Pokemon sells 3 mil. in three days even without Europe

@FinalFighters said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

Not surprised... I am picking up my reserved 2DS Crystal Blue bundle with the game.

lol2DS

I also lol'ed at the 2DS... till I held my nephews, most comfortable portable console I have ever held.

Leveling their Pokemon, and no, it's not cosmetic, your Pokemon's level is indicative of how powerful it is (moves are learned once Pokemon grows to a certain level, Pokemon evolve at certain levels, and so on).

@charizard1605

You're so very cruel... You build me up and tear me down. :(

@charizard1605: Forget it, Lulu's an idiot of the highest degree.

13000 posts and he doesnt know what pokemon is...lol

you got to turn in your gamer badge after that.

I'm just curious as to how a leveling mechanism in any way is equivalent to a 'hard' (or soft, for that matter) limit...

I got omega ruby, enjoying it very much.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: Just like you I thought the 2DS was a joke.. Until I played one. They're also so easy to take apart if something sticky or shit screws with the bumper buttons.

@Desmonic:

Amazing gif bro.

...

So I'm not a player of teh Pokemons and maybe there is something I just don't get here, but... wouldn't it make an extreme amount of sense for Nintendo to put out some Pokemon games on the WiiU? Wouldn't that just guarantee sales like nothing else could?

Nope, wouldn't work. I mean, theoretically it could, but the risk is too great, the potential for rewards too little, and all of this is without considering that a console Pokemon game is antithetical to the design of the franchise itself.

That said, if ever there was to be a console with a Pokemon game on it that actually worked, Wii U would be it.

@charizard1605:

Well like I said, not a player of the Pokemans, so while I do understand that their design may be strongly tied to the handheld experience, I'm not really clear on the specifics.

It just seems that the brand is so strong that Nintendo could try for an experience geared towards consoles. Even if it didn't work out for the long haul, it would definitely be a success on some level, purely based on name.

Just seems like there could be an untapped gold mine there.

Eh, who knows. Maybe if I actually played the games I'd understand why lol

So there are three reasons as to why Pokemon can never appear on a Nintendo console as things stand(meaning that all of this could change tomorrow with different management in any of the companies involved, for example):

1. Pokemon is not a Nintendo franchise. Nintendo owns a majority stake in it via a complicated setup, but there's still an appreciable portion of the series they do not have any control over. It's the reason why Pokemon has been on iOS in some form since 2008-09, the reason Pokemon software has been available on, for example, PC since the franchise's inception back in 1996.
   So does this mean that the games will show up on other systems? No, that's not what I am driving at. What I am trying to say is that one of the parties that owns Pokemon is Game Freak, with 32% of the stake. Game Freak are also the developers of the games, and they have, very categorically and explicitly, leaving absolutely no room for error or interpretation, said that there will not be a Pokemon console game because it does not fit with their sensibilities. Now, Nintendo can, of course, make a console Pokemon game itself, using one of its own studios, but that would mean risking pissing Game Freak off and losing their cooperation (so the next Nintendo handheld doesn't get a Pokemon game right when it needs it like other Nintendo handhelds so far have gotten); plus, Pokemon without Game Freak is a shell. Nintendo did exactly this when it tried to develop console Pokemon RPGs in the Gamecube era and the result was a disaster.
2. So why does Game Freak not want Pokemon on consoles? Because the design of the franchise is indelibly married to a handheld format. The games are literal pick up and play, the battle system is designed around portable play sessions, but most importantly, the asynchronous multiplayer that the franchise relies on so heavily is best achieved in a handheld format than in a console one. Plus, for Game Freak, there is an ideological reason: Pokemon stands for Pocket Monster.It can't be in your pocket if it's always tethered to your TV.
3. Nintendo itself will never risk divorcing Pokemon from their handhelds, unless they know they are exiting the handheld market for good. The reason for this is simple, Pokemon is, as everyone has pointed out in this thread, Nintendo's biggest system seller, bigger than Mario, Kart, Smash, Zelda, you name it, but it is their handheld seller. It could and probably would sell as many consoles too, but that's not assured, and by putting one Pokemon game on a console, Nintendo creates an expectation of more Pokemon games on consoles. This means even people who otherwise have two farts to give about handheld gaming, but love Pokemon (roughly 50% of the Pokemon fanbase) will end up buying a Gameboy or a DS because they know that's the only way to play Pokemon- if there was even one Pokemon game on consoles, many would choose to ignore the handheld entries in favor of a future potential console Pokemon game.
   Why does this matter? This matters because handhelds, and not consoles, are Nintendo's bread and butter. It's their one steady source of revenue and income, it's what makes them money even when they have Gamecube and Wii U sized failures around their neck. Nintendo's handhelds make a frightening amount of money, and believe it or not, most of it comes down to Pokemon. Remember, a Pokemon fueled 3DS actually managed the impossible fat of being a successful and viable handheld in an iOS world, where a Nintendo console, even in the most favorable market conditions, could and probably would fail. It is therefore in Nintendo's best interests to keep their handheld market viable and appealing- and that appeal is tied to Pokemon being exclusive to it. Yes, Nintendo could potentially salvage a console by putting out a Pokemon game for it, but even assuming sales numbers are the same (~15 million sold per game), the returns would be lower (thanks to higher production values), hardware sales would not be boosted as much (one family with three kids needs only one Wii U and one copy to play a game, versus three 3DSs and three copies), and worst of all, they will have forever sabotaged their future handhelds.

So, those right there are their reasons. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, and I am not saying you have to. I'm just answering your question as to why it has not and will not happen.

@charizard1605:

TL;DR

Nah, jk. Ok, that does make a shit ton of sense then. When you brought up the risk vs. reward earlier, I figured you simply meant a larger investment with less return. To which I was thinking, well it would still be a good return anyways.

But no, I can see why Nintendo hasn't gone for it now. Seems so dumb, but at the same time it does make sense.

Absolutely shocked! I can't believe Pokemon still sells like crazy, how old is this franchise anyways. Good for Nintendo!

That's extremely impressive

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

Not surprised... I am picking up my reserved 2DS Crystal Blue bundle with the game.

Reminds me of the old school clear shell gameboys....I kinda want one :S

My bro is getting his copy (OmegaRuby) today.

@Desmonic: Okay, first off, what you just said positively revolted me lol. I mean your idea of changing the Pokemon battle system, when said battle system is positively perfect.

But opinions aside, let's look at what you said:

a) Nintendo did try to make a game like that, back in the Gamecube era days. They tried twice. The end result was failure.

b) A lot of the things you are asking for are already in the handheld series- big explorable environments, and Pokemon actually appearing flying by in the air, or swimming in the ocean, or walking through the tall grass? They did that with OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire. It's already there. You don't need a console game to do it.

c) There's still the entire 'Nintendo could piss off its partners for its biggest cash cow franchise, and get their co-operation when it really needs it' thing that would happen if they forced a console game.

TL;DR- still no, and also, play OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire.

I got it delivered today!... It's nice little surprise after work.

I love it. I don't know why, but it looks like childhood in 400p.

Holding the see through 2DS and playing pokemon makes me feel 12 again...

@Desmonic: AlphaSapphire, all the way. Kyogre is stupidly overpowered, and Team Aqua>>>>Team Magma (at least what they want makes some sense, Magma is just like... what?)

That said, your demands for the battle system aside (still revolted, bro :P), you're going to love OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire. It basically gives you what you seem to be asking for :p

The story here is better. Especially the Delta episode.

Are you kidding me? Kyogre being OP is awesome! :D If you don't want Kyogre, you get OmegaRuby lol

Until you understand how deep and complicated the battle system is don't make suggestions on how to "improve" it.

Just get AlphaSapphire.

I just buy Pokémon games to make Monotype runs. Don't even know why...

PS: That 2DS looks sexy.

Substantially better. X and Y almost killed my interest in the series (though a lot of that had to do with how I chose to play them i.e. competitively). OR/AS have revived it. They're great, wonderful, fun games. Flawed, yes. But great fun.

*1* Pokken fighter? :P

On a serious note, Pokemon would not adapt well to real time. The entire ability and skill design has adapted to turn based combat. Far too many of the moves would not work well in real time. And there is already plenty of countering, however, none of this counterplay is sadly needed to beat the game. Besides, Turn Based is far superior to RTwP and ARPG combat anyways.

*2* I would love to see Pokemon in the ingame world rather than all of them hiding in the grass, like you described.

It is, and the success of this game, as well as Divinity, shows that there is still a huge demand for Turn Based RPGs.

the impressive part is not that it still sells even though it's an old franchise. The impressive part is that it still sells by doing the same thing over and over again. There has been more evolution in Call of Duty in the past few years than from Pokemon since the 90's.

@Gue1 No there isnt. In gen 3, pokemon completely overhauled its underlying mechanics to the point where gen 1 and 2 pokemon were no longer compatitable.

Furthermore, changes in battle mechanics throughout the series have made previous crap pokemon suddenly good despite the pokemon itself being untouched. And previously viable pokemon suddenly suck.

The structure remains heavily the same, but the mechanics have changed quite a bit. I remember seeing a list somewhere about changed features and developments in the franchise. Pokemon had roughly 20 new features and notable mechanical changes in each generation.

I too would love to see it. How about. Pokemon: U Version? Might even help ship a few Wii U's as well. I just dont want real time combat ;)

Also the Share Exp things causes you to be constantly overlevelled, you can use it, but you can disable it as well, I recommend doing a mix of both.

I'm pretty sure Monster Hunter is the Japanese COD.

@Gue1: you literally couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Posts like this really expose ignorance, think before you type in something that asinine next time.

@Desmonic: Yeah, keep it switched off.

Tell me about it! I mean this is pretty much Nintendo's Call of Duty. They seriously need to put consider making an iteration for home consoles

Those words are overlapping.

Is that just a bug on this forum?

Man, the Japanese have some strange tastes. I'm glad I had hair on my sack before Pokemon came into existence, because I don't know if I could look at myself in the mirror if I played those games...

a lot of salty cow tears in this thread

good...good.