The Game Freak Thread: Pokémon, New IP Etc. [Update: COO on Quality vs. Timeliness]

What @Astrogamer said.

Think of it like this (imaginary numbers used): A bad Pokemon-game sells 20 mio units. Now you want Gamefreak to take their time and spend 4 years on a good Pokemon-game. Question: Will that good Pokemon-game sell so much more itself that it can match or surpass the profit from 4 yearly bad Pokemon-games. In this example, the good Pokemon-game would have to sell 80 mio units to make the same profit. That much growth is impossible for the Pokemon-franchise. Even just doubling is, assuming they'd go for a 2-year cycle.

There's only two factors that could change Gamefreak's/TPC's mind: Pokemon-games stop selling AND/OR a new Pokemon-game releasing in such broken state that Nintendo has to intervene. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be our better chance.

I have so much I disagree about what you guys are saying, but I'll limit myself to this: Pokemon-games are "creative", Gamefreak is pushing forward, questionmark. In what universe is this true. Gamefreak basically have to be dragged forward by the entire industry, all the changes you mention happen because even Gamefreak realizes "we cannot do even less than that". Going "more to 3DS after DS era success", yeah, because 3D had been the standard for games for the past 15 years or so while Pokemon-games still had a fixed camera perspective. Arceus was nice, but it also did the minimum possible, with empty areas, barebones towns and the deliberate choice to not feature multiplayer-online battles. And we don't need to talk abot Scarlet/Violet.

To praise Gamefreak for its creativity and forward pushing really is the opposite of reality and claiming so is part of the problem. If I were Gamefreak/TPC and read your postings, I'd think "hm, guess we don't need to improve, we're pretty awesome after all". The last thing Gamefreak needs right now is praise. I'm forever thankful that the collective Zelda-fandom said after Skyword Sword: "This is enough. No more of this. We want something better!" and so we got Breath of the Wild. Before Pokemon-fans, at least those active on the internet on message boards or social media, realize that, there really is zero incentive for Gamefreak to change anything. The last Pokemon-mainline game I played was Black and White 2 or X/Y, whichever came later. But this doesn't mean I don't care about Pokemon, quite the opposite: I'm waiting for the day we finally get that heralded dream-Pokemon-game that brings everything together, including stunning graphics and voice-acting. When that happens, I'll be there day 1. But I will firmaly boycott these games until then.
This is a flawed argument because you’re associating your personal opinion about the games with GF’s push to do better. It’s like when people criticized Xenoblade 2 for being a bad game, saying that a good Xenoblade would sell so much more, despite 2 being the one to push the series forward.
The fact you’re considering people who genuinely think Legends and SV are good games as people who live in the opposite of reality and as being part of the problem, is very condescending and oblivious on your part.
 
As someone who waited almost one year before playing SwSh I loved the games after playing them. (SwSh, PLA and SV)

They have major (performance) issues but they are the best Pokémon games since at least HGSS/BW. PLA is my favorite entry in the series.
GF is greatly improving the games compared to their output before the Switch games but they lack experience in 3D/HD development and the teams are too small.
I'm confident their games will be much better in the future but the current development cycle doesn't help..

Also I just want to mention that a 4-year cycle doesn't mean there are no games between the generations.
 
It epuld probably be neat to increase the man power dividing the teams among two mainline outputs (mainline episodes and Legends episodes) sharing top level people, indo, tools...and outsourcing remakes
 
This is a flawed argument because you’re associating your personal opinion about the games with GF’s push to do better. It’s like when people criticized Xenoblade 2 for being a bad game, saying that a good Xenoblade would sell so much more, despite 2 being the one to push the series forward.
The fact you’re considering people who genuinely think Legends and SV are good games as people who live in the opposite of reality and as being part of the problem, is very condescending and oblivious on your part.
Xenoblade 2 is a good game that some people dislike for intentional design-choices. (imo)

Scarlet/Violet is a bad game that some people like despite unintentional flaws. Arceus is not bad per se, but could have been so much more. (imo)

The premise of this discussion is the interview with Gamefreak who are asking themselves 'what can we do to be better, without lowering cadence of releases?', and most people seem to agree that this is impossible, because the current cadence is exactly what's negatively impacting Pokemon-games aka causing Pokemon-games to be 'bad' (which I mentioned in my first posting is a describor everyone can replace with something better fitting depending on personal stance; in your case you could read 'good' and 'better' instead of 'bad' and 'good').

So in that regard, yes, people who genuinely like these games are part of the problem, because they legitimize what Gamefreak is doing. Imagine if Skyward Sword had sold 10+ mio units. We wouldn't have gotten BotW.
 
Xenoblade 2 is a good game that some people dislike for intentional design-choices. (imo)

Scarlet/Violet is a bad game that some people like despite unintentional flaws. Arceus is not bad per se, but could have been so much more. (imo)

The premise of this discussion is the interview with Gamefreak who are asking themselves 'what can we do to be better, without lowering cadence of releases?', and most people seem to agree that this is impossible, because the current cadence is exactly what's negatively impacting Pokemon-games aka causing Pokemon-games to be 'bad' (which I mentioned in my first posting is a describor everyone can replace with something better fitting depending on personal stance; in your case you could read 'good' and 'better' instead of 'bad' and 'good').

So in that regard, yes, people who genuinely like these games are part of the problem, because they legitimize what Gamefreak is doing. Imagine if Skyward Sword had sold 10+ mio units. We wouldn't have gotten BotW.
this is not conductive of good discussion if you can't separate your personal opinion from a more informative look into the problem. it just comes off as trying to worm your complaints into discussion when it's not relevant at all
 
Xenoblade 2 is a good game that some people dislike for intentional design-choices. (imo)

Scarlet/Violet is a bad game that some people like despite unintentional flaws. Arceus is not bad per se, but could have been so much more. (imo)

The premise of this discussion is the interview with Gamefreak who are asking themselves 'what can we do to be better, without lowering cadence of releases?', and most people seem to agree that this is impossible, because the current cadence is exactly what's negatively impacting Pokemon-games aka causing Pokemon-games to be 'bad' (which I mentioned in my first posting is a describor everyone can replace with something better fitting depending on personal stance; in your case you could read 'good' and 'better' instead of 'bad' and 'good').

So in that regard, yes, people who genuinely like these games are part of the problem, because they legitimize what Gamefreak is doing. Imagine if Skyward Sword had sold 10+ mio units. We wouldn't have gotten BotW.


It's not impossible
It is impossible if they do keep the same cadence without changing anything in terms of planning and project management
But if they are discussing "how can we keep the same pace increasing quality", there are ways of chaning this
Will they actually implement some actual change?
We will see (on Switch 2)
 
this is not conductive of good discussion if you can't separate your personal opinion from a more informative look into the problem. it just comes off as trying to worm your complaints into discussion when it's not relevant at all
You have completely ignored my posting where I directly addressed your toxic behavior against me and now you're doing it again. Pls put me on ignore if you always attack me just for expressing my opinion. And I directly put 'imo' in the quoted posting twice.
 
I have so much I disagree about what you guys are saying, but I'll limit myself to this: Pokemon-games are "creative", Gamefreak is pushing forward, questionmark. In what universe is this true. Gamefreak basically have to be dragged forward by the entire industry, all the changes you mention happen because even Gamefreak realizes "we cannot do even less than that". Going "more to 3DS after DS era success", yeah, because 3D had been the standard for games for the past 15 years or so while Pokemon-games still had a fixed camera perspective. Arceus was nice, but it also did the minimum possible, with empty areas, barebones towns and the deliberate choice to not feature multiplayer-online battles. And we don't need to talk abot Scarlet/Violet.

To praise Gamefreak for its creativity and forward pushing really is the opposite of reality and claiming so is part of the problem. If I were Gamefreak/TPC and read your postings, I'd think "hm, guess we don't need to improve, we're pretty awesome after all". The last thing Gamefreak needs right now is praise. I'm forever thankful that the collective Zelda-fandom said after Skyword Sword: "This is enough. No more of this. We want something better!" and so we got Breath of the Wild. Before Pokemon-fans, at least those active on the internet on message boards or social media, realize that, there really is zero incentive for Gamefreak to change anything. The last Pokemon-mainline game I played was Black and White 2 or X/Y, whichever came later. But this doesn't mean I don't care about Pokemon, quite the opposite: I'm waiting for the day we finally get that heralded dream-Pokemon-game that brings everything together, including stunning graphics and voice-acting. When that happens, I'll be there day 1. But I will firmaly boycott these games until then.
I… really don’t think that’s what people are saying. I think the argument is that Game Freak has actually been trying to do something different and improve the quality of their games. You just don’t think they’re trying hard enough, and that’s perfectly fine. But they are trying despite the fact that Sword and Shield brought the franchise to sales heights unseen since Gen 2. I think that’s commendable when taking the broader franchise into consideration. Are the standards low? Perhaps, but let’s be real that’s a problem industry-wide and scummier games are just as successful.

Legends Arceus and Scarlet and Violet aren’t exactly the most creative games in a broader gaming context, but when it comes to Pokémon? They’re by far the most different mainline games we’ve had in well over a decade. Probably ever, in Legends Arceus’s case. And people enjoy them! I certainly enjoyed both of them even if I had thought Scarlet and Violet really needed an extra year in the oven ever since the games were announced.
 
It's clear that there is a problem created by the tension between scope growth and iron-clad scheduling. The problems Pokemon experiences can't be solved by more personnel, only by more time

That said, pretending that these games' problems mean they shouldn't sell well—much less that they are bad games—is an exaggeration in the extreme

Scarlet and Violet are very appealing games, which is why they sell well. They're big, fun-looking, and appeal to a fantasy that players have nursed for a long time

...and as far as quality goes, they're easily the best-written games in the series, with good characters and multiple interconnected plot lines that come together cleanly in the end, on top of being the first mainline pokemon games that are actually just fun to play (due to the battle, field, and capture system changes) since about 1999
 
Xenoblade 2 is a good game that some people dislike for intentional design-choices. (imo)

Scarlet/Violet is a bad game that some people like despite unintentional flaws. Arceus is not bad per se, but could have been so much more. (imo)

The premise of this discussion is the interview with Gamefreak who are asking themselves 'what can we do to be better, without lowering cadence of releases?', and most people seem to agree that this is impossible, because the current cadence is exactly what's negatively impacting Pokemon-games aka causing Pokemon-games to be 'bad' (which I mentioned in my first posting is a describor everyone can replace with something better fitting depending on personal stance; in your case you could read 'good' and 'better' instead of 'bad' and 'good').

So in that regard, yes, people who genuinely like these games are part of the problem, because they legitimize what Gamefreak is doing. Imagine if Skyward Sword had sold 10+ mio units. We wouldn't have gotten BotW.
I quite enjoyed Skyward Sword; it's in my top 3 Zelda games. I've played all the Zelda games except for the Philips CD-i ones. In my opinion, Skyward Sword had the best story out of all the Zelda games. I adore Zelda's personality in Skyward Sword. As for Legends Arceus, it's also among my top 3 favorite Pokémon games. I do acknowledge that Scarlet and Violet's performance was abysmal, which is something we definitely shouldn't overlook. However, I fail to comprehend what issues people found with Skyward Sword. It was a polished game that played smoothly.
 
Last edited:
Wait why are we so convinced Gamefreak can't do better without sacrificing the pace? I think Call of Duty for example does a pretty good job considering it's an annual franchise. Honestly, I think having more manpower along with a better engine such as Unreal 4 or 5 would help. Every 3 years is perfect, waiting for this dream game that takes 5 years sounds terrible. Im a consumer, I want to consume. There are already several franchises that take forever such as Zelda and Metriod and neither have made me happy to wait lol. Great games but seriously take too long.
 
Wait why are we so convinced Gamefreak can't do better without sacrificing the pace? I think Call of Duty for example does a pretty good job considering it's an annual franchise. Honestly, I think having more manpower along with a better engine such as Unreal 4 or 5 would help. Every 3 years is perfect, waiting for this dream game that takes 5 years sounds terrible. Im a consumer, I want to consume. There are already several franchises that take forever such as Zelda and Metriod and neither have made me happy to wait lol. Great games but seriously take too long.
You want the mainline games or also spin offs? Tbh I wouldn’t mind waiting extra year for a mainline game if the spin offs are good while we wait. BTW im still waiting for a new Pokémon pinball but I think I should give up on that dream.
 
Wait why are we so convinced Gamefreak can't do better without sacrificing the pace? I think Call of Duty for example does a pretty good job considering it's an annual franchise. Honestly, I think having more manpower along with a better engine such as Unreal 4 or 5 would help. Every 3 years is perfect, waiting for this dream game that takes 5 years sounds terrible. Im a consumer, I want to consume. There are already several franchises that take forever such as Zelda and Metriod and neither have made me happy to wait lol. Great games but seriously take too long.
Call of Duty has like 10 studios dedicated to three different games being made concurrently along with massive amounts of outsourcing. While Gen 9 is the biggest production in Pokémon history it doesn’t quite match what COD or AC have done with a similar release pattern. Even then we are seeing the cracks form with this frenetic release schedule with COD, already saw these results with AC. Something has to give between manpower, time, & quality. If you want more quality releases in shorter time then expect manpower to suffer in terms of crunch or burnout. It also means other releases get sacrificed in some form or another.
 
Call of Duty has like 10 studios dedicated to three different games being made concurrently along with massive amounts of outsourcing. While Gen 9 is the biggest production in Pokémon history it doesn’t quite match what COD or AC have done with a similar release pattern. Even then we are seeing the cracks form with this frenetic release schedule with COD, already saw these results with AC. Something has to give between manpower, time, & quality. If you want more quality releases in shorter time then expect manpower to suffer in terms of crunch or burnout. It also means other releases get sacrificed in some form or another.
I’m gonna edit this later with some links, but Call of Duty has two or three studios working on the series, and they rotate between releases. Each of those studios have more employees than GameFreak does.
 
I’m gonna edit this later with some links, but Call of Duty has two or three studios working on the series, and they rotate between releases. Each of those studios have more employees than GameFreak does.
I intentionally inflated the number but they have 7 total if we include support studios based off the MW3 Steam page.

Edit: looking into it more I could potentially add studios to it making it 9 if we wanna just count how many actively help make COD
 
Last edited:
You want the mainline games or also spin offs? Tbh I wouldn’t mind waiting extra year for a mainline game if the spin offs are good while we wait. BTW im still waiting for a new Pokémon pinball but I think I should give up on that dream.
The mainline games shouldn't suffer due to spinoffs, so I personally wouldn't mind cutting those off if it gives more time to the mainline. Or Game Freak should let someone else handle those.
I’m gonna edit this later with some links, but Call of Duty has two or three studios working on the series, and they rotate between releases. Each of those studios have more employees than GameFreak does.
Bingo this is exactly why I think they are simply under manned, Pokemon is more like Call of Duty than Zelda. It's consumers are always hungry for more, consistently.
I intentionally inflated the number but they have 7 total if we include support studios based off the MW3 Steam page.

Edit: looking into it more I could potentially add studios to it making it 9 if we wanna just count how many actively help make COD
Pokemon is like the highest grossing franchise in history, it deserves the resources that Call of Duty gets.
 
the official spinoffs are handled by external companies anyway, so there won't be a change there

remakes might be handled by external companies going forward. question is, if Legends continues, should those be outsourced as well? since GF introduced new pokemon in them, they would probably still be attached in some way

that would lead GF with just their own games and the main titles. that sorta frees up bandwidth. I think the problem with the Call of Duty analogy is that their three studios make their own games in a vacuum. I doubt that will be allowed for the main titles as the relative cohesion is what keeps the main games together. don't want people tiering pokemon any more than they do now. "GF's pokemon is better!" "no Level 5's pokemon is better!" "no Media.Vision's pokemon is better!"
 
the official spinoffs are handled by external companies anyway, so there won't be a change there

remakes might be handled by external companies going forward. question is, if Legends continues, should those be outsourced as well? since GF introduced new pokemon in them, they would probably still be attached in some way

that would lead GF with just their own games and the main titles. that sorta frees up bandwidth. I think the problem with the Call of Duty analogy is that their three studios make their own games in a vacuum. I doubt that will be allowed for the main titles as the relative cohesion is what keeps the main games together. don't want people tiering pokemon any more than they do now. "GF's pokemon is better!" "no Level 5's pokemon is better!" "no Media.Vision's pokemon is better!"
Thats exactly what they need, help from another developer and the remakes being handled by someone else to lower their work load. The only people that would distinguish between Level 5's and Game Freak's games would be people that spend time on gaming forums. The mass market has no clue who makes these games unless Level 5 completely blows them out of the water, which means maybe Game Freak deserves to be fired lol. I would imagine Game Freak would just grow the studio and split into teams. That gives each team 6 years of development with the spinoffs being thrown in between. They can keep the 3 year pace if they had more help.
It does but that takes time to ramp up especially only if they are now declaring as such to keep pace with quality & rumours of using middleware engines.
Which is inexcusable because Pokemon has been a massive franchise for generations now, this should have been done years ago.
 
Last edited:
Thats exactly what they need, help from another developer and the remakes being handled by someone else to lower their work load. The only people that would distinguish between Level 5's and Game Freak's games would be people that spend time on gaming forums. The mass market has no clue who makes these games unless Level 5 completely blows them out of the water, which means maybe Game Freak deserves to be fired lol. I would imagine Game Freak would just grow the studio and split into teams. That gives each team 6 years of development with the spinoffs being thrown in between. They can keep the 3 year pace if they had more help.

Which is inexcusable because Pokemon has been a massive franchise for generations now, this should have been done years ago.
I can see the reasoning for their not expanding before the Switch, even if they really should have been concerned with certain issues. But yes, they should have started doing increased expansion & planning at least starting with the 3DS.
 
I can see the reasoning for their not expanding before the Switch, even if they really should have been concerned with certain issues. But yes, they should have started doing increased expansion & planning at least starting with the 3DS.
You need to kind of quantify that since the teams on Pokemon games were significantly bigger with each entry. They were outsourcing a ton by Sun and Moon. By Sword and Shield they even hired a few Level 5 employees. Their current head engineering is someone who worked at Bandai Namco
 
I can see the reasoning for their not expanding before the Switch, even if they really should have been concerned with certain issues. But yes, they should have started doing increased expansion & planning at least starting with the 3DS.
the problem with that is one of foresight. they seemed to have been hit with the same HD bat that hit studios back in 2006. maybe they thought they'd aim low (and they did, with the visuals) and brute force bigger scale. but reality doesn't work like that and their engine can't scale before shitting itself, so now they're on the backfoot fixing the track as the train chugs along.

I think what really did them in was the lack of console experience of any kind to cut their teeth on with then-current methodologies. which I find weird as they adopted Unity for some games, but that didn't really go anywhere beyond some 2D games. Pokemon on Unity might have ran better, especially since they have money to hire experienced Unity engineers to assist tehm

Their current head engineering is someone who worked at Bandai Namco
didn't this person join their R&D team? my hope is that they're working on upgrading their tools to better make use of modern hardware and apis
 
You need to kind of quantify that since the teams on Pokemon games were significantly bigger with each entry. They were outsourcing a ton by Sun and Moon. By Sword and Shield they even hired a few Level 5 employees
That’s nice but as we can see that currently isn’t enough given their frenetic pace + quality they want to achieve. Compare that to say AC or COD with their semi-annualized releases & it is pretty stark; as mentioned the three COD studios alone outnumber GF. Combine this with engine & HD dev woes & we get where we currently are.

I think it moot anyway since we are currently at the point where they need to think long & hard about their next steps.
 
Last edited:
heh, speak of (one of) the devils



hiring ad for Pokemon CG Studios. nothing really related to Game Freak, just funny that this immediately popped up



EDIT

I took a look back at GF's job listing and there hasn't been any change, but they still have the many R&D positions for things like rendering, tools, networking, etc. Even a position for using ProBuilder (a unity tool to help block out environments; HAL uses it for Kirby, despite Kirby being on their own engine). So it's not like these things are lost on them or are recents revelations
 
Last edited:
Given everything that happened, both in terms of lows and highs, I think the 30th anniversary being on 2026 is a great opportunity to move to a 4-years release schedule.

2022 : Gen 9 (GF team 1)
2023 : DLC to Gen 9 (younger part of GF team 1)
2024 : Legends (GF team 2)
2025 : Remakes (outsourced)
2026 : Gen 10 (GF team 1).

I don't think they need to expand massively, but they need to internalize key staff with significant technical knowhow.
 
I'm curious how they'll handle the remakes. Gen5 didn't get a third version but sequels.
Ideally Legends will be B0W0 and there will be separate remakes for B1W1 and B2W2.
Since there was no Platinum content in BDSP I'm expecting them to ignore B2W2 though..

"VC" versions of Gen1-3 with HOME support would also be great.
 
I'm curious how they'll handle the remakes. Gen5 didn't get a third version but sequels.
Ideally Legends will be B0W0 and there will be separate remakes for B1W1 and B2W2.
Since there was no Platinum content in BDSP I'm expecting them to ignore B2W2 though..

"VC" versions of Gen1-3 with HOME support would also be great.
Even if they don’t remake BW2 specifically, a BW remake would be just as good as BW. It’s not like you can just slap BW2 things into the first game, so it won’t be annoying like with Platinum
 
Even if they don’t remake BW2 specifically, a BW remake would be just as good as BW. It’s not like you can just slap BW2 things into the first game, so it won’t be annoying like with Platinum
Betting they will make a bw2 remake. The money is for them to grab too easy to pass on.
 
they'll do BW1 since it's the introduction of more popular characters like Hilda, N, and Ghestis. whether they'll have BW2 content or not will probably depend on how much time they're awarded.
Excatly. I also expect BW1 but I expect it probably to do well just because if you put Pokemon in a title it would sell. BW2 a game thats already done just make it more modern and done and easy 15-20+ millions naaaah no way they gonna pass on that one
 
I'm curious how they'll handle the remakes. Gen5 didn't get a third version but sequels.
Ideally Legends will be B0W0 and there will be separate remakes for B1W1 and B2W2.
Since there was no Platinum content in BDSP I'm expecting them to ignore B2W2 though..

"VC" versions of Gen1-3 with HOME support would also be great.
BDSP was definitely a product to fit in the Fall 2021 lineup when they assumed Legends and SV would be delayed. If there was no pandemic, I feel like they would have skipped the remake. By early 2021, I think Game Freak thought the games didn't need to be delayed so came up with this schedule that resulted in Arceus in the early part of the year and SV in the end. BDSP came in hot because it was designed to be a stopgap game.

The problem with putting out both a remake and a Legends game is that it will be touching the same material. It could work for BDSP and Arceus because Arceus was such a departure from the traditional games. If they make a remake for 2024 and then a Unova Legends game in 2025, we hit a long stretch of marketing that is just Unova again that will be off-putting for a lot of consumers while releasing both too close risks what was proposed to happen for BDSP (a decent launch with no legs). I think logically that the games will then be based on different regions i.e. Unova Legends in 2024 and an outsourced GS remake in 2025. The main games being released in two year intervals gives Game Freak/Creatures more resources for longer when one game finishes.
 
You need to kind of quantify that since the teams on Pokemon games were significantly bigger with each entry. They were outsourcing a ton by Sun and Moon. By Sword and Shield they even hired a few Level 5 employees. Their current head engineering is someone who worked at Bandai Namco

Thanks to webarchives we can find a few milestones in headcount

March 2022 : 169
August 2021 : 167
December 2019 : 143

And further in the past

April 2018 : 143
April 2017 : 118
April 2016 : 108 the mention of 正社員、契約社員のみ appears from that point
April 2015 : 81
April 2014 : 73
April 2013 : 85
April 2012 : 90
April 2011 : 71
October 2010 : 66
April 2010 : 73

From 2009 gamefreak website appears to be... in flash still I managed to find he headcount but without any month attached to it

Late 2009 : 57
Early 2008 : 52
Mid 2007 : 54 (website non in flash anymore from around that point)
Early 2007 : 46
Early 2005 : 45 (even older website)
Late 2002 : 37 (and older version of the website again)
Late 2000 : 21

(And that's as far as I can go, 21 in all the 1999 pages and from 1998 onwards it became unreadable)


I imagine the same thing could be done with Creatures, even if not all employees are directly involved with the games, their heacount being at 232 as of this year
 
If the Switch 2 lasts 8 years like Switch, I think 4 year generations lines up perfectly. This way the first gen on a new system will always arrive in its third holiday, allowing for an install base to build up and a lite model to release alongside it. And they'll always get 2 gens per system.

2024- NS2
2026- GEN 10
2030- GEN 11

2032- NS3?
2034- GEN 12
2038- GEN 13

2040- NS4?
2042- GEN 14
2046- GEN 15 (50th anniversary!)

2048- NS5?
2050- GEN 16
2054- GEN 17

etc.
 
I was just thinking, a BW remake on Switch is the one chance we have for a remake to outsell the original o:
 
@Wockio

License Global is a news magazine that reports on everything involving licensing. Every year they release a report listing the highest grossing licenses or brands of the previous year. Their reports are often cited on news articles such as Business Wire and The Hollywood Reporter, so take that as you will. Wikipedia has archives of reports dating all the way back to 2006, and TPCi has made the list just about every single year.

For example, an archived report of the top brands lists The Pokemon Company International as the 5th highest-grossing licensor in 2022, with an estimated revenue of $11.6 billion. Obviously, The Pokemon Company International only manages the Pokemon brand. As such, Pokemon, a single brand, generated more revenue than every Hasbro brand combined or every Mattel brand combined. Here's what they said about the release of Scarlet and Violet as well as the Horizons anime:

"Both are primed to drive the brand forward by invigorating mainstream interest in the property and cementing Pokémon as a sought-after collaborator. This strong momentum fuels The Pokémon Company International’s (TPCi) robust licensing program spanning gaming, toys, apparel and accessories, designer collaborations, home décor, publishing and more, partnering with licensees to introduce new and unique ways for fans to engage with the brand and earning the 2022 License of the Year accolade by The Toy Association."

This is one of a few sources as to where Wikipedia gets it's estimated revenue for the Pokemon media franchise from.
 
Pokemon SV DLC2 ran worse than the original game, I'm pretty doubtful they are doing anything with their engine or design.
 
Whatever was wrong with engine/tools/etc. in Scarlet and Violet, it's clearly not something that's going to be fixed overnight, and especially via a DLC. They might need a complete overhaul of engine/dev tools/dev process, so any changes/improvements would have to wait until next gen imo.
 
Pokemon SV DLC2 ran worse than the original game, I'm pretty doubtful they are doing anything with their engine or design.

The problems in SV are very in-the-engine and rendering, DLC wasn't going to fix that. The DLC was started before S/V even released and worked on in tandem with other S/V support, they wouldn't have had any time or resources to also overhaul the entire engine... which doesn't make any sense for DLC anyway.

The engine needs a complete overhaul and retooling to fix its deep-rooted issues.
 




Wonder what it will entail, although I suspect a longer generation cycle this time around.

I mean, no shit if true. People will act surprised but Pokemon that found massive success playing it relatively safe with Sword and Shield, then proceeds to give us two of the most different mainline games in the series. Hopefully whoever plans these things ensures that more time and manpower is allocated for the games.
 
Even without seeing the reaction from players, they should know too well and before anyone else how much of a disaster the base game is. Making sure that does not happen again is a given, which I can only see happening in gen 11 tbh.
 
The problems in SV are very in-the-engine and rendering, DLC wasn't going to fix that. The DLC was started before S/V even released and worked on in tandem with other S/V support, they wouldn't have had any time or resources to also overhaul the entire engine... which doesn't make any sense for DLC anyway.

The engine needs a complete overhaul and retooling to fix its deep-rooted issues.
Changing an engine is not a solution. If you do not properly optimize your game, it does not matter what middleware you are using, you will still have bottlenecks.

They need to rebuild the foundation. Using a 3rd party middleware will not solve the problems, and probably will make the games run worse.
 
Even without seeing the reaction from players, they should know too well and before anyone else how much of a disaster the base game is. Making sure that does not happen again is a given, which I can only see happening in gen 11 tbh.
More gen 10. The games get engine improvements every gen. SV was just a massive step in making thr series open world and ended up biting off way more than they can chew. But their tools team hasn't been sitting still since they froze the engine version for SV (probably early in development)

Changing an engine is not a solution. If you do not properly optimize your game, it does not matter what middleware you are using, you will still have bottlenecks.

They need to rebuild the foundation. Using a 3rd party middleware will not solve the problems, and probably will make the games run worse.
If they are changing engine, then, by definition, they are changing the foundation
 
- Gen 10 releases in Nov 2026, not Nov 2025
- It is Switch 2 exclusive, no Switch 1 version
- Keep the same/similar scope as Scarlet/Violet

It doesn't seem like GameFreak has any interest in abandoning their game engine (nor is it some guaranted panacea), but giving them a year of additional dev time and significantly more powerful hardware should help even without some fabled tech overhaul.
 
Pokemon SV simply shouldn't have ran like it did. No excuse.

What I don't understand is why Gamefreak even went for 3D. Wouldn't something like Trails in the Sky be perfect for Pokemon? HD-2D sprites?
 
If they are changing engine, then, by definition, they are changing the foundation
Not really.

I have some experience porting mobile games onto Switch.

I made one game run using Unity and Unreal without changing the foundation. The final decision was made by my client.

An engine is not gonna magically makes a game run better. Engine is a middleware, not the foundation.
 
I was just thinking, a BW remake on Switch is the one chance we have for a remake to outsell the original o:
A bit of a necro-post - but I'd also argue that eventually X/Y remakes would have a chance of outselling the originals as well - and this would be the only opportunity for remakes to also outsell the entire generation that they're remaking as well due to X/Y being the only games in Gen 6, whereas Gen 5 and 7 (the other two lower selling gens) both have second games to boost them.
 
It's hard to imagine now because people retroactively adore Black and White but at the time people hated how stagnant the franchise was on the DS. All the cool games around Pokémon were going 3D and here they were with their 2D sprites with three frames of animation. And the sales, while still good, were pretty muted for Pokémon games on the biggest handheld console ever. 3D was what everyone wanted and the natural path forward. This has worked out tremendously well for Game Freak, even with all the growing pains it has brought.
 
Not really.

I have some experience porting mobile games onto Switch.

I made one game run using Unity and Unreal without changing the foundation. The final decision was made by my client.

An engine is not gonna magically makes a game run better. Engine is a middleware, not the foundation.
What are you talking about? The engine is the foundation, when you switch from Unity to Unreal you would be recreating the entire game (except the assets) from the ground up so that would be starting from a new foundation. Gamefreak making a new engine would be building something completely new with modern graphical rendering techniques that might be designed for a more open world style games.

Also a game engine is not middleware, middleware are the tools you would use within the engine itselt or in correspondence with the engine. The entire game is built in an engine and it doesn't sound like they are using a third party one like Unreal. The problem with Pokemon S/V seems to be in optimization and primarily in how its rendering everything on screen. A new engine can fix these issues by processing things in the distance better, correctly culling objects offscreen, incorporating newer physics and shader system, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom