Since Pikachu took the starring role in Pokémon Yellow, the expectation has been that every Pokémon duology will be followed by a third, slightly revamped edition. This strategy has actually changed somewhat over the past decade, with Black and White each getting a direct sequel, as did the previous core RPG outings with Ultra Sun and Moon. (In fact, only 3DS titles X and Y have no direct follow-up).
But Nintendo and Game Freak are tweaking this formula yet again for Sword and Shield with yesterday’s announcement of an Expansion Pass. While this isn't the first time the platform holder has dabbled in multiple DLC packs, it’s a noticeable step-change for the Pokémon series as the follow-up content will now be adding new ground, not retreading the same region.
Both The Isle of Armor and The Crown Tundra add new areas to explore, with a new storyline to take players through them, plus a ton of new monsters and additional features to extend their Sword and Shield adventures. They will be releasing in June and Autumn 2020 respectively, staggering the expansion over the course of the year, but together they essentially represent a brand new Pokémon game – something rarely seen this soon after launch.
The pricing is particularly interesting. As with previous Nintendo DLC, you can purchase the packs separately or buy the Expansion Pass for a reduced price to access both. It’s one of the most expensive passes the platform holder has released to date at $29.99, equal only to Xenoblade Chronicles 2.
By comparison, Smash Bros Ultimate’s Expansion Pass was $24.99, Fire Emblem Warriors was $19.99, the passes for both Breath of the Wild and Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 were $17.99, and Mario Kart 8 (Wii U, not the Switch DX version) charged $11.99.
So it’s understandable if the price reveal during yesterday’s Pokémon Direct caused a short intake of breath for some fans, but it’s worth making a more direct comparison. Both Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon launched at $39.99 each, meaning fans had to fork out close to $80 to catch ‘em all. Previous third/alternate editions were also full-price, even though the bulk of the content (namely the region you explore) was exactly the same.
Whether the Sword and Shield Expansion Pass truly represents good value for money depends on how big these new areas are and how fleshed out the storyline is. But personally, we find the prospect of $30 worth of brand new content far more appealing than spending $40-$50 on one of two rehashed (sorry, ‘Ultra’) versions of a game we're already played.
And we're sure we're not alone in that – when Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon launched in the UK back in 2017, their week one sales were 74% lower than that of their forebears. (That said, they were 32% higher than Black 2 and White 2, the previous sequels, suggesting the appetite for Pokémon expansions has been growing over the years.)
There’s another interesting factor, here. According to Nintendo, Sword and Shield players will be able to "experience the beginning of the Expansion Pass’ story" even if they haven’t purchased any of the DLC. This indicates a greater focus on 'upselling' current players on these next releases; give them a taste and hope they buy the Pass to continue the story.
This may be an effort to make up for the potential lack of a big launch for Pokémon in 2020. Thanks to the alternate or Ultra version, plus a few spin-offs, Pokémon has stealthily been an annual franchise for the past four years: Sun and Moon (2016), Ultra Sun/Moon (2017), Let’s Go Pikachu/Eevee (2019), Sword and Shield (2020). Prior to that, there were annual releases from 2012 to 2014 and from 2008 to 2010.
While it’s always possible we’ll see a Diamond/Pearl remake or perhaps Let’s Go Johto come October, it would arguably be more beneficial for the series to take a year off (at least in terms of a full release – we've still got Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Rescue Team DX to look forward to this year). It would only be the third year in 13 that didn’t see a new mainline Pokémon RPG on shelves.
And before the #Dexit brigade begin their war cry of "Year off? Lazy developers!", the fact that past Pokémon are included in the expansions suggests that this has been part of the plan all along – and that it’s entirely possible for more missing ‘mon to be added in future expansions (although this is unlikely, since Game Freak will probably be concentrating on the next edition). Perhaps they will be patched in, like the free fighters added to Smash Bros. or new tools introduced to Super Mario Maker 2.
Sword and Shield might not have been the series-redefining moment some may have hoped for, but the introduction of expansions does show Nintendo and Game Freak will be taking a different approach to the series going forward. Depending how well these packs perform, it could dictate how Pokémon sequels and alternate editions are handled in the generations to come. The Isle of Armor and Crown Tundra could be the first steps into an even bigger Pokémon world.
There will be an “ultimate” version after all the dlc hits. That’s how these things work.
I look forward to this. Just “gamers” sad that they did not gave a discount or free DLC for players who have both games.
I want to get Urshifu once i paid the Expansion Pass on late Fall 2020. 😀
Still so long to wait and i can play other games while waiting. 😁
Interested to see their spin on Authurian mythos. :3
For my fellow Brits can I point out that ShopTo have the expansion pass up for preorder at less than 22 quid!
After first reading about the paid DLC I thought to myself "oh no, this is the worst they could've done", but then I went after the info. If this really is supposed to substitute the "ultra version" for a cheaper price tag, I'm all for it.
(Personal opinion here: I hated playing through the entirity of Pokémon Sun with one new house or another in each island in Pokemon ULTRA Sun. The post ending content was fun, yet extremely short)
Each game's expansion pass includes both parts (Shield and Crown), but have to be bought separately. So it's actually like this:
S/M ($40) + USUM ($40) = $80 (or $160 if you want everything).
Sw/Sh ($60) + Expansion ($30) = $90 ($180 for everything).
Except there really wasn't much reason to own both versions before. For me it's more like $40-60 (cost pf one, or trade one to get sequel) versus the required $90 for all-in this generation.
The thing about this DLC is however you think about it, it puts Game Freak in a bad light, I think. Normally, after a game comes it, eg with Xenoblade 2, it takes a long while before the DLC arrives afterwards. It used scrapped ideas from the main game, and expanded on the meaty Original. Most of development took place after 2’a release.
Here, either game freak began developing this during the development of Sword and Shield, in which case this feels like an expansion on cut post game content (which SwSh is lacking), or they began developing this after SwSh’s release, in which case adding all of these 200+ Pokemon is clearly not as hard as they initially stated, and therefore having to pay more money to be able to catch them feels very greedy.
Overall, I’m not that impressed by all this.
I hope there is a complete version next year or this holiday season full on the cartridge. This will be the only way to play the game for me
Overall this seems like a great alternative to the silly "ultra" type games I never really understood the purpose of. They felt more like "GOTY Edition" rereleases than new content, but were hyped as new content. This is cheaper and features actual new content. Not bad overall.
My only real complaints about it are that I hate the whole staggered release approach. I'd much rather have a single full size expansion available in Fall than trying to segment it into two disconnected packages just to get multiple release dates to keep attention spans up and revenues rolling. And, maybe more importantly, I strongly strongly dislike the fact that there are two separate versions, for no apparent reason of the DLC. For me who has only played one base game it just makes buying it unnecessarily complicated, and for people who have played both, it means they need to buy the same DLC twice to get the "3 different things in each" version for the two base games they own, and it's somewhat a slap in the face to anyone that bought the "double pack", even though it was two full priced games for the price of two full priced games, having to buy 2 of mostly the same DLCs for the 2 of mostly the same game you bought in a single box feels wrong somehow.
I can't imagine there's a business reason for that. I doubt any amount of double dippers forced to buy two DLCs will really make a dent on GF's ledger sheets. Seems to be a silly "because this is the spirit in which we've always released two" tradition based release rather than a financial one.
We really gonna call "selling cut content as $30 DLC instead of delaying the release date for a full game experience that's actually worth $60" a good thing?
I’d honestly be glad to see things like US & UM go away. I skipped them completely because it felt like they could have just been expansion packs. I hope going forward the continue to do dlc explanations. Great way to give the game longer legs
@Miles_Edgeworth Torna came out 9 months after the original versus 6 months for Isle of Armor and 12 months for Crown Tundra.
For those who bought the base game (like me) this is the better option because we get to pay $30 instead of another $60 game to get the extra content.
For those who skipped the base game and were waiting for a third version now they have to pay $90 for all the content instead of $60 rerelease.
To appease both groups, GF should have either released this DLC as free updates (especially when it was being developed concurrently with the base game rather than as add-on content to a satisfying and complete experience) or released it as a standalone like Torna.
@LUIGITORNADO Of course. The third game will hit this (or next) year with more Pokemon..
@LUIGITORNADO Breath of the Wild is a good example they won't do this.
@Zuljaras My money's on a "bundle" in a retail box with a download code. Companies, in general, are resistant to physical retail DLC, because one of the PRIMARY reasons for the origination of DLC in the first place was to discourage/profit from used game sales. DLC was invented more or less as an anti-GameStop device. Putting it on the cart means resale loses that profit potential for them again via the used game market.
"No more $40 makeover sequels" sure sounds nice but in reality means no more full content/complete game and more seasons passes, DLC and soon micro transactions, their isn't more point for 2 games with the whole trading and balancing excuses, this is probably the downfall of one of my favorite franchises
I think it was a mistake making this announcement only 2 months after release of the game. This early in development they clearly didn't have much to show. Should have waited to show this once some environments and the size of the expansion could really be seen. Just saying we are adding an extra area feels underwhelming
@ummyeahnintendo They're only 5 months away from releasing the first half....they really should have a lot more to show for it if they're really releasing on time. I imagine they waned to keep interest high right after kids got the game for the holidays, as well.
It "feels" early because the presentation didn't show much, but a 5 month window shouldn't really be too early.
i Don’t think they wanted to show their whole hand yesterday. I think they have more to show and are further along with Isle of Armor than what we saw. Probably going to slow drip info to keep interest up rather than drop everything at once and have nothing new to show for months. Easier to keep the expansion pack in peoples minds this way.
@kenyowa what makes you think Isle of Armor or Tundra was cut content? I get maybe the Pokémon argument but nothing indicates these regions were cut to simply sell as DLC later. Honestly, beside MAYBE a handful of Pokémon, I don’t miss not having the whole dex in the game.
Anyway, the real strategy was always to just wait until the inevitable rerelease and buy that instead of the original release. I would've enjoyed Ultra Sun much more if I hadn't played Sun, and so on and so forth. I'll wait until they release the "ultimate edition" with DLC included in a year or two, then buy it used and on sale.
DLCs offer better control over pricing I suppose. I haven't bought either sword or shield yet, but this DLC announcement sure won't make me buy it now. I'll wait for a definitive version since I'm not in a hurry to play it.
@Rhaoulos that’s assuming their will be one. Nintendo/GameFreak maybe decide this is the new way.
Prices of games haven't gone up much over the last decade. Which is weird considering prices in general have been going up what means that it is also becoming more expensive to make games (wages go up, equipment and partner services become more expensive).
Apparantly producers have decided that the current price point for base games is what consumers in general are willing to pay. So instead of increasing prices to make games profitable enough they offer paid-DLC.
It is basic economics and the only way to change it is if the biggest developers raise prices on their games to compensate with the same result..
Still on the fence about getting it, seems like they are milking us.
So there's no option to buy the second expansion solo so you have to cough up $90 or so to get everything. That's unfortunate for the people who like waiting for the sequel games that used to pop up.
I'm not against DLC myself but that's only if:
1) The base game feels feature complete
2) The DLC is meaty enough to justify the purchase.
We don't know enough about the dlc to make a. Judgment but I don't think the base game is good enough for me at the current price.
@Kalmaro well you can always buy it used or on sale in a few month for $40 and then pay the $30 for DLC. Basically like paying $10 for the DLC at that point. I’d say, based on what we’ve seen, no one could argue it’s not worth $10
How about they sell just 1 version of the game in the future? That’d be a real, positive step forward.
@NEStalgia They probably have a lot more, but aren't willing to show it (yet), there was a lot of secrecy surrounding Sword/Shield before the games released too.
Giving us a glimpse at a pile of sketches gets us speculating, and speculation keeps internet buzz going for longer than saying "Here's a bunch of pokemon" and showing them outright.
@LUIGITORNADO Nintendo doesn't do "Game of the Year Edition" style releases.
@Franz but then you lose the social aspect of the game. Having to trade with family/friends etc to “catch ‘em all”. I’m actively hunting Pokémon now to trade with friends I meet on discord who have the opposite version of the game. I enjoy the social aspect of the two releases. It’s pretty core for the whole Pokemon experience.
@Supadav03 That's true and I'm keeping my eye on Ebay. I'm waiting for the price to dip a bit more.
"Here's why Nintendo going down the EA path is a good thing".
@AllieKitsune Not really. You still can’t buy BotW with the expansion pack included or Splatoon 2. The re-releases just had strategy guides but the extra content still needed to be bought as DLC
USUM should've just been dlc for Sun and Moon tbh
@DaCh33f 100%. That felt way more like “milking it” than this does.
@NEStalgia You know ... hope dies last
@Supadav03 I don’t think it removes the social aspect at all. What if I don’t want to hunt for Pokémon that only have 1% chance of appearing? What if I want a Pokémon caught in a specific Pokeball, but I don’t have any more of those Pokeballs? What if I want a shiny Pokémon but don’t do any shining hunting or don’t have the time to breed for a shiny?
And then there’s online battling. Now online raids.
The social aspect will persist, I reckon.
Having 2 versions feels... outdated. To me, anyway.
@Supadav03 Sword and Shield went into full production about a year after the release of Sun/Moon, giving it approximately two years of development. The time that it took to make the entirety of this game-- which already suffers from complaints of a lacking post-game --compared to the size of the DLC does not match up, and indicates that this was already in development pre-release. Therefore, these zones and storylines were likely cut post-game content, justified by glorified accountants who realized that while a delay in the game's now yearly release cycle would bring them a drop in stocks (see example: Nintendo's stocks dropped after the delay of AC), releasing it later for half the price of the base game would supplement the company's profit margins nicely.
Here's the question would you rather this at less then £30 or a "Ultra" version what's the same game but some minor new things at full price? The Pokemon aren't locked to this so providing you can trade then you will be able to get them with some work. Come on they needed to add new and returning PM to this as a new story plus a Legendary would hardly be a tempting thing.
I'd say £15 for each individual side quest would be reasonable, so bundling them together for £30, while a slight bit steep, isn't exactly the worst thing ever.
Im glad an expansion was made instead of a third game. I am also glad its adding more pokemon and postgame, but I am mad that they had to add those as DLC and not the base game in the first place
"They're not charging you for a whole third version!"
At roughly $60 to get the entire Pokedex, assuming that 2 more expansions are coming in order to complete it, that is the price of a full game. Same mirrors, differently-colored smoke.
Agree, I swore I would boycott it until every single mon data was available in the game.
That is still not the case, this changes nothing.
@kenyowa this DLC is not compete. Cutting it indicates it was completed by the games release and held back. That’s not the case here. Only time I find dlc an issue is when it’s completed prior to release but held back, like we’ve seen with fighters in certain fighting games. Otherwise you could complain about every game with dlc ever. “Why did the release Xenoblades instead of just waiting until Torna was done? Cutting content just to get extra money later!” Just feels silly to me. Pokémon was a complete game and this feels like a worthy expansion.
@jamesthemagi I do not care so much about the Pokémon numbers as I care about the content in the game. By content I mean more areas. Those 2 islands should have been included in the main game from the start. They look so much better than the main game.
And this is just from couple of seconds of gameplay and few concept art.
@WallyWest I think it's reasonable to say, if you feel that this DLC is a cheap money grab, that you rather not have either and a complete game from the jump.
That's just me speaking in generalities. I don't personally think or know what the intent is behind this DLC other than providing extra content. And I don't have any issues with good DLC. As I said in yesterday's article, the optics of this just doesn't do Game Freak any favors. You stress the Dex cut and that Pokémon cut will reappear in future games. Only to offer some of those Pokémon in DLC?
Again, I give them credit for setting it up so you don't necessarily have to buy the pass to get the Pokémon. I'm also personally excited that some of the Pokémon not available originally will be. I did do a fist pump when I saw Blastoise
You get the XBC2 DLC with a standalone (stellar, by the way) game.
Pokemon is getting more and more predatory with their business practices.
Ultra SUMO wasn’t a sequels but a third game entry divided twice. There is an important distinction.
The only sequel game was Black 2 White 2. Which was unique. Meaning that XY, BW, B2W2 are complete packages as is.
That needs to said because to get the entire “Sun/Moon experience” would be the four games and that would cost you 160.00 plus the hours needed to completely four games.
The cost is almost the same as SWSH, why people act like SWSH is more expense is beyond me. The cool things they are doing is you don’t need complete four games and if you don’t buy the expansion you can still trade in the Pokémon. Which in the past when there was a new Pokémon like New Ultra Beast you were SOL.
Honestly people really need to look back at the games history before complaining about one entry which isn’t even the worst issue.
I mean Sun/Moon was incompletely Mina didn’t even have her captains quest. Entire islands had little to no content. Weak postgame. To Single out SwSh when this is status quo is silly.
Also does anyone remember that before they made it compatible the Pokebank was locked for the first four months of the new games meaning you couldn’t trade old Pokémon and weee stuck using the in game ones only.
@AllieKitsune despite what GameFreak said of their intentions, they’re known for releasing third games. It might happen, it might not. I’m not a fortune teller, just looking at their releases historically.
I quit Pokemon after the 6th generation. The models for X and Y were extremely nice and they were stated to be future proof. However, the region felt too small and I despised all the hand-holding with the friends. Then came ORAS. Once again, the models and region were depicted beautifully. However, I found it very disappointing we did not get a Battle Frontier.
Pokemon Sun and Moon were announced as shaking up the formula with no Gyms. I saw 5 islands vs 8 gyms and I said to myself nah.
One of my sisters quit Generation 7th, she told me she just did not enjoy the game that much and I can understand where she is coming from.
Now, my last sister just quit after SwSh. She told me it was fun, but not like before.
Gamefreak is loosing the magic of Pokemon, what made us spend countless hours in every single generation. They can sell a lower quality game now and the masses will chew it up, but eventually they will loose all good will.
They should look into all of their games and see the most popular mechanics they have introduced. For example, Mega Evolution. I think it is broken for strong Pokemon, but it can breathe new life to underused ones: 1. They get to give them a redesign that may be more appealing. 2. They get enhanced stats to renew people interest in using them in battle.
I am a big supporter of Regional variants because they bring back interest for the classics. They also allow designers to artistically branch out into alternatives of the previous mons they wish would exist.
But why no Battle Frontier? Or Ball Seals? Maybe Contests? Z Moves?
People often complain of linearity. The anime has more than 8 gyms per region. Why don't you include 14 gyms and to enter the league you just need 8 badges?
I brought ultra moon and didn't even finish the first island because it was basically the same game. Yes there was some new decent looking content but I would have to invest my time into playing stuff I already played just to get to it. I love the idea of the expansion because it is essentially the same as getting a 3rd version but I don't have to retread old ground and I have all my pokemon already. If they did do a 3rd version on switch I'm not sure what the price point would be but just going from history every 3rd release were full price for their respective consoles ($29.99 for all gameboy entries and $39.99 for a DS/3DS entries) So if releasing an expansion with new areas, pokemon, tutors, and story content that's half the price of a full release and comes out sooner sounds more than worth it.
@Miles_Edgeworth not only that, but what do we really know about the areas? Until we get some solid reviews of the size of the content, there’s really no reason to be excited.
The article conveniently forgets how to do math...before you would buy the original game for $40 then the second the same $40 that’s a total of $80. But the new games are $60...the DLC is $30 that’s $90. So let’s not pretend here like Gamefreak is doing fans a favor by doing this if anything the way I took it they conveniently made a underwhelming campaign on the original game and now they’re going all the way out with the DLC to make it very lucrative for fans to cash out more money out of them...I have feeling they’re going to keep milking this cow with even more DLC and even more money. When in past entries they pack so much more content in one package for less money...it seems to be that the Pokémon company is getting more greedy with the franchise and is screwing over fans.
@Supadav03 I would hardly call the base game of Pokemon complete. The story was short, the post-game practically non-existent, and the Wild Area full of unpolished textures and rendering issues. All said and done, at release it should have only been worth $40 for the quantity and quality of content contained. These expansions would push it up to a $60 value, easily.
Furthermore, the Torna expansion is a false comparison. Torna was not a post-game, but rather a smaller spin-off marketed as both DLC and a stand-alone game. It is a prequel to Xenoblade 2, with an entirely new combat system and new playable characters. The Sword and Shield expansion pass is entirely post-game content, and is exclusively tied to the base game. They are two entirely separate situations.
@kenyowa Octo-expansion then, The Witcher expansions, or hundreds of other dlc options.
And I find SwSh to be a complete game. There is nothing missing that keeps it from being a full fledged Pokémon adventure. There wasn’t a single moment I thought “wow, I’ve been short changed” I don’t know what Pokémon games y’all played in the past because they must be some magical entries I didn’t know existed. Because this is as much Pokémon as any game before it.
The ONLY complaint I somewhat understand is the missing Pokémon, but honestly I didn’t care that much. Out of all the Pokémon cut, I truly missed like 5.
I haven't read any of this comment section and don't plan to, but here are my thoughts on the matter.
First, I do wish for the mainline Pokemon releases to take at least a year off. They're in danger of oversaturation and becoming a yearly IP release, something which hasn't worked well, in terms of quality, for other franchises. My hope is that a quieter period will give Game Freak an opportunity to become more familiar and to explore some new innovations with a new platform; before the Switch, main series entries were always on handheld systems.
Now for the DLC. While I'm not fully on-board with some of it and think a few aspects of it should have made it into the original products (I think Sw/Sh should have spent a little more time in development, but that's not my focus here), I do think it's a better approach than a full-on new title release with only a few changes. This way, players don't need to start a new file and can jump directly into the optional new areas. Some of the updates are free.
I actually do hope optional, non-story locked DLC is here to stay for the series. I also hope that they don't still go with the third/Ultra full-on release approach at this point. I'm not opposed to full sequels like what happened with Black/White 2 though.
How about delivering a complete game for once and only moving forward towards the next installment, rather than making buffed up versions of the same game to double sales? How about NOT falling into DLC trend?
You guys are always there to defend the most disgusting business practices just because it’s a Nintendo game after all.
This isn’t any better than “Ultra” versions, it’s just a different way to price things. Both games would cost you $80 back in DS/3DS days, now it’s a $90 deal with less content and a shorter Pokédex, plus a mandatory subscription service if you really want to Catch ‘em All.
I really, really doubt that is ever going to happen because $$$
@rushiosan why is DLC inherently bad?
@Supadav03 Look at the base game and you’ll get your answer.
@rushiosan you didn’t say DLC only for this game. Your statement implied DLC in general was bad.
And again, nothing about this base game makes me feel I was missing out. If there was no DLC, I would have felt just fine about the game. I’m glad there will be new experiences coming for me to enjoy later.
An amazing addition to an already amazing and fun game. Can never have enough of good ol Pokemon, bring it all Nintendo.
You can resell, trade or let somebody borrow a physical expansion that's on a game cartridge. Paid $30 DLC is magic pixie dust. Is it cheaper than what we used to pay? Sure, but you're not getting anything of real value. As people have said before. Xenoblade2 did DLC/expansion right. Put the DLC on a cartridge if you're going to charge that much. Please and Thank You.
@Supadav03 I meant DLC can be used as an excuse to cut content on purpose and sell it separately, as seen on many games in the past years.
My guess is that you probably don’t remember the amount of content those games used to have before buffed up versions and DLC became a thing. Even if you take Crystal into account, it improved upon an already lengthy game that had TWO full regions to explore.
Also, they have waited until holiday season was over to announce this pass, just to assure sales wouldn’t take a hit. And yet people seem to defend this...
I am on board with all of this. Most of the content here really appeals to me and this seems much more reasonable than say re-packaging the game as a third entry. Now it would have been nice to have each part separate ($15 each) but other than that, its all good to me since I want both parts anyways.
@4ormal I see your point but at the same time your only argument is "I can't sell, trade, or let someone borrow paid digital DLC" and while that is true it hasn't stopped any of the other numerous game companies from making digital DLC. When I buy a game, I don't go into thinking "will I be able to sell this later down the road?". I get it because I want to play it, not worry about its financial value. I get it if that is something important to you, but honestly I think its a weak argument
@drewber2635 You are correct that other game studios do the paid digital DLC. I do not support this. I work hard for my money and want real tangible goods. I would gladly pay the extra $10 to have a physical copy. I'm not saying to get rid of the digital DLC option, but at least provide both ways of DLC for the people that want it if they are going to charge a premium price for it.
If it were EA pulling this, they'd be pinned to a cross by now, but it's Nintendo so it's totally fine. The fanbase has already made it painfully clear they will buy up even the most mediocre Pokemon titles at this rate, why not start nickle and diming with DLC too?
If they're actually going to do this in place of the "Ultra" version crap then I'm all on board with that but I have a feeling we're still getting a third version, probably with all the DLC included like a bundle.
I knew I didn't like the direction this game was going in and this simply confirms it. This is the first generation I've skipped and it pains me. I remember when all the obtainable Pokemon were included in the base game and no DLC or patches were required. Funny how the most rushed, incomplete Pokemon game is also the first one to require DLC content. All of this and we're also still playing a game where the characters simply bump into each other as attack animations. Just once I'd like to see Gamefreak design a Pokemon game like they give a toss. Each one feels more phoned in than the last and it's getting old. Throw DLC into the mix and I can't possibly be less interested, unless the DLC is something like letting us visit a whole new region Gold/Silver style. That'd actually be pretty rad but I expect nothing more than a new area that'll take at most, 30 minutes to clear. I actually hope I'm wrong on that but I doubt it. Sounds like a very Gamefreak thing to do.
@mousieone I've noticed that entire towns in Sw/Sh also have no content. Getting to Ballonlea and seeing how it was emptier than some Gen 1 towns are what ultimately killed this game for me.
Bold of you to assume that we won’t also be getting another version or two of the game anyway.
@jamesthemagi I doubt it as well. Companies will hold onto the way they make their money. Another reason why we should always be vigilant regarding their predatory practices.
I'm seeing a lot of price comparisons. I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure it costs more to make a Switch game than a 3DS game, which would explain the higher price.
Also, third versions were mostly recycled games with a few new features (I think Black 2 and White 2 were the only ones with drastic differences). I'd rather they make expansions with mostly new content.
@rushiosan I remember all the games just fine. Red released when I was 12 and I haven’t missed a game since. Sword stands up just fine against any of them, IMO. Not sure how announcing DLC after the holidays would matter. If anything, I’d think you’d be more apt to buy knowing there was more content to come, stretching further the life of the game. Nothing I have seen tells me this content was completed prior to the game released so I see no issue with it being released as DLC. (Again, I’m excluding the dexit stuff here).
I think the fact that the expansions are going to be new wild areas with that style and camera is already a sign at the direction they are going to take going forward, and I personally love it
@NEStalgia Maybe it's just me lacking reading comprehension, but I found what seem to be numerous errors in this article and after 75 comments nobody mentioned the article at all. I figure you'll set me straight.
"The pricing is particularly interesting. As with previous Nintendo DLC, you can purchase the packs separately or buy the Expansion Pass for a reduced price to access both."
I've looked, and I can't find a single mention anywhere of buying the 2 pieces of content separately, or of getting a reduced price to buy both expansion passes for Sword and Shield. I have no idea what those sentences are about.
"Let’s Go Pikachu/Eevee (2019), Sword and Shield (2020)"
Both games are off by a year unless the article is referencing some region I'm unfamiliar with.
"the passes for both Breath of the Wild and Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 were $17.99"
BotW and MUA passes are each $19.99. Unless he means in a difference currency, but the other 2 games and all the other prices in the article are correct in $.
"There’s another interesting factor, here."
The rest of the article read like a HS homework assignment to me.
Did you read it?
Edit: My point being, it's hard for an article to persuade me to their opinion when I can't read it with a straight face.
I never buy the 3rd versions because I don't like replaying the same game again just to access the new content.
I'll definitely consider buying the expansion pass once all the content is unveiled.
@rjejr haha. Great catches. I raised an eyebrow at the BotW & UA DLC price reference too but figured they might be talking EU pricing.
@Archius9 “some” sure but there are plenty of empty towns in past games that’s are just way points for the gyms. That’s normal. As far as I know SwSh actually featured a city for the “elite four” which in the past didn’t exist. It was a building; this is a massive city.
Again this status quo.
@rjejr Haha, yeah, I caught some of that, and like you, just assumed my reading comprehension was faltering and didn't dig further into it. My brain started hurting mostly around the release years part which definitely weren't adding up for me.
And yeah, even the article yesterday quoted:
"The passes will be available to purchase directly from the Nintendo eShop later today, with pricing set at £26.99 / $29.99 per version. The Isle of Armor is scheduled for release by the end of June 2020, while The Crown Tundra is planned for fall 2020. A smaller update will go live later today (for free) that gives players a small slice of what to expect in the full expansion."
It's a very very cold day in Inferno when we're down to using citations to Ryan Craddock's articles as sources for fact checking another NL article.
So Sword and Shield each have their own expansion pack DLC with exclusive content on each DLC pack which costs $30 each and there is no way to get both expansion packs for less than $60? I guess that if you want all of the content you must get Pokemon Sword and Pokemon Shield for $60 each or as a 2-pack, and then you must buy each DLC for $30 each, meaning that you can spend $60 + $60 +$30 + $30 if you really want to get every single bit of content?
@Supadav03 "might be talking EU pricing"
That still might be the case, I didn't check, but every other price in the article, and there are a lot, seemed $ correct to me - though admittedly I didn't check them all. But with what seemed to me to be numerous other errors it's hard to give the benefit of the doubt.
I was just really more surprised 75 comments and not a peep.
@NEStalgia Thanks for the LOL, my eyes are starting to tear up.
Oh, and I like Ryan, I questioned him on a something yesterday and he actually made some changes to the article. Nobody here does that, they usually just tell me to STFU. Not that I don't deserve it. This article though, fire the editor and the proof reader.
My only issue is that I think the added Pokemon should just be a free update and not part of the expansion pass. The base game should have had 500 - 600 Pokemon initially and the excuses they gave for why it did not just don't hold up anymore. Also if I have to pay for Pokemon HOME that better come with Pokemon Bank as well because it makes no sense to have to pay for two separate storage and transfer services.
@graysoncharles why should the isle of armor and crown tundra been there since the beginning?
@Arcamenel well you can technically get the added Pokémon without buying the expansion pass
@rjejr Only Damien tells you to STFU. But it's ok, he does that to everyone.
It's my understanding, that the added pokemon are "free" However, you are unable to catch them yourself. You need someone that bought the DLC to trade with you (so you need to pay for Online Subscription).
In addition, I think I heard that HOME is free. Bank is not and you need that to trade to HOME.
Zelda was 19.99 for the dlc not 17.99
love it or hate it but it's a smart move by Game Freak and I'll be getting it after New Horizons
It's a makeover for stuff that should've been in the base game.
Unless its filled to the rim with content like Witcher 3 then it's really not worth praising.
@jamesthemagi the direct confirmed Home is a paid service
Also you don’t need NSO to trade. You can do it locally without an online subscription but obviously it limits your options.
@Ooccoo_Jr goddamn why don't they let me pay with a credit card? paypal's not working for me T_T
@LUIGITORNADO and it'll probably just be exactly the game+doc at the price of just the game when it released in 2019 instead of the price of the game + the price of one year's worth of DLC
And since it won't release until 2021 at best it won't be aimed at current players but instead simply just making it easier for late adopter to join in.
So... not a big deal
Xenoblade Chronicles 2: Torna - The Golden Country was my first purchase for Switch. At $30, it served as a good ~20 hour RPG and streamlined a lot of the drag I found in the full game later. All of that to say, if they released these two as a Standalone package I would be tempted.
Otherwise, it will probably be ignored like most of the Pokemon stuff.
I'm not a dexit guy, but as far as I know most of them want Game Freak to take time off, so they can put more effort into the next Pokemon game? So that line about dexit people is very inaccurate
The packs are NOT available singularly, you have to buy the Expansion Pack in order to access them.
@Bobb honestly I kind of hope this approach is indeed here to stay because it might mean games with longer lifespans before new titles or even generations releases now too.
For all we know "Duliamond and Oearl" could well e 2021's "Expansion Pass 2". After all, if DLCs can remove the need for separate "Ultra/Platinum" release within a generation... why not have them introduce new old regions in DLC form as well for full dual region games for the first time since the Jotho/Kanto duo of gold/silver/crystal?
It certainly made me think about how "Diamond Sword & Pearl Shield" expansions wouldn't have a bad ring to them, if anything(perhaps a perfect title for the late2021 or 2022 game of the year editions to be later aimed at late adopters who missed the initial release of both game and dlcs?) :3
@Supadav03 so you need Home, because GF thought that it was a great idea to trash the GTS.
Look man I’ve read all your opinions and you are pretty much a Pokemon fanboy, the franchise can do no bad in your eyes. I’ve almost done the same before, because the games up until ORAS had some saving grace, but starting with U&S the franchise is really making it harder to like.
This gen I will be skipping unless it gives me a serious reason to buy everything so far announced for $60, not more. This is all bullshit that would be criticised to hell and back if this was any other company, and GF or Nintendo isn’t some flawless-above criticism company.
@dux Yeah I had problems in the past, that's why I stopped using them. Thought it was just me. Good prices but not the most helpful website.
@Kmno I'm just waiting for it to go on sale on ebay. I'm not paying full price for this.
@Kmno I don’t know if I’m a fanboy or not, but I do know I thoroughly enjoy the series. That being said, don’t confuse my enjoyment for the series as me believing Nintendo or GF are above reproach. It’s simply in this case I disagree. I was highly critical of Let’s Go & US/UM. I skipped US all together and played LGP through once before trading it in because I didn’t find it very fun. I do find Sword to be very FUN. Is it my perfect Pokémon game, no, buts it’s been very enjoyable.
I have no problem with people thinking it’s sucks or is terrible. We are all entitled to our own opinion. I do find it silly tho when people grab their pitchforks over nonsense and act like Pokémon was some masterclass in story telling and gameplay that crashed down from its heavenly perch. Pokémon is what it’s always been. I think people need to stop with the revisionist history. The graphics, story telling and features have generally lagged behind its contemporaries in the JRPG/RPG arena but the simple “gotta catch ‘em all” and battles have made it a fun endeavor. So as long as they continue to provide those core things that make Pokémon Pokémon, I have no problem buying the games. And I have no problem with people choosing not to buy.
@Ooccoo_Jr damn =/ thanks for your tip, I really wanted to buy there because it's the cheaper version I've seen!
What third/fourth versions were actually worth the money if you already owned the base game?
Beside B2W2 no other version was worth the asking price if you already owned the base game. Even tho they were always the best version of the game.
This dlc seems much more meatier than everything nearyl alll third/fourth version have ever offered.
@Miles_Edgeworth agree 100%. Most dlc released too soon is just money grabbing ideas that should have been added in base game from the start.
I wonder if Nintendo/TPC will bundle Sword/Shield with its expansion pass and sell it as a "complete edition" retail game (ala Monster Hunter World Iceborne Master Edition) during the holidays?
Nintendo has never done that before (Breath of the Wild and Splatoon 2 have never been bundled with their respective expansion passes), but TPC may think differently. The expansion pass model are now replacing the 3rd version Pokemon entries that typically sell 7-9 million copies each, which is quite a lot. I'm not sure the expansion pass will be able to sell that many copies without a retail presence.
Once again, I'll remind everyone that S or M + US or UM was 10$ less expensive than S or S + expansion. And these were full games, with graphics about on par with the system capabilities, and are two full physical games that has all pokémons
So what do we even win here? The story sucks, the difficulty sucks. Do we even trust Nintendo to even provide good content here? Also, the only reasons we got more pokemons in the first place is because of the DLC.
It's absolutely money grabbing here, seriously, stop releasing articles sucking up to Game Freak, it's pathetic
"No more $40 makeover sequels as Game Freak voyages into new territory"
You're right, now it's just $30.
@Miles_Edgeworth Well the 200 pokemon will be fully added about a year after release. I would assume half in the first dlc. part and the other half in the second dlc part.
So there is some considerable time spend on developing these. At least 7 - 8 months for the first pack and a little less on the second.
@cool_boy_mew No SM and USUM were 4 times the same game with minimal additions to USUM.
Now its 2 times the same game with some real additions to the game. Of couse buying the dlc twice will result in pretty uch the same contnet twice. Still this is better than any third/fourth version beside B2W2.
@Sinister Can you really call this "real addition" if the game barely had any content in the first place?
@cool_boy_mew Yes because compared to the additional content in previous gens this at least seems like some decent content. It will also make SwSh the game with the most catchable pokemons ever.
I am not taking into account the content of the base game for that evaluation. We all know its lacking. But if you just look at what is added its is much better than what we had before. Again B2W2 is better than this dlc.
@jamesthemagi When they announced HOME's release date in this past direct it said it is a paid service at the bottom.
This is great! Instead of Gamefreak taking a small portion of the millions they made from sales and just updating the game to fix the frame drops, bugs, and maybe even some new content, they decide to make a thirty dollar expansion pass that you have to buy for each game. They even decided to take some pokemon they cut and put them into the expansion pass as a selling point. So the balance and time constraints for not including them was a lie! I can't wait for those who criticized Gamefreak at the beginning to shell out $60 for the expansion pass on the $120 they spent on both base games.
I don't understand how Pokemon Sword/Shield is considered an incomplete game. What are the Pokemon games with a larger encounter table than these games? Taking away exclusives, there are 369 Pokemon available to catch and/or obtainable through evolution.
So is this game worth buying right now or should people wait for the DLC? Is the game even worth it after buying the DLC? Would it be better to wait for a discount or another version? People should always be asking questions about this game. I’m still on the fence about buying the game.
@I-U Pokémon were removed despite us knowing they fit.
Story is short
Almost non-existent post game
Cities feel empty
Stuff like that. The last one is an issue that's been happening frequently in Pokémon games. Big looking cities but it's really just fluff, you can only go down a few streets and can't interact with much.
@NEStalgia So, you're saying I'm not special then?
To be fair, I do get a lot more of that over on PS and I kind of meld the 2 in my mind.
i dont get you people first you complain that there isnt enough content. NEXT YOU COMPLAIN THAT YOU HAVE YOU PAY FOR IT! its not even that expensive "wah theres a pay wall for pokemon" deal with it thats how todays game economy works. you people probably refuse to pay for streaming services but have no problem with viruses on your computer from torrents. you all probably spent $120 on lets go and $50 on the ball! "I WoULD Of PrEfErD a NeW GAmE!" no no you wouldnt you would complain $30 is a steal for a year of content dont like it? go play the DS games. zelda had DLC for $10 less and NONE OF YOU complained about that
@CashMadness if you cant make decisions for yourself and rely on people you dont know for answers stop playing games i have 70 hours in this game bought it on launch lots of un especially battle spot. DLC is a steal for the amount of content youre getting
@shoeses you probably spent $50 on their ball stop complaining
@rjejr Oh you're very special. Like an episode of Blossom.
But Damien flipping you off is more a rite of passage than anything else though
@GAMER1984dude Yo, just popping in, noticed your comment.
First, no need to call anyone dumb, that's not going to make them want to take you seriously.
The issue that people are having is that the DKC feels like stuff that should have been in the base game, and now they have to pay for it. That's rubbing people the wrong way.
I don't care if Pokemon Sword / Shield has some flaws as long the games is not broken, i'm already content.
I am a Casual gamer for Pokemon franchise so i will NOT take it too seriously (catch all Pokemons, wishing for meaty storyline like AAA western games, etc).
Not every gamer play hardcore.
Even if i have to pay for the DLC, i will pay it if i want to expand the contents.
I don't care if you say this games was subpar, weak storyline, less interactions, empty city, etc because other RPG games i have found were also Empty as Pokemon games.
I will get the DLC doesn't matter the salty comments here. It's my choice, not their decision.
@Kalmaro Has there been a Pokemon game where all Pokemon are in the encounter tables? I think their intentions now are to make sure if Pokemon are in, they will be encountered or obtained within the single game (excluding exclusives). I'm curious if any other Pokemon game has near or over 369 Pokemon to be encountered or obtained with just the single version.
What's considered short for a Pokemon game's story? I don't think any Pokemon game has taken me any longer than 40 hours and my shortest times I think have been 25-30 hours. That's just considering beginning to credits. There's plenty that can be done that can extend that time depending on how the player decides to play through the games.
I haven't reached the post-credits story for Pokemon Sword to have an opinion on it. Since I'm into shiny hunting though, I'm not sure if the length of whatever is scripted post-game will have much of a negative impact on me as I have those shiny hunts as a broader objective.
I agree completely on the emptiness of the towns and cities of Galar. I think they look great and would've liked to have spent more time in them, but there's just no real interaction to them beyond the Gym Challenge. Spikemuth they didn't care about at all.
@Kalmaro I keep hearing people say this. But what besides the Pokémon, should have been in the base game? Cause from the direct that’s a small part of the content being added. And as others have pointed out, there’s still a pretty massive amount of available Pokémon
@Supadav03 More story would be nice. As of right now, this DLC would have made for some good post game content.
@I-U Not sure about that first question. I don't recall the games making it so there was absolutely no way to transfer Pokémon from previous games. Usually, there's some method available left for you to do so.
I think this is the first time that you couldn't because Gamefreak just won't let you, and then the Pokémon are behind DLC unless you have a friend or a previous game.
The story for SwSh is pretty short, sub 20 hours unless you are going pretty slow.
Post game is maybe 2 hours or so, it's non-existent.
@Kalmaro “would have been nice” sure. Lots of things would be nice. But to act like this was owed to be in the game otherwise it’s incomplete is false. It’s going to take until the fall to release this full expansion, so it’s taking considerable work. And people act like it’s should just be post game content. That’s sounds a little entitled to me. (Speaking in general, not saying you are an entitled person).
Also this is not the 1st time you couldn’t transfer Pokémon over from other games to have a full dex. It’s at LEAST the 3rd time.
And I think there’s plenty of content and story. I’m 20+ hours in and only at the 5th gym. If you just go objective to objective I guess you could finish it quick but that goes for most games. You could go straight to Hyrule castle and finish BotW. It was by no means a short game. People who did that just choose to bypass the things there were to do that lengthen it. Only way you finish Pokémon in under 20 hours is if you just go gym to gym. No wild area exploration. No completing the dex. No participating in max raids, etc. Pokémon had never been lengthy because of its story. It’s been lengthy because people try to “catch em all” or hunt shinys or max Pokémon to level 99.
@Supadav03 Well no, no one is saying that they are owed anything. Though they are saying that if Gamefreak wants their money, they want more quality to the product.
I can't remember which previous he's did not allow you, in one way or another, get Pokémon from previous entries. I'm drawing a blank.
And there's people who still did almost everything you said and still beat the game pretty quick.
Theres not much reason to spend much time in wild area once you get the Pokémon you want. Completing the dex isn't too difficult and you can trade with people to fill it out too, right?
Technically, you can play a game until the end of time, that does not mean that said game has a lot of content. It just has a good loop to keep you busy. Tetris has almost no content and people are still playing it, for instance.
Funny how noone has stated that you dont have to buy the passes to obtain the 200 new/old pokemon.during the direct they stated 30 for the pass
2 new areas added 200 more pokemon to catch...dont worry if you dont get the pass the pokemon can be traded to you via a free update.
@Kalmaro Gen 3 can’t transfer with Gen 1/2. They had to add the remakes to allow for that.
I mean I’m not commenting so either way just letting you know the game
@Kalmaro But that’s what Pokémon has always been. A fun loop that kept you playing. It’s never been a series carried by its story. And while people may have finished it quickly, I’d love to see someone’s save file with a complete dex and all badges in under 30 hours. And that doesn’t mean spoofing it with some trick.
Let’s Go - No National Dex
SwSh - No National Dex
Sun/Moon - (unless you bought the digital version of gold/silver/crystal) - no National Dex - my confusion here, I forgot you could do it with the digital copies but remembered the physical copies didn’t work
@I-U I recently took a look at Gen 1 to 5 to see how many Pokemon were available in a single game to catch (including all the coices) The games in Gen 5 were around 450. If you discount the choices like starters or fossils you did not get it would be less.
I don't know about Gen 6 but i read the base game of Gen 7 had just over 400. Not sure if that is counting all possible pokemon or just the ones you pick and discount the ones you don't.
Lots of miscommunication, misinformation, and poor comparisons in both this comment section and this article.
@mousieone Gen 3 was ruby and sapphire right? Yeah I think I remember those older guys being left out. Guess I forgot, it's been ages!
@Supadav03 You're right, they have been light on story, this game is even lighter.
The gameplay loop is still there kinda but there's less to the games before you get there. They even made the "battle tower" basically worthless.
@Kalmaro Fair enough. I can see this being on the very light side of the Pokémon story spectrum. Speaking of battle tower/frontier - I wonder if the dojo in Isle of Armor will offer something similar?
Side note, I just want to say I am enjoying the debate and hope I am not coming off as rude or aggressive. I think these are all valid opinions, and as such, no one is “wrong”.
@Supadav03 Nah, you're fine. There's no such thing as a wrong opinion!
I'm really interested in the DLC so I can't wait to get Pokémon sword off ebay when it dips down far enough.
I found Avery looked like John Galliano, a fashion designer. 😉
The flaw in your math is, if it wasn't DLC the second version of the game would ALSO be $60.
So previously you bought two full-priced games, now you buy one and a half.
Personally, I think this is absolutely terrible. I’d rather buy a PHYSICAL game, even if it’s a mostly rehashed version of the original. This digital only stuff is collapsing the entire gaming industry bit by bit.
I want a makeover sequel.
Sorry this is not good. Cant spin this nintendo life.. pokemon lost a long time supporter in me
i thought the Pokemon we got was it until the next game? lol they be trolling
Omg why everyone writes this essays if a comment. Jezz is for that stupid site suggestion that tells you to write more? Or you guys dont have anything better to do with your time? I think this dlc looks great.
@Kalmaro they very people crying are the people who spent $120 on lets and $50 on the ball. also the very people who are rubbed the wrong way are the people who want to spend $60 on a diamond and pearl remakes but cry at a mere $30 for 40-50 hours of gameplay and over 200 pokemon. pokemon fans are toxic. people had no problem buying zelda DLC. $30 is way better than a ultra or neon sword sheild $60 game
@KnightsTemplar no one cares go play final fantasy vii remake
So wait a second here, people are complaining about an expansion to their base game because of dlc? However these same people will go out and buy 2-4 versions of the same game, with same story, and same ending with minor changes for full price.
@GAMER1984dude Your entire comment is a bunch of assumptions, I don't know many people (personally) who buy every version of the games as well as the accessories.
@Fido007 Same thing, I'm sure this proje exist but I know I don't buy the games at full price. I'm even waiting to get Sword cheaper on ebay.
It seems to me that you’re a blind fanboy that will attack anybody that disagrees with you about Pokemon Sword and Shield. People are asking a lot of questions about this game including myself because this content should’ve been in the game already. The only good reason to ever buy DLC is if the base game is already complete. Anyways, I doubt that you will pay attention to this comment because it doesn’t fit your agenda of trying to prove that everybody else is wrong about this game but you. Lol
@Edward_J_Grug_III Not a logical flaw to leave out comparisons to nonexistent speculative products. All in for Sw/Sh and expansions (current product) is more expensive than S/M and USUM (previous product). The DLC looks like decent value on its own, but can't be bought and played alone, so for me any value proposition has to factor in the poor value of the base game. In my opinion, Sw/Sh is poor value since it is less content and less polished content than its predecessor yet costs 1.5 times the price.
@Kmno the game is doing fine without your support, and it will be breaking records. Just play the games that you like, and leave Pokemon fans alone.
@Kalmaro they said it in the direct why they were releasing the dlc as to not make a 3rd or 4th version of the game. The only reason the 3rd and 4th exist is to approve upon the originals, and because they are doing it with dlc (which you don't have to buy BTW as you can transfer from one game to the next, or trade with people who do own it) means that they can put more content and more effort into the base games they clearly lazily made in the first place. It's a win for everybody, so I don't see the problem, unless people like buying 3 versions of the same game.
"And before the #Dexit brigade begin their war cry of "Year off? Lazy developers!""
...Really? Do you guys can't shut up about them, huh? And, of course, you still only do generalizations and assumtions to paint them in the worse possible light because How dare they critize GameFreak!?
@Lugia1 You care too much about an opinion from a random person on the Internet. People can critize Pokemon. Selling a lot doesn't invalidate that.
@Asaji I hate this "price of developing games went up but the sale prices didn't so companies are allowed to overmonetize". Did you know the price of movies didn't increase much either recently while their production cost did by a lot? Just saying.
@Fido007 put simply, base game doesn't have enough content to justify price and the DLC feels like it should have been part if the base game in the first place. D
Theres more to it but that's the simplified version.
@NEStalgia I was a big fan of TV's original Joey.
Well I ended up buying both for Sword and Shield just to have them and the freebies.
@Kalmaro I haven't played it because of the pokedex issues so I'm not familiar with the game world as some people are, and I'm not buying into it until I see the release of the 200 that will be added to the pokedex if at all. That being my point of view seeing added content to a game that needed it (pokedex wise) is currently a step in the right direction, as opposed to making another game charging full price with the same issues and only adding a few new features.
If there are other issues that Idk about then that is something I'll look into before buying the game(again if at all).
@NoxAeturnus It's not speculation at all though - they specifically said it replaced the previous 'ultra' versions.
So happy the third game is gone. I haven’t picked up sword or shield yet (the backlog is too big) but I am more excited than ever!
@LUIGITORNADO yeah l still believe there will be one
@Bobb but what if the ultra version comes out or they said they're working on one, will you still pay for the dlc?
@Mr_Persona probably not. Personally, I feel it is quite expensive, half a full game price
@Edward_J_Grug_III Yes, and so it has, it's a $30 expansion instead of the previous $40 sequel. However, the base game is now $60 instead of $40. They're not making a $60 sequel - that product doesn't exist, and it's not a flaw in my math to leave out comparisons to it. I understand your point, I just don't acknowledge it as a valid comparison because it's the kind of thing a car salesman would argue to make the deal sound better than it is.
@Bobb yeah and it's the same with the fighter pass for ssbu.
@Lugia1 oh you poor kid, you are like that Britney fan in her video, “leave the highly successful and almost drowning in money Pokemon franchise alone!!!!!!”.
Well newsflash snowflake, we won’t because our parents don’t buy our games anymore and our hardworking money is more valuable than your mediocre tastes.
To be honest, I wonder if they will still keep up with the concept of "generations" even after introducing DLC. In fact, I find it comparable to the console generations vs. revisions case. It also makes me wonder when the pausible 9th generation will arrive, maybe these expansions mean Game Freak will execute things differently. I would wish for 9th gen to be different to the others before (for example, make it something similar to Cadence of Hyrule or to follow an style more akin to the 2D entries) to act as an intermediate for the 10th generation (or as I would call it, "Generation X")
But I love this idea in general, it's a fascinating way of introducing new Pokémon during the course of the generation
In terms of future expansions, I would personally love to see one focused on the Sinnoh region (be it remakes, sequels or anything) where Sword players would face Dialga, while Shield players would face Palkia, and so on.
Also, this also gives hope for new eeveelutions
@NoxAeturnus I'm not sure where you're getting lost here. Do you think Ultra Sword and Shield would have released on the 3DS?
@Kaori-chan Not really an objection or anything, just an observation: Them saying they've been "thinking about it for a while" usually doesn't mean "we've been thinking of cutting content then deviously planning to sell it to you later, muahahaha"...
But "We were thinking of what to do next for Pokémon, while tossing around ideas and working on art and random tidbits for the next Pokémon project, we decided to make it DLC instead of a new game. We've been THINKING about what to do for a while (since release of SW/SH), and we decided that DLC would be the best approach."
Maybe I'm just not blinded by seething hatred for Game Freak (not saying you are), but that's the conclusion both I and my (completely non-gamer and not interested in Pokémon at all) Fiancée reached.
@Edward_J_Grug_III Ultra Sword and Shield don't exist, won't exist, and I do not acknowledge that any mathematical comparisons to them are valid. They are hypothetical, and therefore imaginary.
@NoxAeturnus They don't exist because they released DLC instead. It is literally what they said. If you don't acknowledge it in order to make your point, your point is built on a false premise.
@Edward_J_Grug_III They did say that they made the DLC in place of a paired sequel or third version. I'm not denying they said that. I'm denying that there's any flaw in comparing the actual costs of the previous generation to the actual costs of this one without factoring in the hypothetical cost of a nonexistent product. This is what we're arguing about:
You're buying a car. The car is $20,000. The salesman tells you that's a great deal, because last year's model was $15,000, but if they had produced that model this year, it would have been $25,000. So the new model is $5,000 less than it would have been!
You: That's a great deal!
Me: The new model is still $5,000 more than last year's.
You to me: You forgot to factor in the price that the new model would have been.
Me: Nope, I didn't forget, I just don't care about a model that doesn't exist. Old car is 15K, new one is 20K.
You to me: Your premise is flawed.
@NoxAeturnus But you're comparing DS game prices to Switch prices, so it's more like you're comparing car prices to truck prices.
@Kaori-chan regardless of when they started, the release of the content would have been post-release, since obviously they wouldn't be able to get something that'll be ready in 6-10 months... ready in time for the release date that the money hungry part of the company (not the ones pouring their hearts into the games) demands.
But eh, we'll see how it goes, and if they don't get your money, I'm sure they'll live :3 I hope it'll be great, and since I'll play it to see it for myself anyway, I've already bought the expansion pass.
Tap here to load 177 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...