The fact that it took a year delay to make an awful game like Pokemon ZA demonstrates that Game Freak lacks the resources to create a high-quality game. Developers require time and money to create a high-quality game with good production values. A Pokemon project with a $100 million budget and a 4-5 year development time would be ideal for producing a high-quality game. With its current budget, limited scheduling, and a shortage of manpower, Game Freak can only produce annual slops.
A low-budget, low-quality game sells so well because it's called "Pokemon." This demonstrates how strong Pokemon's brand loyalty is, allowing Game Freak to produce slop and make easy money while making no effort to improve quality standards. Imagine Game Freak was a studio with a total workforce of 600 people working on a Pokemon game with a budget of $100 million and a 5-year development cycle, as is the standard for any AAA-quality game. I suppose this will never happen as long as low-quality Pokémon games are commercially successful, regardless of their quality or budget.
XBOX still has the option of reviving Banjo-Kazooie by developing a new game and remaking the original, which will all be available on Game Pass. I'm not sure if Rare is still capable of developing a new Banjo game after their failure with Everwild, but Xbox could outsource the project to the former studio, Toys for Bob, which also developed Crash Bandicoot. Just imagine new Crash Bandicoot and Banjo-Kazooie games arriving on Game Pass on day one, as well as remakes of all the old games.
Once again, you're dismissing my sources without providing any evidence to support your claims. I've already presented an analysis showing that most of today's Nintendo user base consists of adults. I also highlighted that kids and teens now prefer live service games like Roblox and Fortnite. Do you have any proof that Nintendo is engaging kids with its franchises in the same way it did two decades ago? I doubt it.
Sony's failed live service highlights the challenges of competing with well-established giants like Fortnite, EA FC, Call of Duty, and GTA Online. It doesn't prove that the live service market is dying, but rather that most companies struggle to succeed with new live service games, as they come with high risks and significant losses if they fail.
My "Game Pass idea" is something I recommend in case Nintendo starts losing its appeal in the global market, risking losing money and profits in the long term. I believe a "Game Pass" model is perfect for Nintendo because their games have low development costs and take less time to create, meaning they can produce a large number of games every year and maintain high profit margins, while also leveraging their massive legacy library of historic old games.
I don't expect Nintendo to adopt the subscription model at the moment, because they are doing fine with Switch 2's first year period. I just estimated what could happen in the next 5-7 years.
My opinions are based on facts, and I provide quotes so you can see for yourself:
"Player preferences: Free-to-play, cloud gaming, and emerging tech redefine engagement Free-to-play gamers now represent more than 50% of the U.S. market and more than two-thirds of the Chinese market. Given the success of free-to-play models at the expense of full-game sales, in-game purchases dominate player spending patterns on PC and mobile platforms. Younger gamers demonstrate a willingness to spend in-game at three times the rate of older demographics, reinforcing the trend toward “freemium” monetization models."
"Emphasizing live-service and cross-platform formats will be crucial for companies to maintain engagement and efficiently manage development costs. 33% of major “AAA” developers are working on live-service games to mirror the success of titles like Fortnite and Genshin Impact. However, free and live-service content requires long development cycles and continuous updates, significantly raising costs. This necessitates new development and operating models that allow companies to manage these costs efficiently while pursuing growth."
Children are playing Roblox and Fortnite, a fact supported by data. According to the data, Nintendo's main audience consists of adults. You seem to be in denial about the actual situation with Nintendo.
I don't think Game Pass is a failed model. The service has experienced stagnant subscription growth, which is likely why Microsoft raised the price to boost revenue and profitability. The impact of the price hikes on Game Pass revenue remains to be seen. If the service manages to increase revenue from $5 billion to $9 billion, it would be a huge success. I believe Microsoft should invest in delivering more high-quality games as day-one releases, whether they are first-party, second-party, or third-party titles. Personally, after the price hikes, I expect at least one AAA game every month, meaning they should deliver 12-15 AAA games out of the total 75 promised day-one releases annually.
As I mentioned, Nintendo's current business model is performing well, but I have concerns about its long-term sustainability due to market trends shifting toward live services and subscriptions. Nintendo may need to adapt its approach to stay competitive in the coming decades.
I agree that no one can predict the future with 100% accuracy; however, your predictions seem biased and overly optimistic about a positive outcome for Nintendo.
The fact is that Nintendo's core demographic group consists of adults, not children. There is no indication that the younger audience will grow significantly in the coming years. Recent data clearly shows that adults now make up the majority of Nintendo's player base.
I’m not a fan of mobile or live service games either, but the fact is that most kids and teenagers are playing Roblox and Fortnite. Fortnite alone has 40 million active users and generates $4 billion in annual revenue. Nintendo might be forced to rethink its model in the next decade if its sales start to falter.
For now, though, the Switch maintains strong momentum and solid financial performance. Even if Nintendo faces financial troubles like during the Wii U era, it can rely on the domestic Japanese market, where it’s considered a cultural icon and a "national treasure." Japanese consumers alone could keep Nintendo as a major gaming company, even if it loses some international appeal in the global market.
How arrogant to claim that "it'll never happen for Nintendo" when Nintendo has openly stated that its largest demographic group consists of adults. You should look up the statement for yourself:
"Interestingly enough, children only make up for a small portion of Switch players. Ages 10-12 are the biggest demographic among minors, but the numbers pale in comparison to what we see from adults. Again, this can probably be traced back to the fact that Nintendo made a clear choice to market the Switch to older audiences leading up to and after its launch. The Switch also has many more mature games than most previous consoles from the company."
Studies on the gaming industry show that nowadays, kids are playing mobile games and live-service games, such as Fortnite and Roblox, rather than spending their time on classic single-player games like Mario and Donkey Kong.
I think Nintendo can sustain its current premium model for the next decade, but beyond that, it might encounter sustainability challenges similar to those faced by Sony and Xbox. To stay competitive, it would likely need to shift toward a more open ecosystem and introduce services like subscriptions, aligning with the current trends in the gaming industry driven by consumer preferences.
Nintendo is likely to succeed with the Switch 2, but it might face challenges in the coming decade. Nintendo produces high-quality games, but its sales model heavily relies on nostalgia. As the older generation that grew up with Nintendo fades, newer generations may not feel the same connection to their franchises. To stay competitive, Nintendo might need to rethink its business model and start offering games at lower prices. While their games are great, they are low-budget productions and don't justify an $80 price tag.
Nintendo could gain a lot by introducing its own "Game Pass" subscription, granting access to all games, including day-one releases, for about $25 per month. This price would appeal to fans looking to stay engaged, while they could still sell individual games for $50 to satisfy those who prefer ownership. With lower development costs compared to AAA titles on Xbox or PS5, Nintendo could maintain high profit margins from the service. Imagine 20 million subscribers paying $300 annually—that’s $6 billion in revenue just from subscriptions, not even counting extra income from full-price game sales, hardware, or third-party sales.
The Switch 2 generation is the ideal time to launch a "Game Pass" subscription model, supported by Nintendo's extensive legacy library of classic games and featuring new day-one releases every month.
Nintendo's pricing policy has become increasingly greedy, essentially exploiting and "milking" its fanbase. They should release a complete edition/upgraded version of all first-party Switch titles, including full content, upgraded graphics, and 60 fps support. It's so simple and common sense for most people. However, Nintendo knows that its fanbase will just pay double the money for the upgraded version of the base game and spend additionally for the upgraded DLCs. It's crazy, but it's working, since the brand loyalty is so strong around the Nintendo franchise that they will pay and support any kind of illogical pricing policy, giving Nintendo easy money and profits.
The reason why modern Pokémon games have bad quality is that they make a lot of money, even if they are zero-effort and low-quality games developed with not enough time or budget. Plus, many die-hard Pokémon fans have become corporate chills and support the current state of Pokémon games, and avoid any constructive criticism to improve the game. They are just giving their money to support a bad product, which makes The Pokémon Company happy.
Game Freak never had the size and manpower to handle multiple projects and annual releases. With a low budget and strict scheduling, Game Freak could only produce bad games annually with low production values and low quality in terms of gameplay, story, open world design, voice acting, etc.
Game Freak has expanded its workforce from 150 to 200 developers and partnered with ILCA to form the Pokémon Works collaboration. ILCA, with its 400 developers, combined with Game Freak's 200, brings a total of 600 developers who could theoretically manage multiple projects and annual releases. Reportedly, ILCA will handle remakes while also assisting Game Freak, which will focus on mainline games and the spin-off Legends series.
It's all about a bigger budget and better scheduling, allowing developers more time and resources to create a truly high-quality Pokémon game. This could mean stylized and refined graphics, a more detailed open-world design, fully voice-acted NPCs, and gameplay driven by a compelling story. A higher budget doesn’t necessarily mean realistic graphics, but rather a polished and immersive Pokémon world.
I would like to see a new adventure based on the first four generations with an open world that combines all four regions of Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, and Sinnoh. Imagine having back iconic characters for an exciting adventure. Characters like Red, Blue, Green, Professor Oak, Brock, Misty, Ethan, Kris, Lyra, Silver, May, Wally, Brendan, Dawn, Cynthia, and more could come together in a massive open world spanning all four regions. Imagine these classic characters embarking on a fresh journey in such an expansive setting!
Nintendo produces high-quality games, but their sales model heavily relies on nostalgia. As the older generation that grew up with Nintendo fades, newer generations may not feel the same connection to their franchises. To stay competitive, Nintendo might need to rethink their business model and start offering games at lower prices. While their games are great, they are low-budget productions and don't justify an $80 price tag.
Nintendo could gain a lot by introducing its own "Game Pass" subscription, granting access to all games, including day-one releases, for about $25 per month. This price would appeal to fans looking to stay engaged, while they could still sell individual games for $50 to satisfy those who prefer ownership. With lower development costs compared to AAA titles on Xbox or PS5, Nintendo could maintain high profit margins from the service. Imagine 20 million subscribers paying $300 annually—that’s $6 billion in revenue just from subscriptions, not even counting extra income from full-price game sales, hardware, or third-party sales.
"As someone as owns both a Switch and a Switch 2 you'd be counting me as two potential customers for the game but I'm not."
I’m not counting it as "two customers" because I’m assuming you’re buying the game on the new-gen Switch 2. You’ve already transitioned to the new generation. I’m counting the remaining old user base of Switch 1 who hasn’t transitioned yet to Switch 2 and still represents a massive consumer base of over 100 million gamers.
As I mentioned, I’m glad that Pokémon ZA has 10% lower sales since it shows the backlash was strong enough for some fans to withhold their money. However, I’m aware that the casual audience will eventually boost the game’s sales. Pokémon ZA definitely won’t cap at 5 million sales—that much I already know.
Pokemon ZA is seen as performing "poorly" because it achieved "only" 5 million sales, which is 10% less than Arceus, despite having a larger potential audience with Switch 1 users and the newly added Switch 2 users.
I know Pokemon ZA will likely hit close to 10 million sales in the next few months, but I’m one of those who don’t want another poorly made Pokemon game to achieve such "success" and give Game Freak another free pass to continue "milking" their fanbase. Objectively, Pokemon ZA already broke even with 1 million sales and has been highly profitable with its current 5 million sales. The point isn’t for it to be as successful as previous Pokemon games, but to send a message to The Pokemon Company that they need to improve if they want to maintain the same level of success or even reach new heights.
Even if it's not exactly a $13 million budget, you can tell it's a low-budget game by comparing the production values to other games. Clair Obscur Expedition 33 is estimated to have a budget of $30–40 million and has good production for an AA game. Astro Bot is estimated to have a budget of less than $50 million and also boasts solid production values. The Zelda: Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom series is considered the most expensive games Nintendo has ever made, with development costs estimated at $70–100 million each.
Your argument is flawed because Pokémon ZA is a cross-gen title between Switch 1 and 2, meaning it has access to the entire install base of Switch users as well as new Switch 2 users. The consumer base for Pokémon ZA is significantly larger compared to Arceus or any other Pokémon game, as it is the first cross-gen newly released Pokémon title in the Switch era.
I don't mind if Pokemon ZA ends up making more sales as the Switch 2's install base grows every year. It's actually a positive thing that Pokemon ZA has relatively "bad" sales compared to Arceus, even though it's the first true cross-gen Pokemon title. It shows that people are no longer willing to tolerate bad games, even if it's the most popular franchise in the world.
Nintendo's leaks revealed that Pokémon games have an average production cost of 15 million, with Pokémon Z-A's budget being just 13 million. It's mind-blowing that the most commercial franchise of all time operates on such a modest budget. Forget the billions generated from merch and anime—let's focus solely on the video games. Every Pokémon title sells over 15 million copies, with net income nearing 1 billion, outshining many AAA games with budgets ten times larger. It's absurd that a franchise selling at "Call of Duty" levels spends less than Digimon, which arguably has better production.
The irony is Pokémon doesn’t need a $300 million budget like COD to deliver quality. A budget of 50-60 million, just five times the current one, could elevate production to an incredible level. It's baffling that Digimon has had fully voiced acting for years, while Pokémon is still text-only. With a $50 million budget, we could expect to see better-stylized graphics, more detail, a richer open world, fully voiced NPCs (making the world feel more alive), enhanced writing, and additional story content.
I’m not asking for a AAA Pokémon game—though it would be a fascinating experiment and well within budget. I just want to see the leap from a low AA- budget of 13 million to a high AA+ of 50 million.
How can the Pokémon Company manage this? Game Freak is just a mid-sized studio with 200 developers, which clearly isn't enough manpower to produce a high-quality Pokémon game every year, even with a $50 million budget. The Pokémon Company could have adopted the "Call of Duty" model: involving 3-4 additional studios collaborating with Game Freak to share the workload, allowing for annual releases with a $50 million budget and a 4-year development cycle. This would let Game Freak focus solely on mainline games, releasing a new generation every 4 years. In a way, this seems to be what the Pokémon Company is aiming for with the creation of Pokémon Works, a joint venture between Game Freak and ILCA, the studio behind the Brilliant Diamond remake. With ILCA's 400 developers combined with Game Freak's 200, they would have 600 people—enough manpower to manage annual releases potentially.
We don’t really know what kind of deals have been made behind the scenes. ILCA is collaborating on future projects, but it might also be working on its own. It’s unclear if it will focus solely on Pokémon. I think ILCA will handle remakes while assisting Game Freak with mainline games, DLC, and spin-offs like Arceus. There’s also a possibility that ILCA could take an active role in developing a Pokémon MMO, rumored to be released in the coming years based on leaks.
Ideally, Game Freak could expand its workforce to 600 developers, and with ILCA's 400 developers, they would have a total of 1,000—enough to handle annual projects. These developers could be split into five teams of 200, each working on a five-year development cycle with a $60 million budget, which should be sufficient to deliver a high-quality game every year. This could result in improved open-world design, more detailed environments, better AI, fully voice-acted NPCs, enhanced gameplay, and stronger writing.
It's great that Pokémon ZA has lower sales compared to Legend of Arceus. This shows that a significant part of the community isn't accepting the game's low quality and refuses to spend money on a subpar product. Poor sales are the only way for Game Freak and The Pokémon Company to understand the need to invest more in the development of future Pokémon games with better overall quality and production value.
You clearly have no idea how game development works. It’s not just about giving money to Game Freak to make good games every year with 200 developers. It’s about investing more money to add more studios, increase manpower, and improve scheduling to give developers the time and resources they need to create quality games. As I mentioned in my previous comments, Pokémon Studios should have a workforce of 700-1000 people divided into 4-5 studios, with a 4-year development cycle and a $50 million budget. This is the standard for AA/AAA development to produce high-quality games. Good games require both time and money to deliver great results.
There are many monster-taming games like Digimon, Ni No Kuni, and even Palworld that boast better production value than Pokémon ZA, which is disappointing. Pokémon should have a budget and production quality on par with Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, or even surpass it.
A lot of copium here to defend the current state of Pokemon games, which is bad. Pokémon ZA is an average game. Is it enjoyable to play? Sure. But is it the best the Pokémon Company can deliver to the gaming world? Definitely not.
Many people have valid criticisms of the Pokémon Company and Game Freak for consistently failing to deliver a truly high-quality Pokémon game despite having the resources to do so. Pokémon is the highest-grossing franchise in the world, with its video games alone generating nearly a billion dollars in revenue and selling over 10 million copies, often outperforming AAA games with budgets four times larger. There's no excuse for this. It's unacceptable that Game Freak only had 150 developers during the Switch era to manage annual projects when it was clear they lacked the manpower and time to produce yearly releases. It's baffling that Pokémon games don't have the support of 3-4 major gaming studios to handle annual projects with better funding and scheduling.
As technology advances with each new Nintendo console, people naturally expect higher-quality Pokémon games. The first five generations of Pokémon were masterpieces of the pixel-art era on handheld devices. With the release of the Switch, many fans anticipated a solid 3D Pokémon game, but Game Freak fell short, failing to deliver a well-designed open world, detailed environments, better AI, and full voice acting to create a more immersive and "alive" Pokémon world. Despite having the financial resources to produce a Pokémon game with a higher budget than even Zelda, the results were underwhelming. It's surprising to see games like Digimon and Xenoblade on the Switch with better production values than Pokémon, especially considering Pokémon generates significantly more revenue and sales.
The issue lies in a flawed business strategy. Game Freak never had the manpower to handle annual Pokémon game releases. Hopefully, the collaboration with ILCA and the creation of Pokémon Works will provide sufficient manpower, resources, and better scheduling to manage annual projects. This could lead to high-quality Pokémon games, whether they are mainline titles, remakes, or spin-offs.
FireRed, SoulSilver, and Omega Ruby represent the best of the first three generations based on Kanto, Johto, and Hoenn. These games featured the best Pokémon designs and compelling stories. Team Rocket stood out as an awesome and "realistic" villain compared to newer generations. Giovanni was like the "Godfather" of the Kanto region, sought the strongest Pokémon, Mew. He conducted evil experiments to create Mewtwo, a clone meant to surpass Mew. In SoulSilver, his son, Silver, sought revenge against his father for abandoning him. Silver served as a direct sequel to Red, where you ultimately face your own character (canonically, Red) at Mt. Silver.
The Pokémon lore felt so interconnected in the first two games, but I didn’t enjoy how newer generations shifted to standalone stories without much connection to each other. Sure, there are some cameo appearances, like Red showing up in the Sun and Moon tournament, or the "multiverse event" in Ultra Sun/Moon with Team Rainbow Rocket and Giovanni as the final villain, but this is not enough.
I’d love to see a more interconnected and cohesive Pokémon world again. The mainline games will always focus on new regions and new Pokémon for marketing purposes—they need fresh merch (new Pokémon) to boost sales. However, the Pokémon Company could take a different route with the Legends series, crafting a more "adult" version with games that expand the lore of previous regions, featuring new stories, better writing, and more detailed open-world designs. Of course, they’d need to increase the budget for these games to create a more polished and well-written Pokémon world rooted in past generations. I’d love to see a new story that connects Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, and Sinnoh, bringing back iconic characters for an exciting adventure. Characters like Red, Blue, Green, Professor Oak, Brock, Misty, Ethan, Kris, Lyra, Silver, May, Wally, Brendan, Dawn, Cynthia, and more could come together in a massive open world spanning all four regions. Imagine these classic characters embarking on a fresh journey in such an expansive setting!
Comments 29
Re: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Was The Best-Selling Nintendo Game In October (US)
@PikaPlayz
The fact that it took a year delay to make an awful game like Pokemon ZA demonstrates that Game Freak lacks the resources to create a high-quality game. Developers require time and money to create a high-quality game with good production values. A Pokemon project with a $100 million budget and a 4-5 year development time would be ideal for producing a high-quality game. With its current budget, limited scheduling, and a shortage of manpower, Game Freak can only produce annual slops.
Re: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Was The Best-Selling Nintendo Game In October (US)
A low-budget, low-quality game sells so well because it's called "Pokemon." This demonstrates how strong Pokemon's brand loyalty is, allowing Game Freak to produce slop and make easy money while making no effort to improve quality standards. Imagine Game Freak was a studio with a total workforce of 600 people working on a Pokemon game with a budget of $100 million and a 5-year development cycle, as is the standard for any AAA-quality game. I suppose this will never happen as long as low-quality Pokémon games are commercially successful, regardless of their quality or budget.
Re: Opinion: Banjo-Tooie Is Pure Nightmare Fuel, And I Wouldn't Have It Any Other Way
XBOX still has the option of reviving Banjo-Kazooie by developing a new game and remaking the original, which will all be available on Game Pass. I'm not sure if Rare is still capable of developing a new Banjo game after their failure with Everwild, but Xbox could outsource the project to the former studio, Toys for Bob, which also developed Crash Bandicoot. Just imagine new Crash Bandicoot and Banjo-Kazooie games arriving on Game Pass on day one, as well as remakes of all the old games.
Re: Switch 2 Sells Over 10 Million Units, Nintendo Increases Forecast Even Further
@jsty3105
Once again, you're dismissing my sources without providing any evidence to support your claims. I've already presented an analysis showing that most of today's Nintendo user base consists of adults. I also highlighted that kids and teens now prefer live service games like Roblox and Fortnite. Do you have any proof that Nintendo is engaging kids with its franchises in the same way it did two decades ago? I doubt it.
Sony's failed live service highlights the challenges of competing with well-established giants like Fortnite, EA FC, Call of Duty, and GTA Online. It doesn't prove that the live service market is dying, but rather that most companies struggle to succeed with new live service games, as they come with high risks and significant losses if they fail.
My "Game Pass idea" is something I recommend in case Nintendo starts losing its appeal in the global market, risking losing money and profits in the long term. I believe a "Game Pass" model is perfect for Nintendo because their games have low development costs and take less time to create, meaning they can produce a large number of games every year and maintain high profit margins, while also leveraging their massive legacy library of historic old games.
I don't expect Nintendo to adopt the subscription model at the moment, because they are doing fine with Switch 2's first year period. I just estimated what could happen in the next 5-7 years.
Re: Switch 2 Sells Over 10 Million Units, Nintendo Increases Forecast Even Further
@jsty3105
The only interesting thing is that there are no facts provided to support your claims. You can't cope with the reality.
Re: Switch 2 Sells Over 10 Million Units, Nintendo Increases Forecast Even Further
@jsty3105
My opinions are based on facts, and I provide quotes so you can see for yourself:
"Player preferences: Free-to-play, cloud gaming, and emerging tech redefine engagement
Free-to-play gamers now represent more than 50% of the U.S. market and more than two-thirds of the Chinese market. Given the success of free-to-play models at the expense of full-game sales, in-game purchases dominate player spending patterns on PC and mobile platforms. Younger gamers demonstrate a willingness to spend in-game at three times the rate of older demographics, reinforcing the trend toward “freemium” monetization models."
"Emphasizing live-service and cross-platform formats will be crucial for companies to maintain engagement and efficiently manage development costs. 33% of major “AAA” developers are working on live-service games to mirror the success of titles like Fortnite and Genshin Impact. However, free and live-service content requires long development cycles and continuous updates, significantly raising costs. This necessitates new development and operating models that allow companies to manage these costs efficiently while pursuing growth."
Re: Switch 2 Sells Over 10 Million Units, Nintendo Increases Forecast Even Further
@Nintendoh
Children are playing Roblox and Fortnite, a fact supported by data. According to the data, Nintendo's main audience consists of adults. You seem to be in denial about the actual situation with Nintendo.
Re: Switch 2 Sells Over 10 Million Units, Nintendo Increases Forecast Even Further
Removed; user is banned
Re: Switch 2 Sells Over 10 Million Units, Nintendo Increases Forecast Even Further
@RasandeRose
I don't think Game Pass is a failed model. The service has experienced stagnant subscription growth, which is likely why Microsoft raised the price to boost revenue and profitability. The impact of the price hikes on Game Pass revenue remains to be seen. If the service manages to increase revenue from $5 billion to $9 billion, it would be a huge success. I believe Microsoft should invest in delivering more high-quality games as day-one releases, whether they are first-party, second-party, or third-party titles. Personally, after the price hikes, I expect at least one AAA game every month, meaning they should deliver 12-15 AAA games out of the total 75 promised day-one releases annually.
Re: Switch 2 Sells Over 10 Million Units, Nintendo Increases Forecast Even Further
@jsty3105 @BTB20
As I mentioned, Nintendo's current business model is performing well, but I have concerns about its long-term sustainability due to market trends shifting toward live services and subscriptions. Nintendo may need to adapt its approach to stay competitive in the coming decades.
Re: Switch 2 Sells Over 10 Million Units, Nintendo Increases Forecast Even Further
@electrolite77
I agree that no one can predict the future with 100% accuracy; however, your predictions seem biased and overly optimistic about a positive outcome for Nintendo.
The fact is that Nintendo's core demographic group consists of adults, not children. There is no indication that the younger audience will grow significantly in the coming years. Recent data clearly shows that adults now make up the majority of Nintendo's player base.
I’m not a fan of mobile or live service games either, but the fact is that most kids and teenagers are playing Roblox and Fortnite. Fortnite alone has 40 million active users and generates $4 billion in annual revenue. Nintendo might be forced to rethink its model in the next decade if its sales start to falter.
For now, though, the Switch maintains strong momentum and solid financial performance. Even if Nintendo faces financial troubles like during the Wii U era, it can rely on the domestic Japanese market, where it’s considered a cultural icon and a "national treasure." Japanese consumers alone could keep Nintendo as a major gaming company, even if it loses some international appeal in the global market.
Re: Switch 2 Sells Over 10 Million Units, Nintendo Increases Forecast Even Further
@westman98
How arrogant to claim that "it'll never happen for Nintendo" when Nintendo has openly stated that its largest demographic group consists of adults. You should look up the statement for yourself:
"Interestingly enough, children only make up for a small portion of Switch players. Ages 10-12 are the biggest demographic among minors, but the numbers pale in comparison to what we see from adults. Again, this can probably be traced back to the fact that Nintendo made a clear choice to market the Switch to older audiences leading up to and after its launch. The Switch also has many more mature games than most previous consoles from the company."
Studies on the gaming industry show that nowadays, kids are playing mobile games and live-service games, such as Fortnite and Roblox, rather than spending their time on classic single-player games like Mario and Donkey Kong.
I think Nintendo can sustain its current premium model for the next decade, but beyond that, it might encounter sustainability challenges similar to those faced by Sony and Xbox. To stay competitive, it would likely need to shift toward a more open ecosystem and introduce services like subscriptions, aligning with the current trends in the gaming industry driven by consumer preferences.
Re: Switch 2 Sells Over 10 Million Units, Nintendo Increases Forecast Even Further
Nintendo is likely to succeed with the Switch 2, but it might face challenges in the coming decade. Nintendo produces high-quality games, but its sales model heavily relies on nostalgia. As the older generation that grew up with Nintendo fades, newer generations may not feel the same connection to their franchises. To stay competitive, Nintendo might need to rethink its business model and start offering games at lower prices. While their games are great, they are low-budget productions and don't justify an $80 price tag.
Nintendo could gain a lot by introducing its own "Game Pass" subscription, granting access to all games, including day-one releases, for about $25 per month. This price would appeal to fans looking to stay engaged, while they could still sell individual games for $50 to satisfy those who prefer ownership. With lower development costs compared to AAA titles on Xbox or PS5, Nintendo could maintain high profit margins from the service. Imagine 20 million subscribers paying $300 annually—that’s $6 billion in revenue just from subscriptions, not even counting extra income from full-price game sales, hardware, or third-party sales.
The Switch 2 generation is the ideal time to launch a "Game Pass" subscription model, supported by Nintendo's extensive legacy library of classic games and featuring new day-one releases every month.
Re: PSA: Don't Expect Animal Crossing: New Horizons - Nintendo Switch 2 Edition To Include The DLC
Nintendo's pricing policy has become increasingly greedy, essentially exploiting and "milking" its fanbase. They should release a complete edition/upgraded version of all first-party Switch titles, including full content, upgraded graphics, and 60 fps support. It's so simple and common sense for most people. However, Nintendo knows that its fanbase will just pay double the money for the upgraded version of the base game and spend additionally for the upgraded DLCs. It's crazy, but it's working, since the brand loyalty is so strong around the Nintendo franchise that they will pay and support any kind of illogical pricing policy, giving Nintendo easy money and profits.
Re: Talking Point: When Did 'Good Enough' Become Good Enough For Pokémon?
The reason why modern Pokémon games have bad quality is that they make a lot of money, even if they are zero-effort and low-quality games developed with not enough time or budget. Plus, many die-hard Pokémon fans have become corporate chills and support the current state of Pokémon games, and avoid any constructive criticism to improve the game. They are just giving their money to support a bad product, which makes The Pokémon Company happy.
Game Freak never had the size and manpower to handle multiple projects and annual releases. With a low budget and strict scheduling, Game Freak could only produce bad games annually with low production values and low quality in terms of gameplay, story, open world design, voice acting, etc.
Game Freak has expanded its workforce from 150 to 200 developers and partnered with ILCA to form the Pokémon Works collaboration. ILCA, with its 400 developers, combined with Game Freak's 200, brings a total of 600 developers who could theoretically manage multiple projects and annual releases. Reportedly, ILCA will handle remakes while also assisting Game Freak, which will focus on mainline games and the spin-off Legends series.
It's all about a bigger budget and better scheduling, allowing developers more time and resources to create a truly high-quality Pokémon game. This could mean stylized and refined graphics, a more detailed open-world design, fully voice-acted NPCs, and gameplay driven by a compelling story. A higher budget doesn’t necessarily mean realistic graphics, but rather a polished and immersive Pokémon world.
I would like to see a new adventure based on the first four generations with an open world that combines all four regions of Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, and Sinnoh. Imagine having back iconic characters for an exciting adventure. Characters like Red, Blue, Green, Professor Oak, Brock, Misty, Ethan, Kris, Lyra, Silver, May, Wally, Brendan, Dawn, Cynthia, and more could come together in a massive open world spanning all four regions. Imagine these classic characters embarking on a fresh journey in such an expansive setting!
Re: Shigeru Miyamoto Is Confident Mario Will Be Around For "A Long Time To Come"
Nintendo produces high-quality games, but their sales model heavily relies on nostalgia. As the older generation that grew up with Nintendo fades, newer generations may not feel the same connection to their franchises. To stay competitive, Nintendo might need to rethink their business model and start offering games at lower prices. While their games are great, they are low-budget productions and don't justify an $80 price tag.
Nintendo could gain a lot by introducing its own "Game Pass" subscription, granting access to all games, including day-one releases, for about $25 per month. This price would appeal to fans looking to stay engaged, while they could still sell individual games for $50 to satisfy those who prefer ownership. With lower development costs compared to AAA titles on Xbox or PS5, Nintendo could maintain high profit margins from the service. Imagine 20 million subscribers paying $300 annually—that’s $6 billion in revenue just from subscriptions, not even counting extra income from full-price game sales, hardware, or third-party sales.
Re: UK Charts: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Is The Smallest Retail Launch Since 'Let's Go!' In Europe
@Dr_Lugae
"As someone as owns both a Switch and a Switch 2 you'd be counting me as two potential customers for the game but I'm not."
I’m not counting it as "two customers" because I’m assuming you’re buying the game on the new-gen Switch 2. You’ve already transitioned to the new generation. I’m counting the remaining old user base of Switch 1 who hasn’t transitioned yet to Switch 2 and still represents a massive consumer base of over 100 million gamers.
As I mentioned, I’m glad that Pokémon ZA has 10% lower sales since it shows the backlash was strong enough for some fans to withhold their money. However, I’m aware that the casual audience will eventually boost the game’s sales. Pokémon ZA definitely won’t cap at 5 million sales—that much I already know.
Re: UK Charts: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Is The Smallest Retail Launch Since 'Let's Go!' In Europe
@Dr_Lugae
Pokemon ZA is seen as performing "poorly" because it achieved "only" 5 million sales, which is 10% less than Arceus, despite having a larger potential audience with Switch 1 users and the newly added Switch 2 users.
I know Pokemon ZA will likely hit close to 10 million sales in the next few months, but I’m one of those who don’t want another poorly made Pokemon game to achieve such "success" and give Game Freak another free pass to continue "milking" their fanbase. Objectively, Pokemon ZA already broke even with 1 million sales and has been highly profitable with its current 5 million sales. The point isn’t for it to be as successful as previous Pokemon games, but to send a message to The Pokemon Company that they need to improve if they want to maintain the same level of success or even reach new heights.
Re: UK Charts: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Is The Smallest Retail Launch Since 'Let's Go!' In Europe
Removed; user is banned
Re: UK Charts: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Is The Smallest Retail Launch Since 'Let's Go!' In Europe
@martynstuff
"Has been debunked" by whom? What's your source?
Even if it's not exactly a $13 million budget, you can tell it's a low-budget game by comparing the production values to other games. Clair Obscur Expedition 33 is estimated to have a budget of $30–40 million and has good production for an AA game. Astro Bot is estimated to have a budget of less than $50 million and also boasts solid production values. The Zelda: Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom series is considered the most expensive games Nintendo has ever made, with development costs estimated at $70–100 million each.
Re: UK Charts: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Is The Smallest Retail Launch Since 'Let's Go!'
Removed; user is banned
Re: UK Charts: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Is The Smallest Retail Launch Since 'Let's Go!'
Removed; user is banned
Re: UK Charts: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Is The Smallest Retail Launch Since 'Let's Go!'
@Dr_Lugae
Your argument is flawed because Pokémon ZA is a cross-gen title between Switch 1 and 2, meaning it has access to the entire install base of Switch users as well as new Switch 2 users. The consumer base for Pokémon ZA is significantly larger compared to Arceus or any other Pokémon game, as it is the first cross-gen newly released Pokémon title in the Switch era.
I don't mind if Pokemon ZA ends up making more sales as the Switch 2's install base grows every year. It's actually a positive thing that Pokemon ZA has relatively "bad" sales compared to Arceus, even though it's the first true cross-gen Pokemon title. It shows that people are no longer willing to tolerate bad games, even if it's the most popular franchise in the world.
Re: UK Charts: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Is The Smallest Retail Launch Since 'Let's Go!'
Nintendo's leaks revealed that Pokémon games have an average production cost of 15 million, with Pokémon Z-A's budget being just 13 million. It's mind-blowing that the most commercial franchise of all time operates on such a modest budget. Forget the billions generated from merch and anime—let's focus solely on the video games. Every Pokémon title sells over 15 million copies, with net income nearing 1 billion, outshining many AAA games with budgets ten times larger. It's absurd that a franchise selling at "Call of Duty" levels spends less than Digimon, which arguably has better production.
The irony is Pokémon doesn’t need a $300 million budget like COD to deliver quality. A budget of 50-60 million, just five times the current one, could elevate production to an incredible level. It's baffling that Digimon has had fully voiced acting for years, while Pokémon is still text-only. With a $50 million budget, we could expect to see better-stylized graphics, more detail, a richer open world, fully voiced NPCs (making the world feel more alive), enhanced writing, and additional story content.
I’m not asking for a AAA Pokémon game—though it would be a fascinating experiment and well within budget. I just want to see the leap from a low AA- budget of 13 million to a high AA+ of 50 million.
How can the Pokémon Company manage this? Game Freak is just a mid-sized studio with 200 developers, which clearly isn't enough manpower to produce a high-quality Pokémon game every year, even with a $50 million budget. The Pokémon Company could have adopted the "Call of Duty" model: involving 3-4 additional studios collaborating with Game Freak to share the workload, allowing for annual releases with a $50 million budget and a 4-year development cycle. This would let Game Freak focus solely on mainline games, releasing a new generation every 4 years. In a way, this seems to be what the Pokémon Company is aiming for with the creation of Pokémon Works, a joint venture between Game Freak and ILCA, the studio behind the Brilliant Diamond remake. With ILCA's 400 developers combined with Game Freak's 200, they would have 600 people—enough manpower to manage annual releases potentially.
We don’t really know what kind of deals have been made behind the scenes. ILCA is collaborating on future projects, but it might also be working on its own. It’s unclear if it will focus solely on Pokémon. I think ILCA will handle remakes while assisting Game Freak with mainline games, DLC, and spin-offs like Arceus. There’s also a possibility that ILCA could take an active role in developing a Pokémon MMO, rumored to be released in the coming years based on leaks.
Ideally, Game Freak could expand its workforce to 600 developers, and with ILCA's 400 developers, they would have a total of 1,000—enough to handle annual projects. These developers could be split into five teams of 200, each working on a five-year development cycle with a $60 million budget, which should be sufficient to deliver a high-quality game every year. This could result in improved open-world design, more detailed environments, better AI, fully voice-acted NPCs, enhanced gameplay, and stronger writing.
Re: UK Charts: Pokémon Legends: Z-A Is The Smallest Retail Launch Since 'Let's Go!'
It's great that Pokémon ZA has lower sales compared to Legend of Arceus. This shows that a significant part of the community isn't accepting the game's low quality and refuses to spend money on a subpar product. Poor sales are the only way for Game Freak and The Pokémon Company to understand the need to invest more in the development of future Pokémon games with better overall quality and production value.
Re: Best Pokémon Games Of All Time
@somnambulance
You clearly have no idea how game development works. It’s not just about giving money to Game Freak to make good games every year with 200 developers. It’s about investing more money to add more studios, increase manpower, and improve scheduling to give developers the time and resources they need to create quality games. As I mentioned in my previous comments, Pokémon Studios should have a workforce of 700-1000 people divided into 4-5 studios, with a 4-year development cycle and a $50 million budget. This is the standard for AA/AAA development to produce high-quality games. Good games require both time and money to deliver great results.
There are many monster-taming games like Digimon, Ni No Kuni, and even Palworld that boast better production value than Pokémon ZA, which is disappointing. Pokémon should have a budget and production quality on par with Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, or even surpass it.
Re: Best Pokémon Games Of All Time
@somnambulance
A lot of copium here to defend the current state of Pokemon games, which is bad. Pokémon ZA is an average game. Is it enjoyable to play? Sure. But is it the best the Pokémon Company can deliver to the gaming world? Definitely not.
Many people have valid criticisms of the Pokémon Company and Game Freak for consistently failing to deliver a truly high-quality Pokémon game despite having the resources to do so. Pokémon is the highest-grossing franchise in the world, with its video games alone generating nearly a billion dollars in revenue and selling over 10 million copies, often outperforming AAA games with budgets four times larger. There's no excuse for this. It's unacceptable that Game Freak only had 150 developers during the Switch era to manage annual projects when it was clear they lacked the manpower and time to produce yearly releases. It's baffling that Pokémon games don't have the support of 3-4 major gaming studios to handle annual projects with better funding and scheduling.
Re: Best Pokémon Games Of All Time
@tankymctankus
As technology advances with each new Nintendo console, people naturally expect higher-quality Pokémon games. The first five generations of Pokémon were masterpieces of the pixel-art era on handheld devices. With the release of the Switch, many fans anticipated a solid 3D Pokémon game, but Game Freak fell short, failing to deliver a well-designed open world, detailed environments, better AI, and full voice acting to create a more immersive and "alive" Pokémon world. Despite having the financial resources to produce a Pokémon game with a higher budget than even Zelda, the results were underwhelming. It's surprising to see games like Digimon and Xenoblade on the Switch with better production values than Pokémon, especially considering Pokémon generates significantly more revenue and sales.
The issue lies in a flawed business strategy. Game Freak never had the manpower to handle annual Pokémon game releases. Hopefully, the collaboration with ILCA and the creation of Pokémon Works will provide sufficient manpower, resources, and better scheduling to manage annual projects. This could lead to high-quality Pokémon games, whether they are mainline titles, remakes, or spin-offs.
Re: Best Pokémon Games Of All Time
FireRed, SoulSilver, and Omega Ruby represent the best of the first three generations based on Kanto, Johto, and Hoenn. These games featured the best Pokémon designs and compelling stories. Team Rocket stood out as an awesome and "realistic" villain compared to newer generations. Giovanni was like the "Godfather" of the Kanto region, sought the strongest Pokémon, Mew. He conducted evil experiments to create Mewtwo, a clone meant to surpass Mew. In SoulSilver, his son, Silver, sought revenge against his father for abandoning him. Silver served as a direct sequel to Red, where you ultimately face your own character (canonically, Red) at Mt. Silver.
The Pokémon lore felt so interconnected in the first two games, but I didn’t enjoy how newer generations shifted to standalone stories without much connection to each other. Sure, there are some cameo appearances, like Red showing up in the Sun and Moon tournament, or the "multiverse event" in Ultra Sun/Moon with Team Rainbow Rocket and Giovanni as the final villain, but this is not enough.
I’d love to see a more interconnected and cohesive Pokémon world again. The mainline games will always focus on new regions and new Pokémon for marketing purposes—they need fresh merch (new Pokémon) to boost sales. However, the Pokémon Company could take a different route with the Legends series, crafting a more "adult" version with games that expand the lore of previous regions, featuring new stories, better writing, and more detailed open-world designs. Of course, they’d need to increase the budget for these games to create a more polished and well-written Pokémon world rooted in past generations.
I’d love to see a new story that connects Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, and Sinnoh, bringing back iconic characters for an exciting adventure. Characters like Red, Blue, Green, Professor Oak, Brock, Misty, Ethan, Kris, Lyra, Silver, May, Wally, Brendan, Dawn, Cynthia, and more could come together in a massive open world spanning all four regions. Imagine these classic characters embarking on a fresh journey in such an expansive setting!