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

I mention this in a prior post, which is fine. Nin says no to Pokemon on PS devices. So either PS uses their majority stake to ruin Pokemon however they decide to do so, screwing over Nin, or Nin can hold onto it and do nothing with it, or they can continue to make Pokemon games and give PS two thirds of the profits for doing absolutely nothing.

Why would Sony have a majority stake in Pokémon? That's another ultra-unrealistic scenario.

It was started by the fact that another user mentioned what if Switch failed due to a PS portable being on the market, in which case they thought Pokemon would be the solution. Well no Switch means no Pokemon on Switch, and since Switch apparently is going to be the all in one unit and handheld is basically going away, it would mean that Pokemon would have no Nin hardware to launch on and therefore would really have little choice but to end up on PS devices, mainly the portable handheld/hybrid. I also mentioned this entire scenario is unlikely since Switch is doing so well and looks to have some legs at the very least, yet it keeps getting brought up, so.



PS1   - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.

PS2  - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.

PS3   - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.

PS4   - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.

PRO  -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.

PS5   - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.

PRO  -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.