Support NeoGAF

[*Splinter]

*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.

This is the first sensible counter point anyone has made, although it's still not related to the point I'm debating.

I'm not trying to downplay trading here. It's just not what the thread is about.

 

[L Thammy]

Last try

Last try

You have an explanation, you're just continuing to refuse it.

 

[Raptomex]

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.

I knew several people who had both versions. Me, included. Granted, I would get them as gifts for either my birthday or Christmas, usually, but I always ended up getting both at the same time.

 

[LegendofLex]

1) They're multiplayer "collect and trade" games so it makes sense to encourage

Spoiler

require

players to interact with other players.

2) Pokemon games sell tens of millions of copies literally every single time.

 

[eXistor]

I've only got anecdotal evidence, but I've worked retail for going on 20 years now and I've seen the launch of almost every Pokémon game. Yes, people buy all the versions. Not everyone of course, but still a significant percentage. Maybe not at first, but they come back. Families with 2 kids buy 2 games, not 1. Why do you think a third (!) version of the game comes out everytime? So they can buy it a third time, or at least a second. It's just money folks, don't kid yourselves.

In the end we're getting good games out of it (though I checked out a long time ago myself) and of course the social aspect is a nice positive viewpoint, but games only get made because a company thinks they can make money out of it. We all know this. It doesn't really matter how they do it: EA makes money by being the devil, Nintendo does it by showing some care: in the end they can only continue to exist if we continue to give them money.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Pokemon is the only game that I feel justified it. Trading monsters and making gaming a more widely social experience had a lot to do with there being two versions of each game. As much as I love the Battle Network series, for example, I never really understood why they were split into versions beyond Capcom wanting all of dat dere $$$$$.

 

[voodoopanda]

For the original Pokemon, didn't you have to have two gameboys to trade anyway? I only ever had one gameboy so I saw no reason to get the other version since I wouldn't have been able to get all the pokemon in one game or trade my Kadabra and evolve it into an Alakazam by myself anyways.

 

[Sciz]

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?

Because multiple versions prevents the immediate solution from always being "go hit up your best bud who also plays the game". It has to be someone else who has the specific version you need access to, which encourages more socialization than a single-version scheme.

edit: We're also talking about an idea that was conceived before the proliferation of the internet, so the availability of every individual species wasn't immediately obvious unless you also got your hands on a guide. You were intended to figure out how to get them all as a collaborative effort with other people, and while trade being enforced is obvious in some cases, version-locked species was something you'd only figure out by talking amongst yourselves and comparing notes.

 

[brinstar]

I've only got anecdotal evidence, but I've worked retail for going on 20 years now and I've seen the launch of almost every Pokémon game. Yes, people buy all the versions. Not everyone of course, but still a significant percentage. Maybe not at first, but they come back. Families with 2 kids buy 2 games, not 1. Why do you think a third (!) version of the game comes out everytime? So they can buy it a third time, or at least a second. It's just money folks, don't kid yourselves.

In the end we're getting good games out of it (though I checked out a long time ago myself) and of course the social aspect is a nice positive viewpoint, but games only get made because a company thinks they can make money out of it. We all know this. It doesn't really matter how they do it: EA makes money by being the devil, Nintendo does it by showing some care: in the end they can only continue to exist if we continue to give them money.

In the end it does always come back to $$$. I just think the point folks are taking contention with is the assertion that say, Bob is expected to buy Red and Blue, instead of Bob buying Red and Tim buying Blue. Even if there were no versions, Bob and Tim would still buy their own copies of Pokemon and still trade with one another.

But like you said there's still the third version lol

 

[J@hranimo]

Why have

when you could have

Can't wait to see those people who will buy each version of Pokemon Switch for $60 each!!

 

[ghostjoke]

Wait. People actually buy both versions of Pokemon?

I can't even imagine how my experience with Pokemon (hell, my general school life during the red/blue/silver/gold cycle) would have changed if that's how I treated the two version system.

I get that it isn't the only way the games make players interact, but finding a person with the right version, who had the Pokemon you wanted, and working out a trade, all in a world where the you couldn't just google the solution was as much a part of the game as any other aspect. Yeah, it was a gimmick to boost sales, but going out into the wilds of the playground in search of that illusive Growlithe was magical, at least once upon a time.

 

[astrogamer]

Last try

If you are referring to games not named Pokemon that do multiple versions, it's a bit of a branding thing. Two versions right next to each other with kid friendly imagery gives the feeling that it's like Pokemon and something their kid will enjoy. There's also a bit of an attempt to mimic Pokemon's social loop to boost sales

 

[Phediuk]

Because it's an easy way to get people to buy multiple copies of the same game.

See: this thread.

 

[*Splinter]

It could be, but it's a lot more effective and immediately obvious when there's two.

Because multiple versions prevents the immediate solution from always being "go hit up your best bud who also plays the game". It has to be someone else who has the specific version you need access to, which encourages more socialization than a single-version scheme.

I'll concede that both of these points make sense, at least.

They're both tiny benefits that (imo) wouldn't justify the cost of creating a seperate version, but thats at least a debatable point.

 

[Holy Order Sol]

You're being obtuse.

could have noticed at the first "cool" they were not worth engaging and saved yourself the trouble

 

[LegendofLex]

I think anyone who thinks this is a greedy money-grab should probably also be questioning why tons of games today eschew local multiplayer for online only multiplayer.

The answer is the same: it means more copies of the games will need to be sold for people to get the experience they want.

 

[Bulzeeb]

I've been playing pokemon since red/blue (skipped the DS version though) and I've never bought the 2 versions, I always worked with my friends to trade and battle, well I guess some of you are really hardcore about your games.

 

[Gravy Boat]

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.

To sell more versions of the game overall, not to sell more versions of the game to one person like you claimed.

What would be the point in trading if you can do everything in the copy you own anyway?

 

[Zen_Arcade]

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.

You not liking it doesn't mean that it wasn't the reason the idea was implemented.

You should really open your eyes and learn to read, because he didn't even say anything about the method being cool or fun.