can share their gaming experiences with the new generation. In fact now they can co-op play. It makes me excited as an adult but I would have loved playing the same pokemon game with my friends as a kid.

I've already mentioned this in my first reply but you say Gamefreak should be looking closer at all the fanbases and balancing what everyone wants. They did that in Sun and Moon and it didn't really work. That's why they're splitting the games up because they realize that it's difficult to appeal to older hardcore fans and create or keep certain mechanics and invite new players in via a lite version of the game. This is their answer to the balance. And from what they've presented and I can observe I think its a good idea. You have to remember Nintendo in general has always marketed as the game company that can appeal to everyone; casual, hardcore, families. They won't stray too far from that but the fact that they are trying this spilt shows they are in fact aware and listening to their fans.

Also Gamfreak is not responsible for the toxicity of the pokemon fan base, that is absurd. They are a gaming company that makes games. Unless they implicitly put something derogatory or toxic in context in their games they are not accountable for whatever the fan climate turns out to be. No matter what Gamefreak does people will complain and make demands and attack each other. If you don't like the games don't buy them but to claim the company for not putting something into a game is forcing the fans to be toxic is pointless, illogical, and untrue.

And I'm not saying they are a perfect company that never does anything wrong or falls short. Just look at the WiiU, didn't do so hot. But I respect Nintendo's innovative approach to gaming. They try new things and sometimes they are very successful, other times they have set backs. I also respect that they don't let demands of fans get in the way of their visions completely. Besides if they focus on the non casual fans with the 2019 game maybe they can better implement the things that you and other fans want, ya know like BotW.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

First off you ask is it wise as a marketing strategy, well I don't see how it's unwise. Will people who play pokemon go only, be enticed to buy a Switch? It's far from implausible and it certainly won't hurt sales of the system. It also makes sense for older players who now have kids and can share their gaming experiences with the new generation. In fact now they can co-op play. It makes me excited as an adult but I would have loved playing the same pokemon game with my friends as a kid.

It comes down to the core concept and appeal. As Game Freak has pointed out several times, mobile devices are meant to be general purpose electronic devices and provide not just gaming, but music, movies, internet, social media, a variety of different forms of entertainment. So mobile gamers aren't specifically interested in gaming, they just see it as one part of a full entertainment package. Furthermore, they're relatively unwilling to spend money on mobile games. Compare that with the Switch, which is designed first and foremost to be a gaming device, one that you can play when you're out and about and then come home and play it on your TV. So the market that's buying a Switch is likely going to spend much more time playing than mobile gamers would. The business model for traditional console also presents a higher bar to entry, each full scale retail game costs $60 to play them, so they require a heftier investment of money to enjoy. With all this in mind, there probably won't be a lot of mobile gamers willing to cross over. They likely got Go because you can play it for free and alternate between that and whatever else they want to do, whereas for Let's Go they have to be willing to fork over $360 just to play Let's Go. To a mobile gamer this wouldn't be seen as a good value, it doesn't suit their needs. That's why it's unwise to target them.

I've already mentioned this in my first reply but you say Gamefreak should be looking closer at all the fanbases and balancing what everyone wants. They did that in Sun and Moon and it didn't really work. That's why they're splitting the games up because they realize that it's difficult to appeal to older hardcore fans and create or keep certain mechanics and invite new players in via a lite version of the game. This is their answer to the balance. And from what they've presented and I can observe I think its a good idea. You have to remember Nintendo in general has always marketed as the game company that can appeal to everyone; casual, hardcore, families. They won't stray too far from that but the fact that they are trying this spilt shows they are in fact aware and listening to their fans.

No, they've never really done this. Balancing what everyone would want would mean things like including multiple difficulties again, having a large degree of optional content in their games while still making it accessible enough for casual players to easily zip right through it, and not forcing simplifications because they think the fanbase needs their hand held. Such a game doesn't currently exist yet.

And they don't need two games to accomplish this, they just need one game that's flexible enough to allow different fans to experience it in whatever way they want it to. So the split is unnecessary and will just lead to further toxicity.

Also Gamfreak is not responsible for the toxicity of the pokemon fan base, that is absurd. They are a gaming company that makes games. Unless they implicitly put something derogatory or toxic in context in their games they are not accountable for whatever the fan climate turns out to be. No matter what Gamefreak does people will complain and make demands and attack each other. If you don't like the games don't buy them but to claim the company for not putting something into a game is forcing the fans to be toxic is pointless, illogical, and untrue.

While it's true they aren't completely accountable for fan behavior they are accountable for making design decisions that appeal to or isolate groups of fans based on their personal interests and that is the main cause of the toxicity. The whole point of them making games is to make a product people enjoy so they can make money, if people aren't enjoying what they're offering they're not doing their job correctly.