-
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.
Detective GAF uncovers evidence of imminent Nintendo Direct as soon as next week
- Thread starter Cerium
- Start date
- Status
No, but I think for pokemon, it should be online free, I don't think most people will easily accept a pokemon game that make them pay for online trading, battling and stuffs
You're not paying for extra Pokemon elements, you're paying Nintendo for their entire online service.
DecoReturns
Member
I really do hope Pokemon doesn't require pay online.
Seeing how I never pay for any online services on consoles.
Wishful thinking on my part tho
Seeing how I never pay for any online services on consoles.
Wishful thinking on my part tho
I mean I get why people don't want to pay for it, I don't want to pay for it either.
But y'all are setting yourselves up for disappointment. To me the answer is pretty obvious.
How do you think it'll go for Nintendo if they approach third parties and tell them "Yeah our customers won't be able to play your game online without paying us money, but Pokemon is exempt, sucks to be you." Absurdity. It won't happen.
But y'all are setting yourselves up for disappointment. To me the answer is pretty obvious.
How do you think it'll go for Nintendo if they approach third parties and tell them "Yeah our customers won't be able to play your game online without paying us money, but Pokemon is exempt, sucks to be you." Absurdity. It won't happen.
Resistance100
Member
They have no issue charging for Pokemon Bank Service
Dark Cloud
Member
I'm sorry, but Pokémon is not an exception. You're paying for Nintendos online service for online gameplay for games on the Switch. You're not paying for Game Freaks online service. Nintendo is not about to take one of their biggest franchises and not leverage it to push online subscriptions. That would be such a huge business mistake.
Smash fans will pay for online. ARMS and Splatoon fans will pay for online. Maybe there will be exceptions for small games, but I would be completely surprised if they gave Pokémon an exemption from their online service. If Pokémon fans get an exception then I as a Smash fan better get exempt too.
Smash fans will pay for online. ARMS and Splatoon fans will pay for online. Maybe there will be exceptions for small games, but I would be completely surprised if they gave Pokémon an exemption from their online service. If Pokémon fans get an exception then I as a Smash fan better get exempt too.
Exterminieren
Banned
They literally already charge for Pokémon storage.
But that's not within the game itself. The game still has its usual level of storage. It's not blocking stuff out unless you pay extra.
Dark Cloud
Member
Nope, nothing so far.
"FOR THE CHILDREN"
DecoReturns
Member
Do you even need Pokemon Bank?
I always felt the games had ample storage on its own. Unless bank does more then just store Pokemon? I don't know, I never used it
I always felt the games had ample storage on its own. Unless bank does more then just store Pokemon? I don't know, I never used it
No you don't. The games have 32 boxes of storage themselves. They didn't lock the in-game storage behind a paywall.
The game is irrelevant. The online service is the online service. It's really as simple as that.
Exterminieren
Banned
It's not just storage, though- it's transferring between generations, and it's the National Dex. The idea that they wouldn't charge for features out of the goodness of their hearts is simply not credible.
They already make you pay to transfer your Pokemon across generations, so they are not opposed to it at all.
More than that, it sets a precedent where you'll see Activision come to the table and say "If you want Call of Duty or Overwatch on Switch, we demand the same exception Pokemon is getting."
Resistance100
Member
To transfer my pokemon yellow pokemon to sun and moon you do.
Games have had exemptions for free online on XBL and PSN and that hasn't happened.
Neither of which are integral to the game
Like what? I bet you they don't compare to the size of Pokemon.
DecoReturns
Member
Kingpin Rogers
Member
So you're all going insane over a empty space for a direct on Nintendo's website? I doubt pokemon stars is real and even if is there's no reason to have a direct about it.
AlexFlame116
Member
I hope Pokemon Gold/Silver/Crystal get the VC treatment. Even though we already have the remakes so it wouldn't make sense. I still want it.
Biggest video game franchise of all time lacks a reason to have a direct for it?
Ok
Well of course they don't, but that doesn't mean that the entire philosophy that Game Freak has will be negated. Come on now.
I'll be disappointed if they don't allow for basic online functions for free.
Free online multiplayer isn't integral to the game either, if local multiplayer is still functional and free. Especially from a Japanese perspective.
I'm genuinely curious about these Xbone and PS4 titles with free online multiplayer. Because I might buy them if they work as you say they do.
Linkstrikesback
Member
Frankly, I don't know how true this is given they put transferring pokemon behind a subscription paywall.
edit: Yep, people already on that subject, and I'm lttp as usual.
Typically exceptions have been F2P games with online components, I think.
Graphics Horse
Member
Few games compare to the size of Pokémon.
Iirc MGSV, Watch Dogs and Dark Souls 3 have aspects where one player can enter another's game without psplus, and a general exemption for 'free to play' games
Dark Cloud
Member
Pokémon has gotten their own Direct before. It can have its own direct.
Frankly, I'd only pay for Nintendo Online if it works like PS Plus where they'd give out free VC games or something per month. There standards would have to be on par with the competitors otherwise no deal.
Plus, if paying for an online subscription does become a thing, it would also entice me away from the games that have a major online but minor offline aspect, like Splatoon. For example, why should I pay for a game and not have at least a week or two, or X hours of online time with it. I'm paying for the game, so I've paid for the developers to create the online service. Yes we haven't paid for it's maintenance, but there should be at least some leeway.
Plus, if paying for an online subscription does become a thing, it would also entice me away from the games that have a major online but minor offline aspect, like Splatoon. For example, why should I pay for a game and not have at least a week or two, or X hours of online time with it. I'm paying for the game, so I've paid for the developers to create the online service. Yes we haven't paid for it's maintenance, but there should be at least some leeway.
AlexFlame116
Member
Well, Elder Scrolls Online has free multiplayer and no subscription required I believe. Same with Smite and Blacklight. DC Universe Online and Warframe too.
if it won't have free VC games but only charge you 20 bucks, will you still pay for it?
DecoReturns
Member
I'm personally doubting a direct. Its just run to speculate
But if Fire Emblem can get its own direct, then Pokemon can definitely get one.
Although that FE direct was for its mobile game so who knows.
But if Fire Emblem can get its own direct, then Pokemon can definitely get one.
Although that FE direct was for its mobile game so who knows.
Googled the first title you named and you're wrong.
Pretty sure none of these exceptions are actually exceptions and Pokemon won't be either.
Yeah, no one should get their hopes up about free Pokemon online. The paywall is going to happen. I'm expecting Stars to be Switch/3DS, so those who don't want to pay to play online can just use the 3DS version. By the time a new Pokemon gen hits the Switch, those who waited will be more willing to pay after they've seen what Nintendo has done with the service.
Honestly, paying to trade Pokemon online seems so... icky. ICKY. But times have changed. I remember back in the olden days, the thought of Nintendo charging for DLC Smash characters was blasphemous, but now people are chomping at the bit for them. The same will happen with Pokemon. I just hope Nintendo actually does something worthwhile with their online service.
Honestly, paying to trade Pokemon online seems so... icky. ICKY. But times have changed. I remember back in the olden days, the thought of Nintendo charging for DLC Smash characters was blasphemous, but now people are chomping at the bit for them. The same will happen with Pokemon. I just hope Nintendo actually does something worthwhile with their online service.
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
Charlie0108
Member
Have any other Eurogamer rumours been proven correct yet to give some substance to the Stars one?
Weren't they the ones that first reported the Switch was a hybrid system?
FlutterPuffs
Member
On Nintendo only? Because they were pretty accurate regarding the PS4 Pro, Switch, and various other games that werent revealed at the time of their articles.
Best game website by far.
And also Mario & Rabbids came from the same people if memory serves
That was Laura Kate Dale, right?
The Giant
Banned
Gameblog, a few months before LKD mentioned it.
Trying to think if it'd be smart to just include a Bank subscription in with the online service subscription. Adds value, makes it appealing to Pokemon people, while still offering the main social services for free.
Kissenkopf
Banned
And you need PS Plus to play those games...do you get that for free?
- Status