| spemanig said: Yeah, but they already have other ways of encouraging social play, like the Friend Safari. (Which I hate, for many reasons, but that isn't the point) I know that the Oracle games are destinct. I'm staying that the versions could go that route instead, while also taking a Friend Safari approach to version exclusives. Instead of it depending on which version you buy, they could depend on more intimate elements of your game, like what Friend Safari does with your friend code. It could allow each individial to have their own unique ecosystem without depending on versions. |
I hardly think making twice as many Pokemon games is the solution here. It's already practically annualized.
Also, think about what you're suggesting. Instead of developing one game, making some minor changes to it, and selling it as two versions, they'd be developing two entirely different games, effectively doubling their workload. Now take into consideration that one of those games would require HD assets and a huge 3D world and we are so, so far beyond merely doubling the workload. And the end result of this is that you might get some players to buy both games. That does not sound like an attractive proposition for a company who has posted a net loss the past three fiscal years.
GameFreak isn't big enough to churn out games like that. They'd have to become a bloated mess of a dev team to do this.
