The Game Freak Thread: Pokémon, New IP Etc. [Update: Nintendo Survey]

[Ishaan]

• Game Freak, the studio behind Pokémon, is developing a new IP titled "Project Bloom"
• Project Bloom will be published by Take-Two-owned Private Division
• Private Division is fully-owned by Take-Two Interactive (GTA) and are best known for Kerbal Space Program and The Outer Worlds
• Game Freak refers to this project as a "sweeping new action-adventure game" that is "bold and tonally different" from GF's prior work
• Project Bloom is in early development and presently intended for release in Take-Two's Fiscal Year 2026

Game Freak comments:

“We’re thrilled to have the opportunity to create new IP that is bold and tonally different from our prior work,” said Kota Furushima, Director at Game Freak. “From the beginning, Private Division was the publisher we wanted to work with on our new game. Their track record and global expertise give us all the confidence to create a sweeping new action-adventure game that we can’t wait to share more about in the future.”

Private Division comments:

“Over the past three decades, you’d be hard pressed to find a studio which has released more iconic hits than Game Freak,” said Michael Worosz, Chief Strategy Officer, Take-Two Interactive, and Head of Private Division. “We’re ready to help Game Freak unleash their potential and we’re honored to be the first Western publisher to work alongside this exceptionally talented and proven team to bring a bold new IP to market.”

Game Freak's prior original games, alongside platform and publisher:

(2012) HarmoKnight - 3DS | Nintendo
(2013) Pocket Card Jockey - 3DS | Nintendo
(2015) Tembo the Badass Elephant - PC, PS4, Xbox One | Sega
(2017) Giga Wrecker - PC | Rising Star Games
(2018) Giga Wrecker Alt - PS4, Xbox One, Switch | Rising Star Games
(2019) Little Town Hero - PC, Switch, PS4, Xbox One | Game Freak, NIS America
(2023) Pocket Card Jockey: Ride On - iOS, Android | Game Freak

Full press release here.

 

[fiendcode]

Giga Wrecker Alt also came to Switch, PS4 and Xbox One.

There's also Pocket Card Jockey (3DS, iOS, Android), Pocket Card Jockey: Ride On (Apple Arcade) and if you want to go back further Drill Dozer (GBA). Past that we'd have go to the 90s.

 

[jacsoncr]

I think the time has come for Nintendo studios to create pokemon games internally, if these people are going to spend the resources on other projects, Nintendo has a duty to take care of the IP, if the games come out weak now imagine in a new generation where need more staff for open world games.

As for project bloom, I wish them all the luck in the world.

 

[ILikeFeet]

I think the time has come for Nintendo studios to create pokemon games internally, if these people are going to spend the resources on other projects, Nintendo has a duty to take care of the IP, if the games come out weak now imagine in a new generation where need more staff for open world games.

As for project bloom, I wish them all the luck in the world.

they can't. GF owns a portion of the IP (as does Creatures)

this deal with Private Division seems to me like a way to get the money and staff needed to put out a multiplatform game. it's probably their UE5 game they were hiring for

 

[Remember_spinal]

Imagine if this game actually looks current gen and runs well and pokemon still looks like pokemon

 

[fiendcode]

Imagine if this game actually looks current gen and runs well and pokemon still looks like pokemon

It's still Game Freak, keep those expectations in check, lol.

 

[jacsoncr]

they can't. GF owns a portion of the IP (as does Creatures)

this deal with Private Division seems to me like a way to get the money and staff needed to put out a multiplatform game. it's probably their UE5 game they were hiring for

the pokemon ip must have the most confusing distribution of an intellectual property, but I tell you that the registration and the name of pokemon are from nintendo, that nintendo is a decent company and does not want to steal the ip is something else.

as for the money? gamefreak if he has something it's money

 

[mokuroh]

Wow! Excited to see how this project turns out!!

 

[ILikeFeet]

the pokemon ip must have the most confusing distribution of an intellectual property, but I tell you that the registration and the name of pokemon are from nintendo, that nintendo is a decent company and does not want to steal the ip is something else.

as for the money? gamefreak if he has something it's money

I don't think it's that confusing. when you follow the history, it makes a lot of sense. GF needed more money to finish the game, so they went to Ape (before they renamed themselves Creatures) and sold part of the rights. they then went to Nintendo and sold them the last third of the rights to get an international publisher

 

[jacsoncr]

I don't think it's that confusing. when you follow the history, it makes a lot of sense. GF needed more money to finish the game, so they went to Ape (before they renamed themselves Creatures) and sold part of the rights. they then went to Nintendo and sold them the last third of the rights to get an international publisher

I do not usually believe those fantasies that are repeated on the internet, the name pokemon belongs to nintendo, anyone who wants to continue talking about this topic can write me a private message, we are derailing the thread

 

[Flightlessfancies]

I do not usually believe those fantasies that are repeated on the internet, the name pokemon belongs to nintendo, anyone who wants to continue talking about this topic can write me a private message, we are derailing the thread

??? How do you bring up a topic and then bow out because your logic is incorrect? Owning a name means nothing. Natsume owns the name Harvest Moon and it's worthless without the original creators besides just causing a bunch of confusion to the uninformed every few years.

 

[Ishaan]

Let's not turn this thread into the usual cacophony of bickering. This an interesting development—one that obviously raises a lot of interesting questions. So let's start by going over some of the more obvious ones:

• Why did Game Freak specifically choose to partner with Private Division for this project?
• Who at Game Freak is qualified to direct a "sweeping new action-adventure game," which is a brand new genre for them?

• This is clearly not a side gig and is being talked up as something of a decently-budgeted (I hesitate to say "AAA" just yet) title.
• What does this mean for Pokemon, which by all accounts is presently constrained by staffing/scheduling issues?
• If Game Freak is expanding, how is that new expertise/talent being split across Pokemon and Project Bloom?

• Will the team for Project Bloom continue to operate out of the same building GF presently shares with EAD Tokyo, or will it require a new office?

Finally, given the partnership with Private Division, Nintendo was either not pitched this project at all, or wasn't interested in it. Which of the two do we think it was, and what (if anything) does it say that one of NCL's closest partners is doing this with an entirely different company?

Specifically, what does it say about Game Freak's internal goals, and how the studio and Nintendo see one another?

 

[Wockio]

There's no reason to believe the questionable state of the latest Pokemon launches is due to anything but an archaic development structure that prioritizes brand synchronization above releasing a polished product.

I'm mostly interested on whether this is targeting the next gen Nintendo system or PS5/Xbox only, and what they mean by "bold".

 

[yamada1231212]

the pokemon ip must have the most confusing distribution of an intellectual property, but I tell you that the registration and the name of pokemon are from nintendo, that nintendo is a decent company and does not want to steal the ip is something else.

as for the money? gamefreak if he has something it's money

The Pokémon Company is the current owner of the Pokémon IP. It is a joint venture between Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures. Nintendo owns 32% of The Pokémon Company, Game Freak owns 32%, and Creatures owns 23%.

 

[Wockio]

Who at Game Freak is qualified to direct a "sweeping new action-adventure game," which is a brand new genre for them?

Legends Arceus fans in shambles.

That Arceus final boss is actually a pretty damn good fight if you try to tackle it without bringing out your Pokemon. Perhaps the purpose of PLA wasn't to break the pattern of samey remakes as we had previously thought, but rather leverage the power of the Pokemon brand to experiment with real time action development within a project that is a guaranteed sales hit?

 

[brutaka3]

Finally, given the partnership with Private Division, Nintendo was either not pitched this project at all, or wasn't interested in it. Which of the two do we think it was, and what (if anything) does it say that one of NCL's closest partners is doing this with an entirely different company?

I don't think there's a mystery behind this. Going by most of their other projects, most are multiplatform, which is something Game Freak is clearly interested in. Pitching the game to Nintendo would automatically make it exclusive. Anyways, whatever of the options is, it means nothing to Nintendo. "Oh cool, they are making other game, but still we are getting our yearly Pokémon anyways".

 

[Khross]

I remember in the past when other GF multiplat games lead to some concern about how reliable GF is to Nintendo. "Trembo" didn't even release on Nintendo platforms at first, and "Home" was used as a example to disparage the Pokémon game of the time.

I would think such concern would be already put to rest as this is the 3rd time this happened.

These type of things are just things GF does, nothing really very significant to warrant a thread about it or you ask me.

 

[SquidEnthusiast]

Not that it's going to happen but I wonder just how much it would potentially cost Nintendo to buy Game Freak out of their share of Pokemon

 

[Ishaan]

Legends Arceus fans in shambles.

That Arceus final boss is actually a pretty damn good fight if you try to tackle it without bringing out your Pokemon. Perhaps the purpose of PLA wasn't to break the pattern of samey remakes as we had previously thought, but rather leverage the power of the Pokemon brand to experiment with real time action development within a project that is a guaranteed sales hit?

Arceus is one of my favourite Pokemon games! Ultimately, though, it's still a command-based monster-collecting RPG that relies on its Pokemon distribution to carry it. Project Bloom sounds...different. They don't refer to it as an RPG, so chances are it isn't going to be command-based. I also doubt it's a monster-taming/collecting game. So just those two things make it feel like a very different kind of project that would require expertise that doesn't necessarily translate over from GF's other work.

I remember in the past when other GF multiplat games lead to some concern about how reliable GF is to Nintendo.

I would think such concern would be already put to rest as this is the 3rd time this happened.

These type of things are just things GF does, nothing really very significant about it or you ask me.

I don't think this is as much about "reliability" as it is about the fact that a major studio with ties to Nintendo going back nearly 30 years is looking to grow and branch out, but Nintendo doesn't appear to be an active participant in the process beyond Pokemon. Just something interesting to think about, because it's a very different approach from SIE, who would be involving themselves at the ground level and actively funding/supporting the exploration of new tech and new projects. It does make you wonder just how GF and Nintendo view one another.

 

[Khross]

I don't think this is as much about "reliability" as it is about the fact that a major studio with ties to Nintendo going back nearly 30 years is looking to grow and branch out, but Nintendo doesn't appear to be an active participant in the process beyond Pokemon. Just something interesting to think about, because it's a very different approach from SIE, who would be involving themselves at the ground level and actively funding/supporting the exploration of new tech and new projects. It does make you wonder just how GF and Nintendo view one another.

They view each other as buisness partners in a Japanese sense? Does this need to be go over?

Nintendo has operated for years based on old timey Japanese trust between itself and it's partners.

SRD being one of the examples, where this company has worked with Nintendo for 40 years and is only brought when the founders decided to cash out (the buyout is likely more of a favour than anything).

Intelligent Systems is technically not owned by Nintendo despite being founded by Yokoi and used to be a internal dept at Nintendo, yet works in its offices but it's mobile policy (FEH) is divorced form the wider Nintendo mobile philosophy (where IS went in hard right from the start with gacha and fanservice as per a normal Japanese mobile game). The status of IS (this also applies to Creatures Inc) comes from the old 70s-80s Japanese practice of making a trusted employee lead a company of their own, both as a way of rewarding that employee with wealth and status, with the implicit understanding between both paryinrd that the ex-employee will manage their new company in the interest of the "boss" who elevated him (and it's almost always him because its Japan).

Even outside companies like Camelot and NDCube always get to develop the new Mario sports/party games, despite the fact that sales and reception of those series have their ups and downs. This type of implicit trust relationships is how Nintendo managed all its "un-owned" partners.

This applies even with their western "un-owned" partners, looking at how they go back to Rare for fixed IP (everything DK plus more) until it's founders wanted out, the same happened for Next Level (Luigi Mansion,Mario Strikers) until those founders wanted out too, and they also treated Mercury Stream the same way (everything 2D Metroid).

People outside Japan say Japanese companies act in a certain old-fashioned Japanese way where business relationships mostly built on relationship and trust than hard contracts, thought they do contracts nowadays after learning the hard way with Yamauchi bring too loose with contracts, to the point of not looking at what he is signing. Yet the legal apparatus is intended to be a nuclear option than a starting point of discussions for Nintendo. To Japanese companies in Japan ...they see Kyoto Companies are even more "old fashioned Japanese" than they are. Nintendo is a prime example.

With regards to GF specifically and Pokemon. Nintendo owns the entire trademark solely, and this makes them the strongest in terms of power relations if things go south (aka nuclear option), which it wouldn't because that isn't usually how Nintendo operates. If GF really cuts loose, they stop being the able to develop Pokemon games or even touch the IP, and most likely TPC will be dissolved given that Nintendo can withdraw all rights for TPC to do anything with Pokémon so GF and Creatures share means nothing. This also applies to Fire Emblem with Intelligent Systems, yet IS mostly charts the course of FE seperately from Nintendo at large...as if they owned the IP (which is often where alot of confusion comes from).

Are you just really making a thread to say that Sony manages it's own partner studios "better" than Nintendo? This is because words in your last post basically are pointing at this direction. Sounds like a unwarranted of concern to me. The "partner" studios of Sony are less "partners" and more directly-owned business units by Sony, and their employees are Sony employees. These studios are obliged to work only on Sony published projects, and in this aspect Nintendo's directly owned workforce/studios (EPD always, NLG now) and Sony's directly owned studios are the same (Guerilla, ND etc).

The "legal ownership" relationship between entities such as IS and GF with Nintendo is much less formal and to my knowledge don't even involve outright ownership. As such they are more like From, Mediavision and Crispy's for Sony in Japan during the PS1-PS3 era. How many of these folks are still working exclusively with Sony?

 

[Gotdatmoney]

If they want to work on other projects outside of pokemon that seems fine to me. If they want ti be multiplatform that also seems okay. The relationship between Nintendo and Game Freak is formed around Pokemon. That's all it has ever really been. So if Game Freak chooses to make something non pokemon I dont see the issue going for different platforms. Especially if the goal is to build technical excellence

 

[cw_sasuke]

These type of news would be much more welcoming if the launch state of their last games wouldn't have been so bad.

I get why the need and want to work on stuff outside of the mainline games but taking on extra missions and when you have trouble clearing the main game just isn't a good look to me.

 

[SinCityAssassin]

I don't think this is as much about "reliability" as it is about the fact that a major studio with ties to Nintendo going back nearly 30 years is looking to grow and branch out, but Nintendo doesn't appear to be an active participant in the process beyond Pokemon. Just something interesting to think about, because it's a very different approach from SIE, who would be involving themselves at the ground level and actively funding/supporting the exploration of new tech and new projects. It does make you wonder just how GF and Nintendo view one another.

It doesn't really. Game Freak has shown a number of times of wanting to branch out outside of Pokémon with a project they've done every few years without Nintendo's input. Like where were you.

 

[fiendcode]

Anyway, I love the key art. Giving me Shiren vibes.

 

[Lelouch0612]

Thread closed per OP's request

 

[Ishaan]

In an interview with ComicBook.com, Game Freak's COO addressed the pace of the studio's releases, and the idea of trying to find a balance between timeliness and quality.

The quote below is in response to ComicBook.com asking whether there was a specific schedule that Pokémon is beholden to when it comes to the release of new games.

“I think in general, if you look at the past, the path we’ve taken up until now has been this constant release, always regularly releasing products on a fairly fixed kind of a cadence, you might say. Always having these products able to be introduced and new experiences for our customers, and that’s how we’ve operated up until now. I think we’re still operating in that way, but there’s more and more conversations, as the development environments change, about how we can continue to do this, while making sure that we’re ensuring really quality products are also being introduced.”

Between this and their major new IP arriving in FY26, one has to imagine that there's going to be a concerted effort to try and address the quality/tech issues over the next couple of years. It should be interesting to see what the next set of Pokémon games from GF look like.

 

[Aleh]

Besides any extra effort on their part, just being able to iterate on SV on stronger hardware is gonna make a big difference compared to having to reinvent the wheel so many times like they did in the 3DS and Switch era.

 

[Aostia82]

Keeping the same schedule will again lead to the same-ish issues unless they expand significantly their man power imho

Even if their knowledge of HD development, of semi-open world and so on surely increased during this Switch generation

 

[Pikachupwnage]

Keeping the same schedule will again lead to the same-ish issues unless they expand significantly their man power imho

Even if their knowledge of HD development, of semi-open world and so on surely increased during this Switch generation

They need double staff(possibly shake up leadership as well) and to move to a 4 year cycle for the mainline games.

 

[Quinton]

Gotta admit, I was far from certain they'd ever even recognize it, let alone do anything about it. Glad to see this.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Gotta admit, I was far from certain they'd ever even recognize it, let alone do anything about it. Glad to see this.

Considering how they've seemingly had major problems 2 games in a row (I still believe they had major content issues in SS and the tech problems in SV), they recognized it because it was impacting their ability to make games. If they didn't then the next Pokemon would be a Cyberpunk issue all over again

 

[Koni]

Hot take, but I’ve felt like Game Freak’s already recognized this and have been working on it since Sword and Shield or arguably Let’s Go. It’s good to see that they’ll continue working on it, though I didn’t really have much doubt considering even after Sword and Shield’s success Game Freak proceeded to make the two most different Pokémon games in at least well over a decade.

Like others said, what they need to do is drastically increase their manpower and move to a 4 year cycle. We’ve had 4-year generations in the past, after all.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Hot take, but I’ve felt like Game Freak’s already recognized this and have been working on it since Sword and Shield or arguably Let’s Go. It’s good to see that they’ll continue working on it, though I didn’t really have much doubt considering even after Sword and Shield’s success Game Freak proceeded to make the two most different Pokémon games in at least well over a decade.

not even a hot take since the clues were always there, in some blog posts, hiring ads, etc. GF has been making moves to improve their pipeline, the problem, as I see it, is that the games' cadence makes them miss bigger updates. it's possible that the issues we saw in SV were already fixed in later engine versions but the game couldn't be updated

 

[Tokuiten]

while making sure that we’re ensuring really quality products are also being introduced.

You don't, already.

What we see here is the direct consequence of a bad product being successful: Gamefreaks makes their yearly "bad" Pokemon-game, it sells double-digit millions. Sure, they could move to a 4-year release cycle, but then this would happen: They make their every-4-years "good" Pokemon-game and ... it also sells in the same double-digit millions as before. With Pokemon, there is hardly any room for growth left, no significant number of people will ADDTIONAllY buy the game because it's higher quality (this is my assumption), so how do you explain to a company to go from selling, say 20 mio games per year to 20 millions games every 4 years, when the latter means only making 1/4 of the profit. You can't.

This is why it's so important not to reward "bad" (yes, I put it in quotation marks, because everyone will use different adjectives here, but nobody can in good faith say that recent Pokemon-games have been of great quality) games: So that developers put in the effort to change. The Zelda-team did so after Skyward Sword. Ubisoft did so when they realized they cannot go on with yearly Assassin's Creed. Call of Duty afaik has been thinking about multiplayer-only updates. And in general, we have an industry where making sequels keeps taking longer, see Tears of the Kingdom that went from a supposed 3-year development to 6 years, see franchises like Halo, Gears of War, GTA6, TES6 etc that take forever now. Gamefreak is an absolute outlier churning out their BIG game every year, but instead of significantly increasing their work force, they're stretching what they have thinner and thnner, resulting in Scarlet and Violett being the most bug-ridden Pokemon-game ever. At the current rate, the next entry might actually be broken for real. And maybe that's what is needed, because fans just won't stop buying the yearly low-efforts, thus giving Gamefreak no reason to slow down.


PS: None of the above is meant to evoke some "lazy dev" drivel; I'm criticizing Gamefreak's/TPC's management style and leadership greed. Quick-Edit: And the fans that keep buying >_>

 

[Mekanos]

They need double staff(possibly shake up leadership as well) and to move to a 4 year cycle for the mainline games.

It's very bizarre because there was a point in time where the games were on a 4 year cycle. RS/DP/BW were four years apart, but now that the games are more demanding they've shrunk the time between them.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Maybe they need to start looking into a Pikmin 4-type arrangement

*looks in Level 5's direction *

 

[Pein]

They just need longer generations and more time to actually develop things. I liked it better when there were 2 mainline games and 3rd version later on. Now they can do remakes and 2 generations per hardware cycle and theirs also legends floating around, plus random things like detective pikachu and let’s go.

They just gotta chill man.

 

[Aleh]

You don't, already.

What we see here is the direct consequence of a bad product being successful: Gamefreaks makes their yearly "bad" Pokemon-game, it sells double-digit millions. Sure, they could move to a 4-year release cycle, but then this would happen: They make their every-4-years "good" Pokemon-game and ... it also sells in the same double-digit millions as before. With Pokemon, there is hardly any room for growth left, no significant number of people will ADDTIONAllY buy the game because it's higher quality (this is my assumption), so how do you explain to a company to go from selling, say 20 mio games per year to 20 millions games every 4 years, when the latter means only making 1/4 of the profit. You can't.

This is why it's so important not to reward "bad" (yes, I put it in quotation marks, because everyone will use different adjectives here, but nobody can in good faith say that recent Pokemon-games have been of great quality) games: So that developers put in the effort to change. The Zelda-team did so after Skyward Sword. Ubisoft did so when they realized they cannot go on with yearly Assassin's Creed. Call of Duty afaik has been thinking about multiplayer-only updates. And in general, we have an industry where making sequels keeps taking longer, see Tears of the Kingdom that went from a supposed 3-year development to 6 years, see franchises like Halo, Gears of War, GTA6, TES6 etc that take forever now. Gamefreak is an absolute outlier churning out their BIG game every year, but instead of significantly increasing their work force, they're stretching what they have thinner and thnner, resulting in Scarlet and Violett being the most bug-ridden Pokemon-game ever. At the current rate, the next entry might actually be broken for real. And maybe that's what is needed, because fans just won't stop buying the yearly low-efforts, thus giving Gamefreak no reason to slow down.


PS: None of the above is meant to evoke some "lazy dev" drivel; I'm criticizing Gamefreak's/TPC's management style and leadership greed. Quick-Edit: And the fans that keep buying >_>

SV massively outselling SWSH at launch proves that there is room to grow and that better games sell more. They had no reason to improve after SWSH became the second best selling game according to you, but they still did.

 

[Astrogamer]

SV massively outselling SWSH at launch proves that there is room to grow and that better games sell more. They had no reason to improve after SWSH became the second best selling game according to you, but they still did.

That's not quite what he's saying. The argument is that if Game Freak skipped Legends Arceus and put more of their effort into SV so it would be shinier and run smoother, that's not going to increase SV's sales by the 10+ million to offset not having Legends Arceus. The thing that pushed SV over SwSh is the change in mechanics and the open world structure. If in the case where they released SV this year instead of last, the sales would be only a couple million better, not the millions they would be missing out on theoretically by not having an active Pokemon game.

 

[Scoop]

Don't get why they feel need to release so many games. Just a money grab I guess.

The only RPG Pokemon game this gen that I thought was of proper quality were the Lets Go Pikachu/Eevee games.

Arceus had good gameplay but was ugly as sin.

I would have bought more Pokemon games if they were of better technical quality. I am very interested in Scarlet and Violet, but it doesn't seem like it runs well enough. At this point I'm just hoping for a next gen version that irons out the problems.

They would have gotten more money out of me if their games ran better.

 

[BoktaiFan]

I think what gets overlooked somewhat on the pace of the games is that it helps keep the IP in the public consciousnesses and helps with cross promotion of the other products.

For example Arceus/BDSP let them do more Sinnoh merch, card sets with new mon/mechanics, marketing, etc. Now I know some will say "But its pokemon. Everyone knows pokemon already!" And that is true to an extent, but there is a reason that Coke, McDonalds, Walmart, etc still advertise. You need to keep up engagement to stay relevant without feeling stale and big releases help pokemon do that. I'm all for quality games too don't misunderstand, but there is an opportunity cost to slowing down releases as well.

 

[Tokuiten]

SV massively outselling SWSH at launch proves that there is room to grow and that better games sell more. They had no reason to improve after SWSH became the second best selling game according to you, but they still did.

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.

 

[ILikeFeet]

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.

there are signs of change already that don't incorporate either of those two factors. the fact they even acknowledge this in the ComicBook interview shows as much, as does the build up of their R&D department and whatnot. we just have to wait until we see anything come of it, but their tools breaking would be a good enough reason for them to move on their own

 

[AruanaRiva]

I think people are taking it a bit too far to said that GF don't care about the product they put out. If they really don't care much in improving their stuff.

They are not going to do Arceus and S/V after Sw/Sh. They are not going to move to more to 3D after DS era success, etc etc.

From what many that has dive into S/V, many has complained regarding how bad the performance and gfx for the game sure. But many also has praised how great the game is and seen as far bigger return to form of great pokemon game vs Sw/Sh or even 3DS era Pokemon game. it is just the really bad performance hurt its potential to become one of the best pokemon game.

The problem with GF is simple. It is their lack of time given for them to bake their product and of course, while this is speculative. GF is being more protective toward Pokemon and dont really allow much outside devs to help build their franchise.

First thing, they can do is maybe make new gen of pokemon game every 4 years rather than 3. 5 years is simply too long and it can hurt the franchise growth.

So they can have schedule like:
1. spin off/down year
2. Legends or Sequel like BW2
3. Remakes or Lets Go line
4. Brand new generation.

This way, they can satisfy the other merchandising line as well with yearly content. And not risk the franchise to lost some of its popularity there.

 

[Richter Belmont]

Besides graphics the spin offs titles on the switch are great games. I enjoyed Arceus and Let's go Pikachu and I do feel like scarlet and violet was rushed to get it out as soon as possible before the next console and making use of the big switch user base but that's just a guess

Also don't forget how creative they are with new ideas with the spin offs.
Every new console we getting totally new games of Pokémon if it really was a money grab than other franchises are worse. They take a risk with new spin offs like Arceus or Lets go pikachu a total new concept not knowing how gamers will react.

But I understand what people are saying about performance and I totally agree.

 

[AruanaRiva]

Besides graphics the spin offs titles on the switch are great games. I enjoyed Arceus and Let's go Pikachu and I do feel like scarlet and violet was rushed to get it out as soon as possible before the next console and making use of the big switch user base but that's just a guess

Also don't forget how creative they are with new ideas with the spin offs.
Every new console we getting totally new games of Pokémon if it really was a money grab than other franchises are worse. They take a risk with new spin offs like Arceus or Lets go pikachu a total new concept not knowing how gamers will react.

But I understand what people are saying about performance and I totally agree.

I think the lack of more spin off is kinda hurting them as well.

If pokemon can have more spin off like Snap, lets say.

more mystery dungeon
more conquest
more Pokken

will be a good start.

Pokemon Unite and Master EX has been great in maintaining pokemon presence on mobile there as both game still keep being supported and has its own strong fanbase.

But considering we are getting lesser pokemon spin off, thats what lead to pokemon sometimes getting more heat when they have big mess like S/V performance

 

[Koni]

I think people are taking it a bit too far to said that GF don't care about the product they put out. If they really don't care much in improving their stuff.

They are not going to do Arceus and S/V after Sw/Sh. They are not going to move to more to 3D after DS era success, etc etc.

From what many that has dive into S/V, many has complained regarding how bad the performance and gfx for the game sure. But many also has praised how great the game is and seen as far bigger return to form of great pokemon game vs Sw/Sh or even 3DS era Pokemon game. it is just the really bad performance hurt its potential to become one of the best pokemon game.

The problem with GF is simple. It is their lack of time given for them to bake their product and of course, while this is speculative. GF is being more protective toward Pokemon and dont really allow much outside devs to help build their franchise.

First thing, they can do is maybe make new gen of pokemon game every 4 years rather than 3. 5 years is simply too long and it can hurt the franchise growth.

So they can have schedule like:
1. spin off/down year
2. Legends or Sequel like BW2
3. Remakes or Lets Go line
4. Brand new generation.

This way, they can satisfy the other merchandising line as well with yearly content. And not risk the franchise to lost some of its popularity there.

This.

Now, most of what I'm about to say is speculation, but:

The difference between most Nintendo properties and Pokemon is that most Nintendo properties aren't the juggernaut media franchise that has grossed more revenue than literally any other franchise of it's kind that Pokemon is. The vast majority of said revenue comes not from the games but from the licensed merchandise, and all of that just doesn't come out of nowhere. A new generation most likely takes years of planning, and probably involves a bunch of different companies who partially rely on the Pokemon brand to keep operating. As such, Pokemon games, unlike most Nintendo games, can't really get delayed: there's simply way too many cogs in the multimedia and merchandising machine. If Gen 9 was set for 2022, then by god Gen 9 is coming out in 2022 even if I personally preferred waiting an extra year.

If there was any course correction to be made, it would be in planning future games out. And cause Pokemon is a multimedia kids franchise, you realistically can't wait too long between brand new entries. New generations should be 4 years apart going forward. So with Pokemon the franchise placing heavy restrictions on time, the viable option for Pokemon is to load up on manpower, preferably more experienced. This is what Activision's been doing to feed their annualized Call of Duty machine - CoD has at least 2 or 3 different studios (all of which have more listed employees than Game Freak) working on new series entries, and ActiBlizz rotates between them when it comes to new games every year.

 

[Richter Belmont]

That's not quite what he's saying. The argument is that if Game Freak skipped Legends Arceus and put more of their effort into SV so it would be shinier and run smoother, that's not going to increase SV's sales by the 10+ million to offset not having Legends Arceus. The thing that pushed SV over SwSh is the change in mechanics and the open world structure. If in the case where they released SV this year instead of last, the sales would be only a couple million better, not the millions they would be missing out on theoretically by not having an active Pokemon game.

You're right it would not change the sales but having 2 games in a row with bad performance Arceus and Scarlet and Violet does hurt your reputation and if they pull this off another time on next console I see them getting a bad reputation which is too bad because Pokémon mainline games always had a great quality. One thing is for sure next Pokémon mainline game will be under a magnifying glass looking at performance and with social media these days spreading news fast it would be known by everyone in no time before they reach the release date.

 

[Tokuiten]

I think people are taking it a bit too far to said that GF don't care about the product they put out. If they really don't care much in improving their stuff.

They are not going to do Arceus and S/V after Sw/Sh. They are not going to move to more to 3D after DS era success, etc etc.

From what many that has dive into S/V, many has complained regarding how bad the performance and gfx for the game sure. But many also has praised how great the game is and seen as far bigger return to form of great pokemon game vs Sw/Sh or even 3DS era Pokemon game. it is just the really bad performance hurt its potential to become one of the best pokemon game.

The problem with GF is simple. It is their lack of time given for them to bake their product and of course, while this is speculative. GF is being more protective toward Pokemon and dont really allow much outside devs to help build their franchise.

First thing, they can do is maybe make new gen of pokemon game every 4 years rather than 3. 5 years is simply too long and it can hurt the franchise growth.

So they can have schedule like:
1. spin off/down year
2. Legends or Sequel like BW2
3. Remakes or Lets Go line
4. Brand new generation.

This way, they can satisfy the other merchandising line as well with yearly content. And not risk the franchise to lost some of its popularity there.

Besides graphics the spin offs titles on the switch are great games. I enjoyed Arceus and Let's go Pikachu and I do feel like scarlet and violet was rushed to get it out as soon as possible before the next console and making use of the big switch user base but that's just a guess

Also don't forget how creative they are with new ideas with the spin offs.
Every new console we getting totally new games of Pokémon if it really was a money grab than other franchises are worse. They take a risk with new spin offs like Arceus or Lets go pikachu a total new concept not knowing how gamers will react.

But I understand what people are saying about performance and I totally agree.

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.

 

[Richter Belmont]

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.

If im looking at your perspective you're right that we should not praise gamefreak about the performance on last 2 years
Legends Arceus
Scarlet & Violet
Diamond and Pearl lazy remake

I wanna give Legends Arceus still some praise because of the gameplay besides being here talking about game sales I also play games and Legend Arceus has give me so much joy in playing the game which I haven't felt for many years in the end Gameplay > Graphics for me but that doesn't change the fact that you're right on the performance which could have been better.

But before this Gamefreak has been releasing games with good guality Let's go Pikachu and Pokemon Snap looked great imo and I did not had any problems with Sword and Shield. Besides that they get praise from me for trying something new with their spin offs instead of most franchises it's the same kind of game just put a 2, 3 or 4 behind it and it got new levels and better graphics. I said this before in a post that Gamefreak is under a magnifying glass right now and if the perfomance will be bad again on the next Nintendo console I do expect they have damaged their image so much that it will hurt their sales