This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

So Game Freak got smart and greedy.

#41KuraikawaPosted 9/7/2013 1:39:20 PM
I guess it is greedy if you think paying for a service that should let you mass transfer Pokemon quickly with no BS minigames or arbitrary daily limits is anti-consumer. Oh, and it should work for future generations of games. And you don't need to bother to find someone with a gameboy so you can transfer Pokemon to the next generation (my friends who are getting the game live in other states, so uploading to a server is a much better option for me).

I can see some people's argument that they should just allow you to download the data to an SD card, though SD cards may be replaced by a newer format card in the future. I honestly think that would be a fine idea, except that it would become far too easy to hack Pokemon. Just insert your SD card into the computer and hack away with a program of your choice. Since GF is trying to crack down on hacking, I doubt they will take this option.

I honestly wouldn't mind if they did paid DLC for Pokemon if they added a new little area to go to and made you do a little mini quest, instead of the event system where they just hand you a Pokemon.

It would be nice if the option to send Pokemon between generations still exist, but the bank is just a faster and easier option. That way people could transfer through the bank if they want and have guaranteed comparability with the future gens, or they could do the old transfer system. For all we know, this could be the case. I don't think Nintendo has released any statement that says it will not be in the game.
#42TruePowerSeekerPosted 9/7/2013 1:51:44 PM
kaiser ryu posted...
TruePowerSeeker posted...
kaiser ryu posted...
TruePowerSeeker posted...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope


Do note that slippery slope shouldn't be confused with actually noting real trends. GF has taken steps that trend toward anti consumer policy. This is not the same as anticipating them doing so and running off on a tangent based on that assumption.


The problem with the slippery slope fallacy is that there is no real rebuttal or argument that can be made against it because it is not a sound argument. It makes several assumptions and the person usually stating it is being unreasonable.

A service that costs $5 a year would lead to them selling a single pokemon is a massive jump.

I will not argue that there probably will be Dungeon style DLC in which there are areas that you pay $3-5 for that just have different pokemon or special rewards.

However jumping straight from a separate service from the game costing money to them charging you for a single pokemon is a slippery slope argument which can often be dismissed as paranoia and lack of sound reasoning.


Responding to whole, bolded is specific launch point.

It would be, but that's not the jump being made. Game Freak made a service they had previously made efforts to maintain as free a charged service. The concern that Game Freak will make a different service they have in the past made efforts to maintain as free a paid one is not a large leap.

Noting trends and fearing a potential outcome is not the same as an illogical jump based on assumption.

You're right that there's not much to say on the topic. This was just a speculative whine thread destined to be filled with "nuh uh", "yah huh" posts. Thankfully that was averted and now we have people justifying terrible thought exercises of their own based on a faulty premise that all negative speculation is equal and it all is slippery slope.


Something odd that I did notice in the Nintendo Direct was that to transfer you have to send them to the bank then to X and Y.

If you remember they said they were searching for a solution to the problem and for a while we were unsure if they could. My theory is that using the cloud storage medium was the only way they could find without putting them on the SD card where they could be edited and hacked to hell and back. However servers are expensive so they have to charge for the service to avoid making a larger investment than they feel is safe.

However through this same thing they have realized that they could use it for all future titles and decided at some point during the transporter planning that if they made it part of a full blown storage app they could have a yearly service that they wouldn't have to worry about having issues with transferring from gen 6 to 7.

The leap from the DS to 3DS was probably too much compared to the relatively small jump from GBA to DS. As such the programming language was too different to ensure they could communicate safely. Much like with the GBC and GBA.

I think the cost is just a necessary thing to allow transfer safely without having to completely dissect Black and White 2 and forcefully rip the pokemon out of it.

Honestly them charging for legendaries isn't too farfetch'd given Mystery Dungeon but I know that with Mystery Dungeon pretty much all the DLC actually had a dungeon with it and that works even better with the main series because that $5 for a single pokemon becomes $5 to an area with pokemon from a certain generation and a legendary at the end.
---
http://tinyurl.com/ck8fqvn
http://tinyurl.com/kwzh647
#43SmogoonPosted 9/7/2013 2:13:25 PM(edited)
Duskull24 posted...
DrakoVongola1 posted...
Duskull24 posted...
TruePowerSeeker posted...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope


I like how the only response to these arguments is people crying fallacy


It IS a fallacy, a pretty stupid one at that.

"OMG THEYRE CHARGING 5 DOLLARS A YEAR FOR TRANSFERS, NEXT THEYLL CHARGE A MILLION DOLLARS FOR LEGENDS!!!"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Learn your fallacies before you use them


Not to mention that post was a complete strawman. Nobody said million dollars or legendaries in general. Also, slippery slope doesn't apply to actual trends. Children please don't try to bring up fallacies when you don't actually understand them. Smh.
---
http://imgur.com/a/tzy9l
Co-Founder of the Certified Gangstas / Smogang
#44solidhedgehogPosted 9/7/2013 2:01:55 PM
they arent forcing you to buy it you know.
---
Next time I come for you, I'm gonna want some cocktail... FRUIT! -Nasty Nate
#45kaiser ryuPosted 9/7/2013 2:12:15 PM
TruePowerSeeker posted...
The leap from the DS to 3DS was probably too much compared to the relatively small jump from GBA to DS. As such the programming language was too different to ensure they could communicate safely. Much like with the GBC and GBA.

I highly doubt this considering what all is known about individual Pokemon data and given that the DS and 3DS are capable of communicating through a common medium in SD cards. I accept the notion that they wanted to avoid an app on memory for fear of the dreaded hackers but I outright refuse the incompatibility notion.

I think the cost is just a necessary thing to allow transfer safely without having to completely dissect Black and White 2 and forcefully rip the pokemon out of it.

Again, these games are designed for free transfer of Pokemon data already. Homebrewers can do anything from spoofing a trade that has the game running and willingly divulging the data to outright stripping it out if need be. Pokemon are small easily digestible packets of data.

Given GFs past efforts in distributing similar applications for making use of one title's Pokemon for another, including storage as is the case in My Pokemon Ranch, there is no reasonable expectation of them having difficulty making what generally equates to a basic file facilitation and management program. Unless we're here to argue that the Wii is more similar in architecture to the GBA and DS than the 3DS is to the DS.

Honestly them charging for legendaries isn't too farfetch'd given Mystery Dungeon but I know that with Mystery Dungeon pretty much all the DLC actually had a dungeon with it and that works even better with the main series because that $5 for a single pokemon becomes $5 to an area with pokemon from a certain generation and a legendary at the end.

It's really not my interest to press this issue really. I'm not that concerned they'll be going this route any time soon.
---
The Tales of series needs more love in America.
Won't change sig until Namco gets wise. Started: 9/8/06
#46NightinanglePosted 9/7/2013 2:16:09 PM
TruePowerSeeker posted...
Nightinangle posted...
Lets say there is those events and that dlc. Okay now I am missing only mega infernape :( will be also be a dlc? $10 right there. Hehe :P


However let us also make a guess and say that with these two DLC you also have these little islands representing the region of the starters you are getting. So not only are you getting that starter but access to popular pokemon from that generation.

I say a little island with a some extra pokemon and a few new battles would be well worth $5. They could do that for gen 4 as well. Also with legendary trios we could get mini stories and areas that end with a chance to catch the trio for $5. Sure over time these events could add up to $60 in total but you also have a ton of extra content by the end of it that even with events you wouldn't have gotten.


I am totally okay with stuff like that, I gladly bought Citadel (basically a huge story add on for a different game)

But like if its day one. I am probably gonna buy it, but still be spiteful, day one means it coulda been in anyway.
---
SSB4 dream roster: http://imgur.com/DfdocHN.png 45/50 characters---I support for Echo type pkmon gen 7
This is my flame shield.
#47GastroFanPosted 9/7/2013 2:25:22 PM
My only problem with this is that Nintendo's having a hard enough time now maintaining the pokemon global link servers for B/W1 and B/W2; so how they're going to handle Pokebank is beyond me unless they get newer servers. If those newer servers will handle the Pokebank, Poketransfer and Pokemon Global Link, then I think it might be worth the $5/year fee.
#48TruePowerSeekerPosted 9/7/2013 2:27:57 PM
kaiser ryu posted...
TruePowerSeeker posted...
The leap from the DS to 3DS was probably too much compared to the relatively small jump from GBA to DS. As such the programming language was too different to ensure they could communicate safely. Much like with the GBC and GBA.

I highly doubt this considering what all is known about individual Pokemon data and given that the DS and 3DS are capable of communicating through a common medium in SD cards. I accept the notion that they wanted to avoid an app on memory for fear of the dreaded hackers but I outright refuse the incompatibility notion.

I think the cost is just a necessary thing to allow transfer safely without having to completely dissect Black and White 2 and forcefully rip the pokemon out of it.

Again, these games are designed for free transfer of Pokemon data already. Homebrewers can do anything from spoofing a trade that has the game running and willingly divulging the data to outright stripping it out if need be. Pokemon are small easily digestible packets of data.

Given GFs past efforts in distributing similar applications for making use of one title's Pokemon for another, including storage as is the case in My Pokemon Ranch, there is no reasonable expectation of them having difficulty making what generally equates to a basic file facilitation and management program. Unless we're here to argue that the Wii is more similar in architecture to the GBA and DS than the 3DS is to the DS.


I don't know much about 3DS architecture so I don't know if they were incompatible. However I do know that a pokemon's data is very, very, very tiny.

You have a point about the GBA and DS being nothing like the Wii but they also had to have a special tool and app to communicate, much like what Pokebank and poke transfer is. Also I have heard that a 3DS cart and a DS cart can't communicate directly without a buffer in between. That is the main compatability issue I see.

Also remember that the biggest complaint by people who didn't want gen 5-6 transferring was that it would allow people to send over hackmons. So if gamefreak just put out some app on the SD card and gave people free reign over it they would have basically contradicted their statements on cracking down on hacking. At least with the cloud storage they can claim that they are trying to fight hacks.

The biggest issue I am seeing is the need for that buffer to help compatibility. If there wasn't the need for the buffer zone this would be a non-issue.
---
http://tinyurl.com/ck8fqvn
http://tinyurl.com/kwzh647
#49Miggi3Fr3shPosted 9/7/2013 3:12:01 PM
I don't understand why people are surprised... People paid how much for Pokemon Box? And $35-40 for multiple crappy games to get that 1-2 gift Pokemon at the end... This isn't new... This is actually saving us time from playing a crap game to get a download, not to mention not needing two consoles to send the gift Pokemon over. Plus this is a pretty good utility that is completely optional. You also get 30 days free.
---
3DS: 3351-4111-5844 PSN: Miggi3Fr3sh86
Here at GameFAQs gamers don't game, they complain.
#50CakeOfLiesPosted 9/7/2013 3:13:17 PM
Stop feeding it.
---
I'm not easily impressed; I'm usually oblivious to whatever's in front of me.
Pokemon White 2 FC: 3139-7420-3142 - THIEF