Quantcast
Pokemon Co: Sword/Shield sold through 6 million globally in its first 3 days

Forums - Sales Discussion - Pokemon Co: Sword/Shield sold through 6 million globally in its first 3 days

So, Let's Go opened at half this number, and went on to sell 10 million by the end of the year.

Not saying the factor of double will necessarily hold, but given the Switch is set for a monstrous holiday season, we could be in for some scary big holiday numbers for S/S.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

Your 435 < 800 argument is only valid if ALL other factors are already equal OR the number of Pokemon is the ONLY factor of relevance.   And since neither are the case, you have no argument.

If you're going call out others for fallacies, don't make one yourself.

That's not an argument, it's one of many facts that supports my argument, that people aren't just pretending Sw/Sh lacks content, it in fact does. It's the single biggest fact given it's the namesake and affects pretty much every single facet of the game, and the person I quoted specifically brought up the number of Pokemon. Very disingenuous of you to insinuate that's the only reason when my initial post made clear it wasn't.

You however claim all other factors aren't equal (this is true, but not in Sw/Sh's favor), yet provide zero explanation. Still I could have elaborated a bit more on those other reasons so I'll do that now. No mega evolutions, cut moves, story is uber minimal, route design is uber linear, no dungeon like areas, nonexistent postgame, only singles n doubles at battle tower, no triple or rotation battles whatsoever, no GTS, etc. Sw/Sh only adds Dynamaxing, Wild Area, raid battles, and camping. Also I just wanna stress again that the amount of possibilitys and options for most all of the content in Pokemon is majorly dependent on the number of Pokemon. Ex: Both Pokemon X/Y and Sw/Sh have double battles of course, but overall you can do more with the double battles in X/Y even if Sw/Sh has things only it's doubles can do.



Lonely_Dolphin said:
SpokenTruth said:

Your 435 < 800 argument is only valid if ALL other factors are already equal OR the number of Pokemon is the ONLY factor of relevance.   And since neither are the case, you have no argument.

If you're going call out others for fallacies, don't make one yourself.

That's not an argument, it's one of many facts that supports my argument, that people aren't just pretending Sw/Sh lacks content, it in fact does. It's the single biggest fact given it's the namesake and affects pretty much every single facet of the game, and the person I quoted specifically brought up the number of Pokemon. Very disingenuous of you to insinuate that's the only reason when my initial post made clear it wasn't.

You however claim all other factors aren't equal (this is true, but not in Sw/Sh's favor), yet provide zero explanation. Still I could have elaborated a bit more on those other reasons so I'll do that now. No mega evolutions, cut moves, story is uber minimal, route design is uber linear, no dungeon like areas, nonexistent postgame, only singles n doubles at battle tower, no triple or rotation battles whatsoever, no GTS, etc. Sw/Sh only adds Dynamaxing, Wild Area, raid battles, and camping. Also I just wanna stress again that the amount of possibilitys and options for most all of the content in Pokemon is majorly dependent on the number of Pokemon. Ex: Both Pokemon X/Y and Sw/Sh have battles of course, but overall you can do more with the battles in X/Y even if Sw/Sh has things only it's battles can do.

This is how you should have started.  Now you are validating your original premise.  Half of a thing looks bad by itself but because that's not the only thing in the game, it can't be the only measure.  Now you're showing why it's not the only measure and how it relates to those other measures. 

You caught a lot of flack because you isolated that factor and ignored any offsetting factors.  In this post, you are weighing a lot more factors and how they relate to each other.  Not everybody will concede your point but it's a lot harder to refute now.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:

This is how you should have started.  Now you are validating your original premise.  Half of a thing looks bad by itself but because that's not the only thing in the game, it can't be the only measure.  Now you're showing why it's not the only measure and how it relates to those other measures. 

You caught a lot of flack because you isolated that factor and ignored any offsetting factors.  In this post, you are weighing a lot more factors and how they relate to each other.  Not everybody will concede your point but it's a lot harder to refute now.

I didn't isolate that factor though: "So yeah, combined with the other cut mechanics and modes coupled with minimal new stuff, Sw/Sh is in fact lacking content compared to prior games." Just didn't elaborate on those other reasons as like I said, Jules was specifically talking about Pokemon count. I don't know if by lacking in content he means in any sense or an overall sense, so I didn't wanna wall of text without being sure it was the latter first. If it's the former, then that one factor is all that's needed.



jonathanalis said:
And it is 50% more expensive than other pokemon games.
They are swimming in money.

Not really 50% but this is definitely the highest grossing pokemon game by far



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Around the Network
Eagle367 said:
jonathanalis said:
And it is 50% more expensive than other pokemon games.
They are swimming in money.

Not really 50% but this is definitely the highest grossing pokemon game by far

33.34% increase in price. They're definitely making people pay more for less. Dexit, lacking post game content, shorter story mode, no mega evos or z-moves, and the online raid battles have been having problems according to some, which was one of the big selling points. I think the last one may be related more to Nintendo's crap online than the game itself but still.

And the main big feature, the open world, has been criticized.

I'm not in a rush to get the game and will probably buy it used/discounted but there's been plenty of fair criticism. The bulk of the complaints seem to point to the game being rushed.

I say all of this as someone who enjoyed Let's Go, even with it's problems.



StriderKiwi said:
Eagle367 said:

Not really 50% but this is definitely the highest grossing pokemon game by far

33.34% increase in price. They're definitely making people pay more for less. Dexit, lacking post game content, shorter story mode, no mega evos or z-moves

If I had a $ for every time I've read this online the last few weeks...



PortisheadBiscuit said:
StriderKiwi said:

33.34% increase in price. They're definitely making people pay more for less. Dexit, lacking post game content, shorter story mode, no mega evos or z-moves

If I had a $ for every time I've read this online the last few weeks...

...because it's true. >_>



StriderKiwi said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

If I had a $ for every time I've read this online the last few weeks...

...because it's true. >_>

You pay 33% for the option to play it on your TV which imo beats all the shit people moan about



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

StriderKiwi said:
Eagle367 said:

Not really 50% but this is definitely the highest grossing pokemon game by far

33.34% increase in price. They're definitely making people pay more for less. Dexit, lacking post game content, shorter story mode, no mega evos or z-moves, and the online raid battles have been having problems according to some, which was one of the big selling points. I think the last one may be related more to Nintendo's crap online than the game itself but still.

And the main big feature, the open world, has been criticized.

I'm not in a rush to get the game and will probably buy it used/discounted but there's been plenty of fair criticism. The bulk of the complaints seem to point to the game being rushed.

I say all of this as someone who enjoyed Let's Go, even with it's problems.

You also have to take into account that prices of Pokemon games have effectively been going down since 2006.  In today's dollars, Pokemon Pearl would have cost $50.  The game market is really weird when it comes to inflation (since unlike other markets you can't really increase the price gradually), but at some point you're going to have to raise prices to keep up with the rising costs.  Even if team sizes and hours stayed the same, salaries must have increased, so the cost of development has gone up.  I'm sure this was a big part of why Nintendo wanted to unify the handheld and portable market, so they could effectively raise the price on all of their handheld franchises.