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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Pokemon Co: Sword/Shield sold through 6 million globally in its first 3 days

Shiken said:
DonFerrari said:
This is just massive, congrats, let's hope they enjoy a lot more than reviewers and customer review.

Customer review are just a bunch of trolls and people who don't like the changes trying to drag it down.  Sitting at an 82 on meta, reviewers seem to be enjoying thenselves just fine as well as that is a good score.

Much like Death Stranding, the hyperbole over a score in the low 80s is real.

Well let's say that we can't be sure how much of user review were trolls, but people not liking changes isn't invalid complain.

As long as most customers are happy with the game all is good.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Lonely_Dolphin said:
Jules98 said:

Pretty much this. We may have lost roughly half the national dex, but the remaining half of the national dex is still a freakishly huge amount of mons. People need to stop pretending that having 'only' 400+ Pokémon (which is still 100+ more than the Sun and Moon dex had to offer!) means that the games are lacking in content.

That's exactly what lacking content means. 435 < 800 isn't people pretending. So yeah, combined with the other cut mechanics and modes coupled with minimal new stuff, Sw/Sh is in fact lacking content compared to prior games.

Sword and Shield bring features never seen before in prior games from the franchise. So in the end it all comes down to the individual perception of value from the game.

If everybody perception of value were the same as you, most franchise sequels (fighting games in a large proportion) shouldn't exist.

Last edited by 160rmf - on 22 November 2019

 

 

We reap what we sow

MasonADC said:
Jules98 said:

Pretty much this. We may have lost roughly half the national dex, but the remaining half of the national dex is still a freakishly huge amount of mons. People need to stop pretending that having 'only' 400+ Pokémon (which is still 100+ more than the Sun and Moon dex had to offer!) means that the games are lacking in content.

It’s not really more than what sun and moon had to offer because you could trade the rest in from previous games 

Sure, but you also have to factor in how easily you can access the Pokemon.  To access the older Pokemon in Sun and Moon you'd either need to have purchased the older games, or trade with someone who had.  It's somewhat akin to pre launch DLC.  And, not everyone has the older games, or is going to want to go through the effort of looking online for trades, so for those people, the Pokemon that you can transfer in are irrelevant.

Personally, I played through both of the 3DS games without ever coming across a transferred Pokemon.  I just didn't feel like transferring or   So, for a player like me, the 100 extra Pokemon I will encounter in the base game are more meaningful than the 400 I could trade or transfer.



JWeinCom said:

MasonADC said:

It’s not really more than what sun and moon had to offer because you could trade the rest in from previous games 

Sure, but you also have to factor in how easily you can access the Pokemon.  To access the older Pokemon in Sun and Moon you'd either need to have purchased the older games, or trade with someone who had.  It's somewhat akin to pre launch DLC.  And, not everyone has the older games, or is going to want to go through the effort of looking online for trades, so for those people, the Pokemon that you can transfer in are irrelevant.

Personally, I played through both of the 3DS games without ever coming across a transferred Pokemon.  I just didn't feel like transferring or   So, for a player like me, the 100 extra Pokemon I will encounter in the base game are more meaningful than the 400 I could trade or transfer.

I don’t care about the extra Pokémons either, I was just stating their argument 



DonFerrari said:
Shiken said:

Customer review are just a bunch of trolls and people who don't like the changes trying to drag it down.  Sitting at an 82 on meta, reviewers seem to be enjoying thenselves just fine as well as that is a good score.

Much like Death Stranding, the hyperbole over a score in the low 80s is real.

Well let's say that we can't be sure how much of user review were trolls, but people not liking changes isn't invalid complain.

As long as most customers are happy with the game all is good.

Well people who do not like changes and rate it a 5 or a 6 is a valid complaint.  Giving a game a zero for no other reason than personal preference is what I am refering to as invalid.  Anything below a 5 is pretty much just a degree of how unplayable a broken game is.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Around the Network
Shiken said:
DonFerrari said:

Well let's say that we can't be sure how much of user review were trolls, but people not liking changes isn't invalid complain.

As long as most customers are happy with the game all is good.

Well people who do not like changes and rate it a 5 or a 6 is a valid complaint.  Giving a game a zero for no other reason than personal preference is what I am refering to as invalid.  Anything below a 5 is pretty much just a degree of how unplayable a broken game is.

On that I totally agree, I can't think of a mainline pokemon game being less than 5 or 6 for anyone that is a gamer and not trolling. Sure I wouldn't buy a game I feel is a 6, but at least I can accept someone that loves other Pokemon games being flustered with one entry and venting out with a bad score that perhaps in 1 or 2 months will cool down and rate the game an acceptable 8.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Crazy sells! Wow! Well deserved



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

MasonADC said:
JWeinCom said:

Sure, but you also have to factor in how easily you can access the Pokemon.  To access the older Pokemon in Sun and Moon you'd either need to have purchased the older games, or trade with someone who had.  It's somewhat akin to pre launch DLC.  And, not everyone has the older games, or is going to want to go through the effort of looking online for trades, so for those people, the Pokemon that you can transfer in are irrelevant.

Personally, I played through both of the 3DS games without ever coming across a transferred Pokemon.  I just didn't feel like transferring or   So, for a player like me, the 100 extra Pokemon I will encounter in the base game are more meaningful than the 400 I could trade or transfer.

I don’t care about the extra Pokémons either, I was just stating their argument 

You actually took the effort to put an accent over the e.  I respect that.



160rmf said:

Sword and Shield bring features never seen before in prior games from the franchise. So in the end it all comes down to the individual perception of value from the game.

If everybody perception of value were the same as you, most franchise sequels (fighting games in a large proportion) shouldn't exist.

What does any of this have to do with 435 < 800 being people pretending or not? Only highlights your bias, backing up fallacies just because it supports your opinion. If someone came in here saying people are pretending that there's anything objectively superior about Sw/Sh over past entries, I'd correct them all the same, at the very least I wouldn't support them.



Lonely_Dolphin said:
160rmf said:

Sword and Shield bring features never seen before in prior games from the franchise. So in the end it all comes down to the individual perception of value from the game.

If everybody perception of value were the same as you, most franchise sequels (fighting games in a large proportion) shouldn't exist.

What does any of this have to do with 435 < 800 being people pretending or not? Only highlights your bias, backing up fallacies just because it supports your opinion. If someone came in here saying people are pretending that there's anything objectively superior about Sw/Sh over past entries, I'd correct them all the same, at the very least I wouldn't support them.

Your 435 < 800 argument is only valid if ALL other factors are already equal OR the number of Pokemon is the ONLY factor of relevance.   And since neither are the case, you have no argument.

If you're going call out others for fallacies, don't make one yourself.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."