By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Wyrdness said:
HyrulianScrolls said:

Yeah it needed the brand to gain traction like I said, but that's not what made it a phenomenon. If that were true there'd be 500m people playing the actual games. I guarantee the percentage of people playing Go that never before played a pokemon game in their life is easily higher than the percentage that have. 

The fact that it needed a brand to gain traction proves him right though as the studio's previous attempt using the concept never took off, the brand is what made it sucessful the's no way around that fact.

Well there's a difference between people buying it because it is Pokemon (brand power) and the brand making the concept viable (the power of having a brand).  Pokemon being the IP in question definitely boosted it's appeal obviously, but I think any brand that gave it a real, recognizable face would have done fine.  It's just that when you look at previous AR games that didn't just lack a popular brand.  They lacked any "brand".  Ingress isn't just plain, it's downright nondescript.  No one denies PoGo owes some of it to the Pokemon brand, but not all of it.  It wasn't just people buying it because it's Pokemon.  I mean, there probably aren't even 100 million.  total Pokemon fans prior to Go so all 500 mil can't be prior Pokemon fans.  Not even close.  So it can't be "just buying it because it is Pokemon."  There's more to it than that.  And that more - the social AR aspects - are not present in Mario.