I mean they could've just raised the price of Bank in that scenario lol.
Just like there was no reason to remove the GTS and add it to Home?
I do. I don't think my phone can handle that app.
Man, you guys are optimistic. On this trajectory, I wouldn't be surprised to see lootboxes in Pokemon by the end of Gen 10.
I mean there are multiple potential reasons
This is such a strange way of defending this decision. There are multiple free to play games on Switch. No one forced GF to use NSO for GTS.
On the PS4 all games use PS+ unless they are certain f2p games or an MMO like FFXIV and the same is probably true with NSO.
I wish people would stop making assumptions about the actual running costs of these applications. I work for a small tech company, we don't have even 1% of the amount of traffic and storage that Home will require, and we pay upwards of $300/month for an AWS instance. They're not investing $750/year on this, this is a joke.
But everything else in the game is locked behind NSO? So that doesn't make sense. Battling & trading.
Developmental factors could have forced it. We don't know. People assume. People think they just did it because they could.
Yes, and that could be part of why it has been shifted out of the game?
Serebii is a very basic site in the frontend but has a lot of visitors. It costs me a crapload to maintain the servers. That's just data transfer.
It doesn't have it because it incentives people to use the app, where they can better push them to get the paid plan. If you can do everything on the system you can largely ignore the app for a number of uses cases. This way they have people in there, which gets them curious, and increases the likelihood of them getting a sub
I don't really see how the mobile version would make people more likely to sub than the Switch version. Right now I would say the Switch version would be the one more likely to push subs because of the transferring and If they had the same features it would probably be equal.
Games are allowed to have asynchronous online features not locked behind PS+.
They have stated that they wanted Pokemon to fit the theme of the region in one interview. Then they said they couldn't maintain such a large amount due to balance, wanting to focus on higher fidelity animations, etc with no plans of adding back Pokemon. But now under a different director, they're tossing in 400 Pokemon, most from what we see are Ubers, along with Pokemon that clearly don't fit the theme of the region of Galar. Seems like to me it's Masuda and Ohmori that didn't want a lot of Pokemon to transferable/catchable.
Just Stop. This is the same lame excuse people used for the Nintendo Online App
For someone that doesnt care, why are you defending it so much?
Dropbox is free for single users, with 2GB of storage each. Nothing announced in Home is specifically different from Dropbox's share/move files features. Dropbox has something like 500+ million active users.
I'm curious as to whether GTS would be considered an asynchronous feature assuming NSO allows that for free as well.
Dropbox uses the same model as Home and I don't think they've done the best financially, so that's kinda a weird example lol.
Right?
GTS is asynchronous. Whether Gamefreak would set it up to not be behind NO is another question. They allow mystery gifts and wild news to be recieved without a sub. So it's an option.
Oh my god wow, this is exactly what I meant with my previous post. Instead of preferring a better solution that'd improve everyone's experiences, some just choose to stand behind every decision whether good or bad and there's no point arguing anymore when people reach that point.
And there it is, there's no excuse then but it was completely expected.
I mean there's different functionality than just storage that cost.
Well I see you're twisting the facts to suit a narrative.
It's really easy to just claim stuff based on vague similarities, isn't it? What is your argument to make such claim? That both store and transfer data? There is always a lot more to a web service than just what we perceive.
I think it's more that things some people see as things that need to change aren't issues to them in addition to some other business stuff we don't have actual info on.
Their stock is actually struggling because, like Steve Jobs famously said of Dropbox, data storage and sharing is a feature that you include in your base product, not a product you sell separately.
Sure, and Dropbox still manages to provide all those same functionalities free of charge for most of their users. And they don't even have the financial backing of the World's Biggest Media Franchise to subsidize the endeavor
It's not "vague similarities." It's the same literal functionality as Dropbox--upload "files" (Pokemon) to a cloud server, store them, "share" (trade) with others. Except, not as good, because Dropbox syncs with the cloud version automatically and doesn't require you to manually upload a file from your PC to the cloud then go to the app on your phone to share the file with someone else, then go back to your PC to manually download the file to use.
Nothing is as simple as you think it is. Just because the outcome of "sharing" on Dropbox kind of sounds like a trade in a Pokémon game or app (it really doesn't, but whatever) it doesn't mean that the back-end work being done is similar at all. What you see on the screen is a very small part of what's actually happening on the server.
They're still free.
They chose not to directly charge you because in their TOS you agree that they can sell your data. They're still making money, you're just paying for it in a different way.
