With all the talk about pokemon...

[Realist Peter Pan]

I was wondering how they get away with selling two different versions of the same game (I understand there are some differences). I understand back in the day limitations might have made them make the decision, but now days, I feel like its just a tradition that is modern day on disc(cartrage) DLC or split in this case. People don't seem to be too concerned with this practice. I don't really care...but I was curious to know what anyone else thought of it. 

[squirrl]

Because of the small differences in available pokémon between the games, and this being almost negated with use the GTS making the missing ones (mostly) easily available, you could argue that they are just really giving the buyer a choice of the box art and box legendary they like the best. I don't really see anything wrong with it. They could go ahead and make one game and change the game format a bit if there are multiple "main" legendaries, but that still leaves a very similar game. 

Both games are also grouped together in ratings, sales and other stuff anyway.

Maybe you could argue that they are making more money off collectors this way since they would buy both games rather than just one?

[Realist Peter Pan]

1 hour ago, squirrl said:

Because of the small differences in available pokémon between the games, and this being almost negated with use the GTS making the missing ones (mostly) easily available, you could argue that they are just really giving the buyer a choice of the box art and box legendary they like the best. I don't really see anything wrong with it. They could go ahead and make one game and change the game format a bit if there are multiple "main" legendaries, but that still leaves a very similar game. 

Both games are also grouped together in ratings, sales and other stuff anyway.

Maybe you could argue that they are making more money off collectors this way since they would buy both games rather than just one?

Do the new ones have all the same pokemon except legendaries? or do they still do this pokemon split where you can only catch certain ones in certain versions? I just find it shitty, and odd that people will complain about DLC and on disc DLC when they are getting ripped by pokemon games. 

[skywake]

@Realist Peter Pan

The whole point of the games from the start was that you had to trade with friends in order to collect all of the Pokemon. If all of the Pokemon were available in one version what reason would you have to trade? Without the need to trade the games lose one of the key selling points of the game. 

 

I'd also repeat what @squirrl said. Since these games have gone online it's less of a big deal than it used to be. Especially in some of the newer games where they even removed the requirement that you had to have seen a Pokemon to trade for it. If you brought Y and really want a Houndour, Starmie or Sawk? You just go online and do a search. Odds are someone is offering a trade you can make. And if not make a trade offer asking for one, breed a bunch of Dratini, Charmander or Larvitar. And ontop of that they've even reduced the focus on "catching them all" that there used to be because there are just too many.

[Realist Peter Pan]

1 hour ago, skywake said:

@Realist Peter Pan

The whole point of the games from the start was that you had to trade with friends in order to collect all of the Pokemon. If all of the Pokemon were available in one version what reason would you have to trade? Without the need to trade the games lose one of the key selling points of the game. 

That may be a reason...but I don't believe it's the sole reason for the choice...you would think with the modernization of technology, and hardware that things would get more consumer friendly, but the opposite has happened (or nothing more likely) 

 

1 hour ago, skywake said:

 

I'd also repeat what @squirrl said. Since these games have gone online it's less of a big deal than it used to be. Especially in some of the newer games where they even removed the requirement that you had to have seen a Pokemon to trade for it. If you brought Y and really want a Houndour, Starmie or Sawk? You just go online and do a search. Odds are someone is offering a trade you can make. And if not make a trade offer asking for one, breed a bunch of Dratini, Charmander or Larvitar. And ontop of that they've even reduced the focus on "catching them all" that there used to be because there are just too many.

 

I will reiterate that I don't think trading means much even when you put emphasis on it doesn't make it more relevant. Tell me what the core reason why it's a bad thing to combine the game into a singular title, with all the current generations pokemon on it (just for that edition). Yokai watch doesn't have this issue, and in my opinion seems to be much better in this regard. 

 

On a second note, why not have everything on a single game, trading would still be possible because pokemon is pretty much just RNG when looking for them, and getting them. So what really makes the difference? 

[skywake]

@Realist Peter Pan

I think you've got it backwards. In the original games if you wanted a Meowth and had Red you had to either find someone who had Blue or buy a copy yourself and a second Gameboy. In the new games if you own Y and want a Houndour you go to the GTS and type in "Houndour". It's easier than ever to get a Pokemon you can't get in that particular version. Even the special event Pokemon are easier to get because a lot of them are available for a limited time via WiFi.

 

Why not put all the Pokemon in one game? Well again, what's the point of trading if I can just get them all? What's the appeal of a special event if it's for Pokemon that I can just get in the game anyway? None of these Pokemon cost extra to obtain. You don't have to own multiple games to get them all. It's just built in such a way that you have to do more than just play through the game and pray to the RNG gods to get them all.