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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Pokemon Company: Let's Go sold 3 million in first 3 days

Lonely_Dolphin on 27 November 2018
Super_Boom said:

Not sure if I should even get into this, since I don't entirely disagree...just think you're oversimplifying the content argument. 

Of course playtime is subjective, but you can look at average times to get an idea at least. I just checked HowLongtoBeat, and it looks like the ratio of average completion time for all styles is 2:1 for Sun/Moon:Let's Go (46 hours: 24 hours). So yes, even ignoring the new features and other factors that I don't plan to get into, I would say the gen 7 games have more content, albeit not quite as much as you originally present it. Sure it might not be linear, but it begs the question that, if added content isn't a draw to play longer, is it really meaningful content to begin with?

That being said, the only real disagreement I have is with the idea that you get 800+ pokemon for $40 vs. 150 pokemon for $60, as if I'll ever get even close to seeing most of those Pokemon on an average playthrough. I can see why people more involved in the meta would see it this way, but to me, it looks like you're claiming that over 80% of the content of the game is locked into the online component, which many of us have very little interest in. And to be honest, having 80% of your content require you to access the online component (either by trading one by one or owning several past games), I'd say that introduces several other issues into the content equation.

So you're disagreeing with a fact then? That you get 800 Pokemon for $40 vs. 150 Pokemon for $60 is not an idea nor just another way to see it but a fact. Whether or not you experience the 800 Pokemon, they are still in the game thus relevant in a discussion about value. Well atleast you kinda agree, that's good enough. :L



Around the Network
yhtan0404 on 27 November 2018
curl-6 said:

The Pokemon company has announced that Let's Go sold at least 3 million copies from the 16th to the 18th of November.

This is the largest opening for a Switch game to date.

https://gematsu.com/2018/11/pokemon-lets-go-pikachu-and-lets-go-eevee-first-week-sales-top-three-million

Thanks for the post. May I know how do we verify if the 3 mn sales happened between 16th - 18th Nov? Or did it happened during the first 7 days of release? I did not see it on the Pokemon Company's website.

Many thanks.



curl-6 on 27 November 2018
yhtan0404 said:
curl-6 said:

The Pokemon company has announced that Let's Go sold at least 3 million copies from the 16th to the 18th of November.

This is the largest opening for a Switch game to date.

https://gematsu.com/2018/11/pokemon-lets-go-pikachu-and-lets-go-eevee-first-week-sales-top-three-million

Thanks for the post. May I know how do we verify if the 3 mn sales happened between 16th - 18th Nov? Or did it happened during the first 7 days of release? I did not see it on the Pokemon Company's website.

Many thanks.

It can't be the first 7 days because the tweet was made on the 21st, only five days after the game released. 



yhtan0404 on 27 November 2018

Ok understood. Thanks a lot.



Miyamotoo on 27 November 2018
yhtan0404 said:
curl-6 said:

The Pokemon company has announced that Let's Go sold at least 3 million copies from the 16th to the 18th of November.

This is the largest opening for a Switch game to date.

https://gematsu.com/2018/11/pokemon-lets-go-pikachu-and-lets-go-eevee-first-week-sales-top-three-million

Thanks for the post. May I know how do we verify if the 3 mn sales happened between 16th - 18th Nov? Or did it happened during the first 7 days of release? I did not see it on the Pokemon Company's website.

Many thanks.

Bolded part.



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 27 November 2018
Lonely_Dolphin said:
Super_Boom said:

Not sure if I should even get into this, since I don't entirely disagree...just think you're oversimplifying the content argument. 

Of course playtime is subjective, but you can look at average times to get an idea at least. I just checked HowLongtoBeat, and it looks like the ratio of average completion time for all styles is 2:1 for Sun/Moon:Let's Go (46 hours: 24 hours). So yes, even ignoring the new features and other factors that I don't plan to get into, I would say the gen 7 games have more content, albeit not quite as much as you originally present it. Sure it might not be linear, but it begs the question that, if added content isn't a draw to play longer, is it really meaningful content to begin with?

That being said, the only real disagreement I have is with the idea that you get 800+ pokemon for $40 vs. 150 pokemon for $60, as if I'll ever get even close to seeing most of those Pokemon on an average playthrough. I can see why people more involved in the meta would see it this way, but to me, it looks like you're claiming that over 80% of the content of the game is locked into the online component, which many of us have very little interest in. And to be honest, having 80% of your content require you to access the online component (either by trading one by one or owning several past games), I'd say that introduces several other issues into the content equation.

So you're disagreeing with a fact then? That you get 800 Pokemon for $40 vs. 150 Pokemon for $60 is not an idea nor just another way to see it but a fact. Whether or not you experience the 800 Pokemon, they are still in the game thus relevant in a discussion about value. Well atleast you kinda agree, that's good enough. :L

No he is not disagreeing with a fact.  He is pointing out that you're not "getting" any particular number of Pokemon for 40 dollars.  You're getting a game, in which you may or may not get those Pokemon.  Getting all the Pokemon in Sun and Moon does not only require your financial investment, but a potentially very large time investment.  And that's something that factors into the value equation.  

Suppose I am an adult with a relatively busy work schedule.  I know I'm probably not going to spend much time searching for Pokemon that are not immediately available in the game.  I know that I am not going to invest what is needed (time + money) to see all 800 Pokemon.  For that kind of player, how is the extra Pokemon relevant to the value?  How does the existence of Unfezant, Pidove, Levanny, Unown, FarFetchd, Igglybuff, Cleffa, Azurril, Elekid, Senetret, Furret,  Grumpig, Luvdisc, Vanillish, or Swoobat within the code add any kind of value to my game, if I know full well I am never ever going to see them in it, and maybe don't have any particular desire to (I can not personally foresee any scenario in which I would want or need to acquire a Grumpig)?  If those Pokemon were all removed from the game, how many people would notice?  How many of the people who noticed would really care?  I'd wager a small percentage.

Those are just a small set of examples, but honestly, I just don't care about many many Pokemon.  The ability to catch or raise them, especially if it requires going out of my way adds nothing for me.  Maybe there are some people who really do want to catch em all, and good for them.  For those people, all these Pokemon have value.  For me, they add nothing.  And having easier access to some of the Pokemon I do like (Clefable, Ninetales, Gyrados, Starmie, Squirtle, or Golem for Instance), does have value to me.  Although of course for someone who doesn't like many of the Gen 1 Pokemon, that does not add any value.

This is the thing that you seem to continually not get.  Value is dependent entirely upon the consumer.  Players are going to find value in different things.  For many (I'd say most) sheer volume of Pokemon is not a huge factor.

Again I have to ask, is enjoyment of the game going to be based solely on the number of Pokemon? If not, what other factors should one take into account?

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 27 November 2018

curl-6 on 27 November 2018
Miyamotoo said:
yhtan0404 said:

Thanks for the post. May I know how do we verify if the 3 mn sales happened between 16th - 18th Nov? Or did it happened during the first 7 days of release? I did not see it on the Pokemon Company's website.

Many thanks.

Bolded part.

Well, my Japanese it too rusty to translate the actual tweet the article in the OP links to, but Google translate says it refers to "first week sales", and weekly data is typically tallied by calendar week ending Sunday, so at the time the tweet was made, the 21st, the latest weekly information available would be for the week ending on the 18th, during which Let's Go was available for 3 days.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 27 November 2018

Lonely_Dolphin on 28 November 2018
JWeinCom said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

So you're disagreeing with a fact then? That you get 800 Pokemon for $40 vs. 150 Pokemon for $60 is not an idea nor just another way to see it but a fact. Whether or not you experience the 800 Pokemon, they are still in the game thus relevant in a discussion about value. Well atleast you kinda agree, that's good enough. :L

No he is not disagreeing with a fact.

Denial it is then, but even if that were true Let's Go is still a worse value, $60 for 153 Pokemon vs. $40 for 200~ Pokemon so mute point. Also, of course anything can be any level of value to anyone personally, hence I'm obviously talking objective value. To me Let's Go isn't worth the dirt on my shoes, but I acknowledge the fact that it is still has some of what you'd expect out of a mainline Pokemon and brings some new features so a price of $0 is just wrong. At the same time, so to is the price of $60 as it has less content than cheaper titles. If Let's Go were $20 the game would still be worthless to me but I would no longer call it a cash grab.



flashfire926 on 28 November 2018
Super_Boom said:
curl-6 said:

I'm not a Pokemon fan so maybe I just don't "get it" but honestly 809 Pokemon just sounds like ridiculous overkill to me, I think I'd much rather play a game with just 150 entirely new Pokemon and no recycled old ones than be flooded with so many, the majority of which are old hat.

I think that argument is a bit disingenuous anyway. I haven't played every Pokemon game, but I can't think of any that come ever close to having all 809 existing in the base game itself, i.e. roaming the wild available to be caught. In Sun/Moon for example, the game has around 200 available to catch, you only have access to the rest of the library if you trade with past games.

Not denying this game has less content...but I consider active playtime to be a better indicator of content than how many Pokemon I have access to. 

Sun/Moon has about 300 pokemon you can catch, while US/UM have 400 to catch. 



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

flashfire926 on 28 November 2018

- No wonder trade or GTS
- No pokemon bank functionality
- No online battle outside of friends
- No held items
- No abilities
- No breeding system
- 150 pokemon only (when US/UM had 400 and X/Y had 450)
- Yet it's still 50% more expensive

LonelyDolphin has a point, you know



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.