DLC or a whole new game?

[Lunar]

After the disappointment of the 'Pokemon Presents' in June, it's becoming more and more unlikely that we'll be seeing a main series Pokemon game in 2020, or even another Let's Go title to add to the Pikachu & Eevee releases a couple of years ago. It's quite possible that Game Freak could be using the DLC for Sword and Shield to keep us occupied for the rest of the year, and have a major release in 2021.

Would you prefer to see this become a regular occurence in the Pokemon series, giving the region and story more time to develop with DLC? Or would you rather set off on a whole new adventure with new games? :)

X and Y could definitely have benefitted from some DLC lol

 

[pkmin3033]

I don't object to DLC, but the problem with DLC and Game Freak is that the base games are pathetically threadbare and what they actually make DLC should be included in the base game. The quality of SnS was absolutely disgusting and if that's any indicator of the future then I'd much rather that they make a complete version of the game after the initial release, rather than expect me to shell out full price for a half-arsed release, and then half that cost again for the majority of the actual content that was no doubt intended to be in there but was cut because of tight deadlines, corporate greed, and/or general incompetence.

If they can make a proper title which feels like a complete experience in and of itself, then yes, DLC is the way to go. If they can't then no, it is not the way to go. It's on them as to what I'd prefer, honestly. I don't mind paying extra for DLC, but I want it to be worth my money on top of what I'm already getting, not an essential expansion which completes the experience I thought I had already paid for.

 

[Percy]

^^ that exactly

dlc aren't bad if the dlc is juicy. we all know how it should go, if the dlc adds story, pokemon (this one's probably conditional, at least for me) and areas, then complaints will most likely be minimal. (of course, contents of the base game and price would be part of the equation but you get the idea :P)

 

[Zeostar]

Basically what @Dawn said.

The main game of Sword and Shield didn't even intrigue me, so there's no way I want to spend that much for DLC.

 

[Lunar]

I don't object to DLC, but the problem with DLC and Game Freak is that the base games are pathetically threadbare and what they actually make DLC should be included in the base game.

My thoughts exactly, the recent releases of Pokemon have been pretty bone dry at points, and Game Freak really shouldn't continue to charge us for stuff that should have been in the original releases! Maybe, they'll use this extra year to make sure the next Pokemon game is a bigger step in quality, and it could be a positive thing? I'm clutching at straws a bit though haha.

 

[Brendino]

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the DLC if it wasn't so stupid expensive. A couple of years ago I said that I was perfectly okay if they started introducing DLC over sequels/enhanced versions of games, but I figured it would be at a $10 price at most, not 3x that.

As much as I liked parts of Sword/Shield, I definitely didn't get as much out of it as past games, so I still haven't been able to stomach a $40 DLC after tax, especially when I don't know how much I would even get out of it. If you're going to charge us that much, might as well give us a new version entirely.

 

[Iceshadow3317]

DLC is cheaper than a Third Version. So I much rather prefer DLC, especially now since the games are $60. You would just be buying the same game with very little added.

As long as DLC doesn't get too excessive, at most 4 DLC total at $60 total, I am fine with DLC.

However, if they start doing what CoD and other games do with DLC, then no, I would prefer a a Third Version.


I find no difference with Sword and Shield Base Game compared to XY Base Game and Sun and Moon Base Game. They all have had about the same Post Game.

Even with DLC, Sword and Shield has already surpassed both of them and will almost completely surpass USUM.

 

[colours]

the important part for me is that i keep my progress, so... i guess dlc has that edge over a whole new game, for me. there's pretty much no point in starting all over in a whole new game for slight changes in storyline among other things that could've been better off as dlc.

 

[Couch Pilot Games]

Personally, I think that DLC is the way to go. And I believe this for several reasons:

1st: As long as the National Dex eventually makes its way back, I think it's better to break the game up into chunks that are more manageable. It would have been very difficult to find and catch all 900 or so Pokémon in the space provided in the Galar region as it is. The amount of Pokémon spread out over the Galar region is optimal, I think. To be able to have the whole dex available, the Galar region would have had to have been at least 2.5 times larger to hold that many Pokémon comfortably so as 50 different species would not be located in the same patch of grass.

2nd: DLC gives the game developers a chance to see issues that occur in the base game and correct them. Because of the DLC IOA, there are new benefits that increase our standard of living as trainers (Gmax soup, new move tutor, wiping ev's)And yeah. In theory, game developers could have put all of this in the base game, but sometimes problems arise that aren't expected. DLC gives them an opportunity to fix gameplay problems and support a growing competitive scene.

For once, playing with competitive Pokémon is a very real reality for even casual gamers. This competition is needed to help keep Pokémon fresh and alive in an age of video games where there is a huge market in the competitive scene and streaming.

 

[Hocus_Pokemon]

In player's point of view, I think getting DLCs is better than buying another game like in Gen 7 (SM then USUM). But does it give Game Freak or Pokemon Company more profit? I'm not sure.

 

[Palamon]

I'm honestly indifferent either way, since I always buy third versions. Third versions, though, never sell more than the main versions, so I suppose that DLC should be the way to go for awhile, but at a much lower price. Maybe half of what they're selling for with the current expansion pass.

 

[Fairy]

I think I've been coerced into the more DLC camp. A third game wouldn't be bad per se, but I'm enjoying the random updates more than the prospect of dropping $60 on a whole new game.

 

[Sheep]

Even though I see Dawn's point for sure, if I had to pick I still definitely prefer dlc. $30 is a lot to pay for downloadable content but I'd much rather that than a $60 full priced game that's basically the same, with some small differences /improvements/story changes that should've been in the base game to begin with. It's bad enough that we get two games that are basically identical to each other solely so TPCi can make money off double packs, but having more 'ultra' versions of games released later instead of dlc means they're selling us four versions of almost the same game. It's absolutely nuts @_@

 

[Wuzzy]

honestly, at first I was very opposed to it but now I'm thinking DLC is better. I think people were turned off by SwSh DLC is because that SwSh was already a very lacking game, and tacking on an additional $30 for stuff that should've been in the game in the first place turned people off.

DLC in general has a bad rep to it but for Pokemon, I think it's better. DLC means that you don't have to replay through the exact same game (with like a handful of plot changes usually, except for B2W2 which was actually a sequel), and then also give you more (for most people) post game content which could be fun. Unless TPC/GF release a sequel to a Pokemon game like in B2W2 where the plot is actually different, then DLC will be better for future games.