Sheikah

Nah you'll never hold a gym more than 20 hours unless you live in the middle of nowhere or it's a really high gym level and well occupied. You basically take a gym or two and claim right away. Then take the gym back next day.

In your cinema example the cinema is a function; the film is the medium. Films aren't losing popularity, just the cinema, which starts to lose out to the home. That's why companies like Microsoft were/are desperate to own your living room space with their TV TV TV push. So to favourably compare to your cinema example - gaming arcades, the function, lose their popularity - which they already have. If we look at the actual games, which are the medium, they are totally different - stats show sales of PS4s are higher than any PlayStation console before it. Even if video game uptake stopped rising, technology constantly improves to allow better games to be made at the same cost. That is why I don't see it as doomed. We also now see incredibly competent companies that handle outsource work no doubt for cheap (see FFX remaster, Wind Waker HD). And even ingenious ways that small teams can make big games (see No Man's Sky).

Just to throw a spanner to that - there are games like Overwatch where all microtransactions are purely cosmetic; they also promise free maps and characters for life, funded no doubt by said microtransactions. They can be done very well, if the developer wills it. Many games with a serious competitive side do not have microtransactions that affect actual gameplay (Destiny too). This is a model I definitely agree with as it means we tend to get updates for free. Also regarding the on-disc content, I'd say we're getting more and more. The scale of games gets bigger and bigger while the price tag stays pretty solid. GTAV is much bigger, more detailed and feature-rich than GTA3 - and yet, the price was pretty much the same. You could argue the same for many other games too - like Assassin's Creed Syndicate. The scale and detail is immense in that game. As the scale and amount of content increases with these games (as it always seems to), I can only see games becoming better value for money as time goes on. As I said before, games back in the 90s were actually quite poor value; consider the average wage then and they were really quite expensive. Also think about games like Smash 64 and the limited number of characters and levels - compare that to Smash of today. I honestly completely disagree that games now seem to offer less and less for your money. The problem as I see it is that gaming has exploded, to the point that people spend more on games as there are a lot more games of good quality to buy.

Can I just say fuuuuck sliders. Give me some proper analogue sticks.

Not as willing to exploit gamers back then? Can you really say DLC is that? They're giving gamers what they want - because if it wasn't what they wanted, they wouldn't buy it. Secondly, if you see it that way, that's still not true. Back then on PC you would have expansion packs for games that functioned exactly the same as modern DLC. Why not on console? Because they did not have hard drives then, and they could just reuse an engine and assets and sell it as a new game instead. You're bringing up some good examples of bullshit practices that are employed now but that doesn't really go to show that gaming is more expensive. I could still buy games for cheaper than I could then even buy some microtransactions and it'd probably still be cheaper than a game back then. I'm also not having a lesser experience, or missing out on the 'full' experience in Pokemon Go by not paying. Paying in that game would speed things up but I wouldn't be experiencing any new content or modes of any kind, so I disagree with you on that. In fact that's how it is on most F2P games - the money never really buys you content. Arguably, paying to win would also be a lot less satisfying and therefore actually detract from the experience for me.

You don't have to deal with microtransactions though? Don't understand why you say that. It's totally optional and we have seen in games like Destiny how events can be brought to every player because they fund development with microtransactions. Also happening with Pokemon Go - free to play for me because the game is supported by microtransactions. So that's good news! Not sure what your point is about season passes - you realise that is people paying up front for unmade DLC right? So again...don't pay it. And you'll be getting just your game, just like you were back then. It sounds to me like you're bringing up loads of stuff that you can spend money on as a way of saying gaming now is more expensive. Well, it's not. Because all that extra stuff is just that - extra, optional stuff on top of the original game. Also let's not pretend DLC is something seedy and extortionist, or anti-consumer; we'd have killed for some way to get new tracks on Mario Kart 64 back in the day. What we have now is more options. Coming back to the original point about regular (non F2P) games - these are £40 now, they were £50-60 on N64 in 1998. So no, it's not costing me any more today. Significantly less, in fact. And with budgets getting much bigger, but prices of games staying roughly the same, arguably you are getting decent value for money there too.

I disagree that gaming is going that way. Back in 1998 games for the N64 were £50, some £60 (CBFD for instance). PS2 games were also £40 (same as PS4 games now). If anything gaming has gotten cheaper as £50 then would be even more in today's money. There's also a lot of free to play games today unlike back then, which are typically sustained by those microtransactions. Microtransactions are totally optional and mean that people who want to pay them basically pay for the people who don't (who play for free). They can be in paid for games but again, they're still optional. Also humble bundles. No way did you get quality games as dirt cheap as that 10-15 years ago.

Reminds me of this:

People always miss the point on that. It doesn't matter if the gamecube didn't have as much support either (which was mostly down to other reasons), the point is that without a base level of system parity with your competitors you can't have most of those third party games by default. It's an automatic foul - it doesn't matter what good relations you foster with third parties if they stand to make much more money by making a game for PS4/X1, and for it to be costly for them to redesign the game to work on NX. It'll be miles behind. There's no way NX, with its ability to play games on the go, will come close enough to PS4 for games to be easily ported. I mean, look at the size of the PS4. It'll be Wii U vs PS4 problems all over again.

@dazzybee No but the fact it is mobile means its hardware will be limited by what can be mobile. It will be a generation behind the new console refreshes coming soon I reckon, meaning Nintendo will have the same problem again as what they had with Wii U and Wii.

It's definitely a move for business rather than the consumer - the Wii U showed that people weren't happy that the console was behind the competition in so many ways, as reflected by almost non-existent third party support. The console will be poor technically as a result of having to keep it mobile, which is a big shame. My biggest concern is that Nintendo's build quality of their handhelds is poor - the 3DS and gamepad in particular show that Nintendo seem to be making devices that would not feel out of place over 10 years ago, but don't feel good now. Also, I sincerely hope the screen is a decent resolution this time.

@Dcubed it's a handheld and a home console in one so a guess either way would have been correct .

They don't love Mario enough to buy another console. They love Mario enough to buy it if it released on the console they already have. The people who love Mario enough to buy a console would also buy the PS4 by that logic.

It's a shame really - they should just release the original game on the PSN store and make it PS4 compatible like they have done with a bunch of PS2 titles, rather than push this demake. A fantastic game that deserves the big screen.

I know I don't always see eye to eye with you but I've seen over many, many months people tell you that you're wrong and there's no way it could be a hybrid. Oh how wrong they were. If somebody doesn't dig out these posts I certainly will at some point.

Given people have renamed hypno to "Bill Cosby" and he carries "Drowzee candies" I'd say this qualifies him to be pretty epic. But yeah...why so common? He was never this common in the game. I think not having trading straight away makes sense for two reasons - it stops people racing to the finish too soon (all Pokemon obtained) and it provides something to draw people back in.

Found a McCree that made me double take.

No, not quite right - you get 3 candies for catching a Pokemon (every time) and 1 more for trading it in.

Sonic's last good game was Sonic Adventure 2. No hype from me.

How is Konami's redirect a disastrous result for them? They make bucket loads of money from mobile and pachinko! Much more after they pretty much switched their entire focus to mobile. This is after all the most relevant example to Nintendo and Pokemon Go (the other examples were just to show that companies have often switched focus based on where the money is). Pokemon Go has also done better than any other app from any other traditional developer, so the focus-altering pressures can only be higher. Sure, it's one game. But it's proof of concept and also more than doubled Nintendo's value. It's absolutely bonkers is what it is, and I'd be very surprised if Nintendo weren't thinking about doing more mobile now they've seen that there's such money to be made.

So they make a mobile game and it becomes the highest grossing app in pretty much every region. Pokemon Go more than doubles the value of Nintendo and they didn't really even make it. Pokemon Go alone makes them more valuable than Sony. All this, and 'it doesn't change Nintendo's strategy at all'. That is pretty extraordinary, don't you think? If I started making money like that by doing something, do you not think that just maybe I'd focus on doing that more, and less of my normal day job? Do you not remember how when Kinect started doing gangbusters that whole companies such as Rare became Kinect developers for a time? How they packaged that in with the next console and afflicted everyone with it? Do you not remember how when the Wii did gangbusters, such was its success, Nintendo made a direct console sequel, based heavily around the previous one (especially in terms of gimmicks and power)? Do you not remember Konami and Sega - they started making money from mobile. What happened to them? My point is, we have all too often seen something that is successful cause companies to redirect their focus. Yah? Well for one, that was before they started adding trillions of yen to their company value. Second, Nintendo are well known for their smelly chat. Past classics include 'online is the air they breathe'. Oh right, cool. Which board meeting did you hear this in? Maybe what you say is right and they carry on for the rest of time making dedicated hardware and comprehensive Pokemon Games (which I find unlikely as handhelds seem like a dwindling breed). But we have heard from Niantic that many more features are pegged for Go. Secondly, the game has been mined; and it turns out it's WAY more complicated than people first have it credit for. The groundwork is done to allow this game to be fleshed out. Maybe it will never have a single player adventure pegged to it but that's not the be all and end all. No, it's not really a guess. Pokemon go is making serious amounts of money - not only did it more than double the value of Nintendo and make them valued higher than Sony, it is estimated to be making 1.6 million dollars a day (way more than that now as it is out in more countries) on iOS devices alone. It is estimated it made 14 million dollars in the first 6 days of release, when it was available only in Australia, New Zealand and North America. It is making money like never before. Yes - if by different you mean that Go players includes both casuals and hardcore Pokemon players while original Pokemon does not. I suppose the question is, why pursue far less profitable ventures? Maybe they will, but maybe they won't. It's just that making so much money could make some heads turn. And it would be stupid to not recognise that for some, they are getting their Pokemon fix from this game and may now not see the need to invest in a 3DS to play more Pokemon. It's not about the audiences. It's about profitability. I'm sure Konami had a somewhat different audience that was buying MGS5 compared to playing their pachinko machines and mobile games. That doesn't matter though - some companies focus on where the money is and stop doing the other things. On another note, I expect Sun/Moon will sell a lot of copies (probably more than the previous main game) as more 3DS units are out there than there were when the last game was released. Maybe Go will have sparked some people to get it - time will tell. But I think it will be interesting, particularly if Animal Crossing mobile takes off too, to see what impact the mobile division of Nintendo's games has on the future of their dedicated handheld games.

Actually, you said it would have a push on hardware (3DS), nothing to do with people buying software on consoles they already own. I said I can't see it having a major effect on people who don't already have a 3DS but like Pokemon Go, because ultimately they are very different games. The counter to your claim is also invisible - how many will now not buy a 3DS for the next Pokemon games because they are getting some essence of a Pokemon fix on mobile? It's a difficult argument to prove either way tbh. Also regarding the software point you made - I believe Red/Blue/Yellow have also been on sale, and these Pokemon are the ones that feature in Go. This discussion is pointless anyway because it focuses on the very short term effects of Go on handheld games - we know the next Pokemon games are coming to 3DS as that's what they were made for. What now - now that money is clearly just oozing out of Go? I find it odd that some people are literally falling over themselves to exclaim how great this is for handheld Pokemon. I just think...really? If anything, I can see the popularity of this causing a shift in Nintendo's focus. Why spend all that time making games for dedicated hardware when there is SO much more money to be made in mobile? I could see this having a long-term detrimental effect on the Pokemon handheld series, quite the opposite of what some people here think.

Given AR is switched off in Pokemon Go by anyone who remotely knows what they are doing, I don't think AR is a major factor to Go's success really.

Yeah they are total bandits. With the rave reviews they got and the money they have made they should have employed people to help them. They haven't, their reputation is ruined, and I will likely not buy another of their games within the first year of release as a result. Pretty disgusted with these guys tbh.

If by "don't expect it to have Western values" you mean "don't expect people to be allowed to say what they want without maybe going missing" then yes...yes, I expect every nation on Earth to start having these particular Western values.