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

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 therefor 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.

If Switch failed, Switch would still exist and that's where Pokémon would go to. And if it somehow didn't end up on Switch, it would be because Nintendo quickly launched a new handheld-only device that would get it.

If you believe that Pokémon would suddenly appear on PS, then you would have to believe the same for Mario, Zelda etc.

Well it was more like if Switch was crushed by the PS portable and had to give up the hybrid space, almost like Wii U, which was replaced as quickly as possible. There was also mention of another Nin device, which of course would be possible eventually, but the other user doesn't like guessing about the future without using facts that exist now, so since there is no indication of another Nin device, well. Does Nin only own a minority portion of Zelda and Mario? If Nin owns 100%, they can do whatever they want. If they only own a minority, they can only try to work together with the other shareholders, and if those shareholders don't like the stance taken, they are free to sell their shares. Since Pokemon is that important to Nin, I'm sure they would try and purchase enough of those to own a majority, if not all of them, to make sure this wasn't a problem again. Whether they could bid the highest, or if those other shareholders wanted to sell their shares to another company just because, like out of spite, which also does happen due to major disagreements, who knows?



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.