@squiddu-real Age of Imprisonment is a true physical release though which suggests the decision is specifically related to Pokemon. Legends Z-A couldn't be a Key Card because the Switch 2 physical cart had to be able to run on a Switch 1 meanwhile Pokopia is the first Switch 2 exclusive Pokemon game.
Seems Pokopia is either TPC trialling if they can make Gen 10 a Key Card or Nintendo trialling if they can make everything 1st party a Key Card. The concept that if any franchise can normalize 1st party Key Cards, it's Pokemon.
I think Pokopia is a gkc because it’s only like 10 gigs. Just doesn’t make sense to pay for a full cart. I would wager that’s the smallest S2 exclusive first-party game we have so far, right?
the dlc is just over 900 megs, so depending on how they rounded this, there's a slim chance bananza + dlc is still slightly smaller.
edit edit: pokopia is only 6.2 gigs??? so i guess i'm wrong. but the point was there already was an exclusive that is very small and didn't really need to waste the cartridge, but they did.
Well, this isn’t gonna fly with lots of people, but here’s how I see it: DK is a Nintendo character through-and-through. So is Kirby. So is Zelda. There’s no way those games would be on gkcs.
But Pokémon? Honestly, Pokémon is Nintendo adjacent in my mind. The Pokémon Company is their own thing. I know Nintendo owns part of them (majority? I don’t even know), but things can get a little fuzzy, and I don’t know if most consumers always link Pokémon super closely with Nintendo on the corporate level.
I think with those factors combined, a gkc for Pokopia isn’t too shocking. It made me blink, for sure, but after a bit of time it wasn’t earth shattering.
Now, if the Yoshi game is a gkc, then I would start running for the hills. But I just don’t see it happening.
@squiddu-real
I admit it's a bit of a stretch, but technically speaking Pokemon does not equal Nintendo in the strictest sense. Pokemon started as their own characters, their own company, etc., that Nintendo purchased a piece of later down the line.
Not all Pokemon games have been published by Nintendo, for example.
It's worth remembering Pokémon didn't want to support the Switch and told Nintendo it would fail.
They also famously don't let the Smash Pokémon amiibo do anything in games, even in Yoshi and Mario Maker they just function in generic, or only a simple sprite with no unique sounds or animations.
I believe, firmly, that if TPC could break from Nintendo they would, in a heartbeat. Same with Game Freak, despite being the creators of the series, almost what nothing to do with it, and if they ever do make a unique game, chances are Nintendo isn't even in the conversation as a platform.
It's a weird relationship, one I believe is only in effect because Nintendo owns 33%, and foots the bill for publishing internationally.
Now Playing: Mario & Luigi Brothership, Sonic x Shadow Generations
Now Streaming: The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom
@OmnitronVariant
But really, @Haruki_NLI is giving pretty concrete evidence as to why TPC is a fragile combination of companies, and I do agree that Game Freak and Creatures, Inc. would love to be unshackled from Nintendo if at all possible.
It's not news to hear that Nintendo can be a bit... demanding... when it comes to certain parts of their business and projects that directly involve them. I don't know in what world that would be up for debate.
Anyway, yea, Pokopia being gkc doesn't make me think "actual" first-party Nintendo stuff is going to follow.
All this gkc stuff just got me back to thinking: All of this nonsense is about money, which is sad. Gkcs save publishers boatloads of money, so that's why they do them (by and large - the speed factor may be an issue in SOME cases, but certainly not the majority). I don' think there's any sort of nefarious scheme to keep consumers mired in digital licenses, I just think it's a byproduct of skimping on production costs and opting for the gkc to keep profits as high as possible.
In a perfect world, digital is there for those who want it and physical remains for those who want it. But that won't bring the greatest profit potential.
@OmnitronVariant I would also like to point out, that this is the same guy in charge of Pokémon: the biggest brand on the planet. Pokémon sells hardware, this has always been the case, and he told Nintendo this thing would fail....in favour of smartphones, where Pokémon freely throws themselves at every opportunity.
Of course, would Switch have been as successful without Pokémon? Hard to say. But it definitely read like the tail was wagging the dog, so to speak.
And with everything Pokémon has done over the years, pulled itself away from being associated with Nintendo Directs, gone all in on mobile in some very aggressive ways monetarily, Game Freak's consistent push to not publish their own games on Nintendo hardware, famously Sakurai doesn't pick the Pokémon characters for Smash, he gets told, and in the case of Greninja, they hadn't even given it a moveset yet when he got the order.
The amiibo thing is just one of the most obvious. At the point characters like Cloud, Ryu, Mega Man etc all have custom 8-bit sprites, sound effects, animations and music in Super Mario Maker, but Pokémon doesn't, you know something's up.
Same with Yoshi's Woolly World: you're telling me SquareEnix only allowed two songs in Smash at the time but Yoshi can dress up as Cloud, but not Pikachu?
It's a very delicate balance, and Nintendo just publishes in some regions and does QA (I think). But they need to keep that relationship healthy otherwise they lose one hell of a money spinner.
Now Playing: Mario & Luigi Brothership, Sonic x Shadow Generations
Now Streaming: The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom
Of course, would Switch have been as successful without Pokémon? Hard to say.
Considering there was no Pokemon on Switch for most of the first 2 years, no new generation for most of 3 years, Pokemon isn't in the top 5 selling Switch games and wasn't the kid-friendly series which made Switch sales go insane during covid, I think it's fair to say Switch still would have done well without Pokemon. Slightly less well certainly, but still very well.
At the point characters like Cloud, Ryu, Mega Man etc all have custom 8-bit sprites, sound effects, animations and music in Super Mario Maker, but Pokémon doesn't, you know something's up.
I mean... there are Charmander, Bulbasaur, and Squirtle mystery costumes with special sound effects etc. And Pikachi, Charizard, Jigglypuff, Mewto, Lucario, Greninja. Pokemon are a decent chunk of the mystery costumes.
@FishyS
Yes, but the point stands: Game Freak (video games) and Creatures, Inc. (Pokemon card game) have made it clear that they'd rather be free to operate as they wish. Or, if that language implies too much control, they'd rather just not have any strings attached.
From what I can gather, The Pokemon Company triumvirate was only formed out of a want and borderline necessity for more help to wrangle a franchise that was quickly becoming massive in the late 90s, early 2000s. That was quite some time ago, and all three companies involved have grown and changed since then.
Anyway, still takes us back to: Pokemon, though rightfully associated with Nintendo due to TPC, is not and has never been a homegrown Nintendo franchise. That fact carries weight when it comes to all sorts of decision making.
@rallydefault Definitely true. Similar legal relationship as with Hal but I get the impression Nintendo and Hal have a friendlier working relationship; I suppose the fact that they are literally in the same building helps.
Also worth noting, when Pokémon Scarlet and Violet launched, what company got the most flack and had to issue a public statement on the game? It certainly wasnt Game Freak or TPC.
Now Playing: Mario & Luigi Brothership, Sonic x Shadow Generations
Now Streaming: The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom
i mean, i guess it was strange given nintendo's usual quality control, but they don't publish pokemon games in japan, it's likely they were pretty hands off with keeping them wrangled
until sc/vi, obviously
remember; your chicken parm is not safe around me!
South of Midnight is launching on March 31st at only $40. Smart move on Microsoft's part, as that's a great price.
Part of me is tempted to get it at that price... but I'm still busy with RE Requiem and Pokemon FireRed, plus I need to finish FFVII Remake and Prime 4 still. Pragmata is only a couple weeks or so after that too, and that's a day 1 game. I think I'll give it a skip at launch.
I just noticed that in the 'what are you playing this week' article, 20 of the top 22 games are now Switch 2 games. The only Switch 1 game near the rop was FireRed/LeafGreen. Getting close to a year of Switch 2 there are now a remarkably large number of games.
@squiddu-real
I admit it's a bit of a stretch, but technically speaking Pokemon does not equal Nintendo in the strictest sense. Pokemon started as their own characters, their own company, etc., that Nintendo purchased a piece of later down the line.
Not all Pokemon games have been published by Nintendo, for example.
While true, I think its a little misleading to describe Nintendo as "owning part of Pokemon". Yes, Nintendo only owns 1/3 of The Pokemon Company, with Gamefreak and Creatures Inc each owning 1/3. . . but IIRC Nintendo also owns part of both of those companies, too. More importantly, Nintendo holds the exclusive ownership over the Pokemon trademarks, without which all the rest is worthless.
Basically, the Pokemon bus only drives where Nintendo allows it to drive.
@Grumblevolcano
The future of physical gaming was already doomed by ever more people preferring the convenience of digital.
And was further already doomed by technological progress ushering in an era where portable games require large capacity storage and high read speeds, the combination of which is ever less financially viable.
Pokopia is merely a consequence of that reality. Not the cause.
@metaphysician
Dude, come on, you're really splitting hairs here.
It's a combo of the three companies.
And your claim about the trademark ownership doesn't seem as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. I'm big enough to admit that I am not an expert in trademarks, so I'm not gonna sit here and pretend like I know the full legality behind it all, but yea.
Nintendo owns a third of The Pokemon Company. Pokemon never was and never will be an original Nintendo IP.
@JaxonH
(I hate this phrase) To be fair, Pokopia's existence as a gkc almost certainly has absolutely nothing to do with read speed requirements, and it also certainly has nothing to do with being too large.
This is a case of the publisher wanting to skimp on production costs, pure and simple. Frankly, I'm surprised they did a gkc at all and didn't do only digital like Fire Red and Leaf Green.
And I have to say: I'm not convinced that physical gaming is doomed. I'm really not. I think we may have a bit of a pendulum situation on our hands, especially if the gaming market really does end up "crashing" in the near future.
@rallydefault
I didn't mean to imply Pokopia couldn't run on a cartridge.
What I meant was that the necessary read speeds and large storage sizes required for most games result in prohibitively expensive cartridges, and it is that prohibitive expense which deters a full physical release.
But as stated, the prohibitive expense is a direct result of the higher read speeds and larger capacity storage. Of course they want to "skimp" when each cartridge is costing them $15+. Who wouldn't? That's no fault of theirs. That's just the reality I described. Technological progress has resulted in games requiring high read speeds and large capacity storage, and it's becoming such a financial burden we're seeing the inevitable consequences.
It's nobody's "fault". It's just the reality of where technology has progressed for portable gaming devices.
Forums
Topic: Nintendo Switch 2
Nintendo Switch 2 is finally here, check out our guide: Nintendo Switch 2 Guide: Ultimate Resource.
Posts 3,481 to 3,500 of 3,790
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic