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

Baddman said:
JWeinCom said:

 

Let's not go that far. The number of Pokemon is important. But basing the value just on that number and ignoring the gameplay mechanics, sound, visuals, etc is utterly absurd.

I meant having all the pokemon has never been something od importance to me. I've always been just fine without feeling the need to trade between my games to fill my pokedex even tho I was capable of doing it

Yeah.  To be honest, every time I get a new Pokemon I'm all like "YEAH I'M GONNA MAKE THE BEST TEAM EVER"!  And I think of how to put together the best team thinking of how to use the pokemon from every game.  Then, I get lazy an am like "eh... fuck it.  I'll just use the ones I can get in this game".  And finally, "eh fuck it.  I'm just gonna move on with my life."



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

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.

Value is inherently subjective, particularly when you are describing it with money, which is not anything stable.

But, hey, let's go with your logic.  

Pokemon Go has 417 Pokemon.  For 0 dollars.  

If the value of a Pokemon game is solely on the number of Pokemon, then Pokemon go is objectively the most valuable game.  Not just by a little, but by a literally infinite amount.  By comparison, Sun and Moon are objectively worthless and clearly a despicable cash grab.  I mean, 802 Pokemon for 40 dollars, vs 417 for ZERO DOLLARS?

Pokemon Go is an amazing value.  Sun and Moon is a cash grab.  Fact. 

Objective value is most certainly a thing, i.e. a 2lb bag of Twix is straight up more valuable than a 1lb bag for the same price.

Ha, you're really so naive to think I'm saying that's the sole reason. That's just the biggest point is all.

Alrighty then, one is free to have that opinion. Plenty of people think this series as a whole is a cash grab, and that's perfectly ok.



Lonely_Dolphin said:
JWeinCom said:

Value is inherently subjective, particularly when you are describing it with money, which is not anything stable.

But, hey, let's go with your logic.  

Pokemon Go has 417 Pokemon.  For 0 dollars.  

If the value of a Pokemon game is solely on the number of Pokemon, then Pokemon go is objectively the most valuable game.  Not just by a little, but by a literally infinite amount.  By comparison, Sun and Moon are objectively worthless and clearly a despicable cash grab.  I mean, 802 Pokemon for 40 dollars, vs 417 for ZERO DOLLARS?

Pokemon Go is an amazing value.  Sun and Moon is a cash grab.  Fact. 

Objective value is most certainly a thing, i.e. a 2lb bag of Twix is straight up more valuable than a 1lb bag for the same price.

Ha, you're really so naive to think I'm saying that's the sole reason. That's just the biggest point is all.

Alrighty then, one is free to have that opinion. Plenty of people think this series as a whole is a cash grab, and that's perfectly ok.

No, I'm not naive.  I asked you to clarify twice, and you did not either time.

If there are other reasons, then you cannot base objective value based solely on number of Pokemon.  So... you invalidated your own argument.



JWeinCom said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

Objective value is most certainly a thing, i.e. a 2lb bag of Twix is straight up more valuable than a 1lb bag for the same price.

Ha, you're really so naive to think I'm saying that's the sole reason. That's just the biggest point is all.

Alrighty then, one is free to have that opinion. Plenty of people think this series as a whole is a cash grab, and that's perfectly ok.

No, I'm not naive.  I asked you to clarify twice, and you did not either time.

If there are other reasons, then you cannot base objective value based solely on number of Pokemon.  So... you invalidated your own argument.

Yes, you thought that was even a possibility hence you asking. I'll be straight up, I was too dumbfounded to answer lol.

Oh you still think that somehow. Perhaps disingenuous is more apt than naive. I guess I could see how you got confused after Curl n Super shifted the focus specifically to the number of Pokemon, but eh sure, I invalidated my own argument. That don't change the facts so whatever.



Lonely_Dolphin said:
JWeinCom said:

Value is inherently subjective, particularly when you are describing it with money, which is not anything stable.

But, hey, let's go with your logic.  

Pokemon Go has 417 Pokemon.  For 0 dollars.  

If the value of a Pokemon game is solely on the number of Pokemon, then Pokemon go is objectively the most valuable game.  Not just by a little, but by a literally infinite amount.  By comparison, Sun and Moon are objectively worthless and clearly a despicable cash grab.  I mean, 802 Pokemon for 40 dollars, vs 417 for ZERO DOLLARS?

Pokemon Go is an amazing value.  Sun and Moon is a cash grab.  Fact. 

Objective value is most certainly a thing, i.e. a 2lb bag of Twix is straight up more valuable than a 1lb bag for the same price.

Ha, you're really so naive to think I'm saying that's the sole reason. That's just the biggest point is all.

Alrighty then, one is free to have that opinion. Plenty of people think this series as a whole is a cash grab, and that's perfectly ok.

I think the Twix comparison doesn't work since if you buy a 2lb bag of Twix, even if takes you a year, you'll eventually eat 2lb of Twix. I'd say you could do an analogy with bananas. 20 bananas is better value than 10 bananas but buying 100 bananas isn't really good value since there's so many you'll never get to enjoy.



Signature goes here!

Around the Network
TruckOSaurus said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

Objective value is most certainly a thing, i.e. a 2lb bag of Twix is straight up more valuable than a 1lb bag for the same price.

Ha, you're really so naive to think I'm saying that's the sole reason. That's just the biggest point is all.

Alrighty then, one is free to have that opinion. Plenty of people think this series as a whole is a cash grab, and that's perfectly ok.

I think the Twix comparison doesn't work since if you buy a 2lb bag of Twix, even if takes you a year, you'll eventually eat 2lb of Twix. I'd say you could do an analogy with bananas. 20 bananas is better value than 10 bananas but buying 100 bananas isn't really good value since there's so many you'll never get to enjoy.

You don't know my parents then haha. That's why what the consumer does with the product shouldn't be a factor since it's completely variable from person to person. Are you saying 100 bananas isn't a better value than 10 at the same price?  Having more options like eating more bananas than usual and giving some away are always good, plus you just have to eat 11 to benefit.



Lonely_Dolphin said:
TruckOSaurus said:

I think the Twix comparison doesn't work since if you buy a 2lb bag of Twix, even if takes you a year, you'll eventually eat 2lb of Twix. I'd say you could do an analogy with bananas. 20 bananas is better value than 10 bananas but buying 100 bananas isn't really good value since there's so many you'll never get to enjoy.

You don't know my parents then haha. That's why what the consumer does with the product shouldn't be a factor since it's completely variable from person to person. Are you saying 100 bananas isn't a better value than 10 at the same price?  Having more options like eating more bananas than usual and giving some away are always good, plus you just have to eat 11 to benefit.

I'm saying that at some point there's diminishing returns to having more. I agree with you on the fact there seems to be more content in the old mainline Pokémon than in Let's Go but I don't agree with the conclusion it's a cash grab or a rip-off because should the mechanics of Let's Go appeal more to someone than the old formula, the amount of Pokémon available isn't that big a factor.



Signature goes here!

Lonely_Dolphin said:
JWeinCom said:

No, I'm not naive.  I asked you to clarify twice, and you did not either time.

If there are other reasons, then you cannot base objective value based solely on number of Pokemon.  So... you invalidated your own argument.

Yes, you thought that was even a possibility hence you asking. I'll be straight up, I was too dumbfounded to answer lol.

Oh you still think that somehow. Perhaps disingenuous is more apt than naive. I guess I could see how you got confused after Curl n Super shifted the focus specifically to the number of Pokemon, but eh sure, I invalidated my own argument. That don't change the facts so whatever.


"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?"

Can you explain how this question was in any way dumbfounding?  Can you explain how giving you an opportunity to clarify your opinion is in any way disingenuous?  

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 30 November 2018

TruckOSaurus said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

You don't know my parents then haha. That's why what the consumer does with the product shouldn't be a factor since it's completely variable from person to person. Are you saying 100 bananas isn't a better value than 10 at the same price?  Having more options like eating more bananas than usual and giving some away are always good, plus you just have to eat 11 to benefit.

I'm saying that at some point there's diminishing returns to having more. I agree with you on the fact there seems to be more content in the old mainline Pokémon than in Let's Go but I don't agree with the conclusion it's a cash grab or a rip-off because should the mechanics of Let's Go appeal more to someone than the old formula, the amount of Pokémon available isn't that big a factor.

That's fine you don't have to agree, but hopefully you at least understand. My initial post that started all this was only explaining the reasons behind the cash grab claim.

JWeinCom said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

Yes, you thought that was even a possibility hence you asking. I'll be straight up, I was too dumbfounded to answer lol.

Oh you still think that somehow. Perhaps disingenuous is more apt than naive. I guess I could see how you got confused after Curl n Super shifted the focus specifically to the number of Pokemon, but eh sure, I invalidated my own argument. That don't change the facts so whatever.


"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?"

Can you explain how this question was in any way dumbfounding?  Can you explain how giving you an opportunity to clarify your opinion is in any way disingenuous?  

Really shouldn't have to explain the obvious but I'll do ya one last. Your question has such a painfully obvious answer and has no relevance as I was not saying the number of Pokemon was the only factor. Now I'm not going to argue about the argument with you yet again, so enjoy the last word.