• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Please explain why there are games with two (or more) versions?

CamHostage

Member
It's really just to sell two different versions of the product, most consumers will not double dip, but a few will and that gets you a nice bit of extra money.

I don't know if there are statistics on this, but I feel like this isn't as much a financial winfall in consumers double-dipping as cynics read into it? Sure, some people do it, (and once you have something as powerful as Pokemon, those numbers are significant,) also some people are fooled by it, but you're not just talking two copies of the game, you're also talking two game systems and 2X the grinding and all that unnerving roster maintenance and the potential of brand burn-out for having been swindled to buy the same thing twice...

I would actually guess that the financial benefit comes more in there being two SKUs on the pegs, for twice the visibility. Digitally, you run the risk of splitting your numbers and lowering your analytic presence, but physically, stores are going to have to stock both products (plus when you're talking ordering by crates, the idea of simply decreasing your quantities 1/2 for one and 1/2 for the other is unlikely to be practiced, so you're kind of sneaking some quantity of product through to stores.)

I also think there's a psychological effect in having multiple products, that there's prestige or at least awareness via there simply being twice the presence. "Let me see, there's 1,2 3DS games called 'Monster Hunter' here at this store, and 1,2,3, wow 4 games called 'Yo-Kai Watch', this thing must be really popular!" Same number of games, but MH has two games (nvm Stories for now) and Yo-Kai Watch has two games but one split into three versions. Your kids are probably smart enough not to ask for all three Yo-Kai Watch games (partly because they got burned by a Pokemon series eating up their allowance money in the past, leaving them with an extra cartridge they never used when they could have bought something else instead,) but they still think it's a major game because it's so prevalent, even though they know deep down that nobody plays Yo-Kai Watch on their playground.

Anyway, that's how I see the economics of it. It's still cynical, but cynical in a different way than most people think about it...
 

JimboJones

Member
More money for them and it was fun to trade with friends who had different versions, win win.

Edit: Thats in the case of Pokemon, I dunno about the other games but i'm guessing if there heavily inspired by Pokemon it's the same kinda deal.
 

Dr.Hadji

Member
They know alot of fans will buy both versions. Way more profits for minimal efforts.

Do we have any idea at what percentage of buyers bought both versions of the game (say Pkm Red and Blue)? I can't imagine it being high enough to make it to the double digits. I knew A LOT of people with the game. No one had both versions.
 

jstripes

Banned
With Pokémon it was done to promote the social aspect of the game. It encouraged people to trade with each other.

This is exactly it. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't read anything said by Satoshi Tajiri. It's also the same reason 20 years later there's no mainline home console version. The game was designed around the idea of encouraging social interaction.
 

RagnarokX

Member
There's nothing done in Pokémon that couldn't have been done with a single version. Especially in the originals that only allowed a single save file.

I know this is the obvious justification, but it falls apart under any scrutiny.
They made 2 versions so you'd have to go find other people with the other version and interact with them. It's not a matter of it being possible and you're not supposed to buy both versions yourself.
 

Kneefoil

Member
With Pokémon it was done to promote the social aspect of the game. It encouraged people to trade with each other.

Yeah, but considering how easy it is to get a Pokémon from the other version through GTS nowadays, that reason doesn't hold up anymore.
 

openrob

Member
Wait - there are people out there that bought two versions of Pokémon?
Like actually bought two copies. Yikes.
 
To encourage people to buy the same game multiple times. It's scummy shit that for some reason never gets called out.

For everyone but Pokémon, I could agree with that.

It was only ever about encouraging trading for Pokémon though. The vast majority of people who play Pokémon aren't buying a copy of each version.
 

Weebos

Banned
Do we have any idea at what percentage of buyers bought both versions of the game (say Pkm Red and Blue)? I can't imagine it being high enough to make it to the double digits. I knew A LOT of people with the game. No one had both versions.

Maybe I'm biased here because I often buy both versions, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 10-15%.

Higher than that would be nuts.
 

BTHR Zero X

Member
With Pokémon it was done to promote the social aspect of the game. It encouraged people to trade with each other.


As a kid this holds so much truth.

I met a lot of new people who became good friends over the years because I had Blue and they had Red.

We still play Pokemon today and we all pick a different version someone else.

Yes they may have done it for more money, but to bring together handheld gamers, it worked bloody well.

Now I have gotten my two sons into them (11 and 9), I got one X and one Y, they started to get along better and argue less because they see they are not to different from each other, as well as making new friends at a new school because of Pokemon

I got one Omega Ruby, Red, and Sun and the Other Alpha Sapphire, Blue, and Moon. It helps one likes Blue and the other likes Red as their Favorite Color.


So most adults will see it as an easy cash grab and it is to some extent, but boy does it do a good job of getting people to talk to each other in a time where people stare at their phones to damn much.
 
Wait - there are people out there that bought two versions of Pokémon?
Like actually bought two copies. Yikes.

Im hardcore into Pokemon but I don't really buy both versions. Strangely enough over the years I have just ended up with the counterpart version to every game I have bought. Win win.
 

L Thammy

Member
Collectors are weird people.

I actually once met a guy who was genuinely angry that Skyward Sword came with a gold Wii Motion Plus and CD, because it meant Nintendo was forcing him to buy two copies so that he could display one. Like, he was going "money is tight, why is Nintendo doing this to me" without a hint of irony.
 
Cool

The question was "why are there multiple versions?"

The answer is "to encourage people to buy the same game multiple times"

Are we done here?
Pokemon did it with Red/Green in order to encourage social interaction through trading, though. The core functionality of the game was literally conceived of as a "bug crawling across a Link Cable". There was no such guarantee that people would be convinced to "double dip" - you'd either pick Red or Green, and you'd be naturally encouraged to interact with the people who picked the opposite version, because they had stuff you didn't. You'd trade your exclusive monsters with their exclusive monsters, help evolve each others' Machokes/Gravelers/etc. through trade evolution, get in some battles, and maybe form a connection beyond the game.

People who buy both versions are a hardcore minority (of which I am one). Even super fans will generally just tell you "Look at the boxes for both, and pick the one that looks cooler", because that's what most people tend to do.
 

*Splinter

Member
They made 2 versions so you'd have to go find other people with the other version and interact with them. It's not a matter of it being possible and you're not supposed to buy both versions yourself.
You can do that with a single version of the game.

Pretend Pokémon Blue never existed. It would have been impossible to own all of Squirtle, Bulbasaur and Charizard without trading. That's just one example.
 

Accoun

Member
Funnily enough, iDOLM@STER SP of all things kinda had an excuse, because there's so much voiced dialogue etc. that the UMD is full anyway with 3 girls per game (out of 9).

But you still have to buy multiple games to play all of the routes, so it's still $$$.
 

*Splinter

Member
Pokemon did it with Red/Green in order to encourage social interaction through trading, though. The core functionality of the game was literally conceived of as a "bug crawling across a Link Cable". There was no such guarantee that people would be convinced to "double dip" - you'd either pick Red or Green, and you'd be naturally encouraged to interact with the people who picked the opposite version, because they had stuff you didn't. You'd trade your exclusive monsters with their exclusive monsters, help evolve each others' Machokes/Gravelers/etc. through trade evolution, get in some battles, and maybe form a connection beyond the game.

People who buy both versions are a hardcore minority (of which I am one). Even super fans will generally just tell you "Look at the boxes for both, and pick the one that looks cooler", because that's what most people tend to do.
Oh good point

Trade evolutions are another thing that would have worked just fine with only on version of the game.
 

Skyo

Member
Who remembers Zelda: Oracle of Ages & Zelda:Oracle of Seasons.

Amazing games. Had different mechanics for both and told different stories. One could travel through time and the other could change the seasons.

Remember playing it with my childhood friend and we would talk about our adventures. They have this code system where you can share things between the two games or something-cant remember. but it was great!

And omg! riding boxing kangaroos and sht, gd times...
 

Opa-Pa

Member
Pokemon did it with Red/Green in order to encourage social interaction through trading, though. The core functionality of the game was literally conceived of as a "bug crawling across a Link Cable". There was no such guarantee that people would be convinced to "double dip" - you'd either pick Red or Green, and you'd be naturally encouraged to interact with the people who picked the opposite version, because they had stuff you didn't. You'd trade your exclusive monsters with their exclusive monsters, help evolve each others' Machokes/Gravelers/etc. through trade evolution, get in some battles, and maybe form a connection beyond the game.

People who buy both versions are a hardcore minority (of which I am one). Even super fans will generally just tell you "Look at the boxes for both, and pick the one that looks cooler", because that's what most people tend to do.

But it's so much easier to be cynical and willfully ignorant and claim that they knew the game would be a phenomenon from the start and they did this to profit from double dippers :eek:
 
You can do that with a single version of the game.

Pretend Pokémon Blue never existed. It would have been impossible to own all of Squirtle, Bulbasaur and Charizard without trading. That's just one example.

You're being obtuse. The only Pokémon that would've been exclusive to one copy would've been the starters then.

The creator of Pokémon literally formed the concept around a bug crawling on a cable.

The only Pokémon version that was ever really a cash grab was Yellow Version.
 

CamHostage

Member
For everyone but Pokémon, I could agree with that.

It was only ever about encouraging trading for Pokémon though. The vast majority of people who play Pokémon aren't buying a copy of each version.

Well, they all did it for the same reason, which is that "it works". Pokemon's the game that proved it works, and it did it for the reasons it did (with respect to both play concept and economical winfall,) but everybody that went to that well afterwards (including Pokemon) did it with an understanding of how it worked for Pokemon.

Collectors are weird people.

Sure, but a game has to work before it spurs collectors to collect it. In terms of gamers actually buying two copies, it's probably only happening with Pokemon. I mean, it's hard enough to get anybody to buy Digimon the first time, or Medabots or Bomberman Max or Mega Man Starforce or Telefang or Robopon or whatever is the shelf-filler that month, I just don't believe that masses of gamers are sitting at home with those titles and screaming, "AGAIN!"
 

Meier

Member
It used to be pretty cumbersome to trade Pokemon. If you had a friend with the other version that you could trade with it was absolutely money -- it definitely encouraged friends to buy the different versions and I really liked that. Obviously over time with online trading and all the other perks it became a bit silly, but I do appreciate the fact that each version has a different legendary and things like that. Gives it a little bit of variety and I personally have never bought both copies of the same game.
 

RRockman

Banned
Lol, y'all have way too much money on your hands to buy both versions of these games.




Who remembers Zelda: Oracle of Ages & Zelda:Oracle of Seasons.

Amazing games. Had different mechanics for both and told different stories. One could travel through time and the other could change the seasons.

Remember playing it with my childhood friend and we would talk about our adventures. They have this code system where you can share things between the two games or something-cant remember. but it was great!

And omg! riding boxing kangaroos and sht, gd times...

There is also a final plot line that is only available if you link both games together. It was like a proto golden sun type series with plot that continues specifically after you choices in the next game. Going from ages to seasons is actually different from seasons to ages and what you did in your first game actually changed stuff for the second game.


It was really involved and I liked that about it.
 
Cool

The question was "why are there multiple versions?"

The answer is "to encourage people to buy the same game multiple times"

Are we done here?

When Red and Blue released, Pokemon was very much a ‘kids’ thing. I didn’t know a single person at the time who had both red and blue because barely anyone was going to buy two copies of the same game for their kid. You got one version and your friend got the other. I would bet money that the amount of people who at release bought both red and blue was a minuscule amount.

Pokon sold so well because the idea of needing to interact and trade with other people was a completely brand new thing and it was amazing at the time.
 

jstripes

Banned
I actually once met a guy who was genuinely angry that Skyward Sword came with a gold Wii Motion Plus and CD, because it meant Nintendo was forcing him to buy two copies so that he could display one. Like, he was going "money is tight, why is Nintendo doing this to me" without a hint of irony.

Those "one to display" people are the worst. That's probably where half the NES Minis ended up.
 

brinstar

Member
Im hardcore into Pokemon but I don't really buy both versions. Strangely enough over the years I have just ended up with the counterpart version to every game I have bought. Win win.

Nintendo did a promotion in Gen 6 where they gave a free copy of X/Y digitally if you registered your N3DSXL to Club Nintendo, so I ended up with both games that gen.

I actually once met a guy who was genuinely angry that Skyward Sword came with a gold Wii Motion Plus and CD, because it meant Nintendo was forcing him to buy two copies so that he could display one. Like, he was going "money is tight, why is Nintendo doing this to me" without a hint of irony.

reminds me of that crystal chronicles penny arcade comic
 
In Gen I's case it's slightly more complicated because you originally had Red & Green, and then Blue came out - in somewhat the same fashion as BN3 Blue would years later - as a revised and improved copy with bug fixes. Blue then become the basis of the international releases, separated once more into... Red and Blue. Which then made the remakes of Red and Green years later slightly confusing for those not familiar with that. Oh, and of course Yellow came along as a further rerelease for the anime tie-in.

With Battle Network at least the devs tried to make the narrative content differ more significantly - like a more developed version of the Team Magma/Aqua swap, albeit often in terms of what allies you had, the story arcs they had, and abilities you gained. Mind, they dropped that in the transition to Star Force, where it became purely about the power up you received.
 
Trading Pokémon was the exact opposite of cumbersome as a kid. We ate that shit up. I still remember the height of the Pokémon craze around the time the first movie hit the states. Everyone in my neighborhood and at my school was into it. And if they hadn't been, my younger brother and I always got the opposite Pokémon versions, so we were lucky.

We still do to this day, actually.
 

Weebos

Banned
Lol, y'all have way too much money on your hands to buy both versions of these games.

If you think an extra $40 game every other year is too expensive, you don't want to know about my other hobbies lol.

I usually buy two versions because I like to have a Post-game save file and a game I can reset to do challenge runs of the campaign. Constantly restarting in one copy would cut me off from postgame stuff too often.

I'm more hardcore about Pokemon than most I suppose.
 

NoKisum

Member
Over the last few generations, I've been buying both versions of Pokémon so my girlfriend and I can play together and trade.

Am I part of the problem?
 

Spukc

always chasing the next thrill
Without trading no alakazam.
Alakazam is worth the extra pokemon game easily
 
If you think an extra $40 game every other year is too expensive, you don't want to know about my other hobbies lol.

I usually buy two versions because I like to have a Post-game save file and a game I can reset to do challenge runs of the campaign. Constantly restarting in one copy would cut me off from postgame stuff too often.

I'm more hardcore about Pokemon than most I suppose.

No one is saying no one buys two copies.

The vast majority of people who buy Pokémon titles aren't buying the other version. It's not really a money thing (or, it isn't in the case of the initial two versions. The third version that tends to release a year or so later? That's all about the money lol)

Over the last few generations, I've been buying both versions of Pokémon so my girlfriend and I can play together and trade.

Am I part of the problem?

The answer is in your post. You bought the second one for a second person lol that's perfectly normal. Collectors who buy both to actually play both themselves are fewer than I think people here realize.
 
Don't understand why several posters believe it's for buying two copies. It's like people believing in artificial shortages. If you actually think about it, it's absurd. It isn't like the social loop with trading is an advanced concept. It's sort of like when a new social network app comes about. The few Pokemon in gen 1 that required trading wasn't really enough to get that loop going in the 90s at least to the extent of Pokemon.
 

*Splinter

Member
You're being obtuse. The only Pokémon that would've been exclusive to one copy would've been the starters then.

The creator of Pokémon literally formed the concept around a bug crawling on a cable.

The only Pokémon version that was ever really a cash grab was Yellow Version.
The starters
The fossil Pokémon
The Pokémon that only evolve on trade
The million other ways you can force people to use a feature of a game

Yes, I'm the one being obtuse.

When Red and Blue released, Pokemon was very much a ‘kids’ thing. I didn’t know a single person at the time who had both red and blue because barely anyone was going to buy two copies of the same game for their kid. You got one version and your friend got the other. I would bet money that the amount of people who at release bought both red and blue was a minuscule amount.
COOL.

Why do people keep telling me this?

Can y'all stop stanning long enough to answer the question:

Why do multiple versions of games exist?


Follow up question:
If your answer is trading, why can't this be done with a single version of the game?



I don't care how people play Pokémon
I don't care how many version of Pokémon people buy
I don't care how trading changed your life

Thank you.
 

Red Devil

Member
Actually I know a lot of people who buys Pokémon games but nobody that actually buys the two versions it's either one or the other.

Pls stop.

Anybody who thinks that trading to evovle a Pokemon is more cool and fun than it actually being annoying and frustrating needs to open their eyes.

I think they're talking about the version exclusives not trading to evolve a Pokémon.
 
The starters
The fossil Pokémon
The Pokémon that only evolve on trade
The million other ways you can force people to use a feature of a game

Yes, I'm the one being obtuse.


COOL.

Why do people keep telling me this?

Can y'all stop stanning long enough to answer the question:

Why do multiple versions of games exist?


Follow up question:
If your answer is trading, why can't this be done with a single version of the game?



I don't care how people play Pokémon
I don't care how many version of Pokémon people buy
I don't care how trading changed your life

Thank you.

No one's stanning. You're just being a weirdo.

If you seriously think most people are buying two versions of these games, yeah, you're being immensely obtuse.
 

L Thammy

Member
*Splinter, first off, if you're the kind of nerd who needs to buy multiple versions to get everything, having a single version that locks you out of some of the content (like Squirtle and the fossils) doesn't actually do anything to change that. Instead of buying two versions to get everything, you buy two copies of one version to get everything. You still have to get one copy for Omanyte and another copy for Kabuto.

If you need some unique reason for two versions, you're not going to get one, because there doesn't have to be a unique reason. The multiple versions simply supplement the same design wherein some content is exclusive to some players to encourage trading. You have an explanation, you're just continuing to refuse it.

What's especially ridiculous about the forcing people to buy two copies conspiracy, is that the cover story is that they're trying to encourage you and your friend to buy a copy each. They still want to sell two copies with either explanation. It's still trying to get your money either way. It's the most unnecessary conspiracy theory; the thing it's covering up is basically the same as the cover story.
 
There's nothing done in Pokémon that couldn't have been done with a single version. Especially in the originals that only allowed a single save file.

I know this is the obvious justification, but it falls apart under any scrutiny.

That's entirely the point, you were forced to share your experiences with your friends to "Catch 'Em All." It was a brilliant business idea, sure, but that social aspect is why Pokemon is even half as relevant as it is now. Battling and Trading, that's what Pokemon was about after you finished training your Pokemon up.

Nowadays, you're actively encouraged to only buy one version as online trading is so simple and accessible. Anyone who buys more than one version is doing it because they want to, so that social aspect isn't really scummy anymore.
 
Allow me to explain MMBN3.

White is the original version. In Japan it was known as Rockman EXE 3.

Some time later, BLUE (known as Black in Japan) launched with a number of bug fixes and additional content.

When it came time to launc BN3 in the US, Capcom USA opted to localize both versions. The original version became WHITE, Black became BLUE.
BN3 did the 2 versions thing the worst though. Trivial differences and you can't even complete the single player things without trading.
BN4 did it better with having much more substantial differences to start and better link up things to do (secret library, fighting the opposite version bosses, and free tournament) while being optional.
 
Top Bottom