Hey, Yokai Watch, how did being the next Pokemon killer work out for ya?... Yokai Watch? Yokai Watch, hello...
... oh.
I was referring to online support, communication and general customer service: of all of the above, GF and Pokemon are an egregious example of how not to do it. And the landscape was completely different, as you probably know better than me.
Let me be clear: TemTem is nothing revolutionary nor God of War, but they're very good at communicating with the playerbase. But hey, let's keep ditching every potential competitor as an afterthought and keep justifying everything, that's how we ended here.
While I know there's many who are saying they shouldn't be charging that much (and I'll accept I was, and a bit still am, part of that group), also note no one would be saying that if they made the service feel like it's worth it. Would it have broke the bank for them to port the Dream World (and note I'm using the Dream World as it's the easiest example I can think of, while I liked the Dream World it wasn't the most impressive thing but it was an online feature which had a lot of value to it... and it was FREE)? If you're going to charge us 16 bucks a year, give us something that's worth 16 bucks. Because, guess what, if you did that not only would there be way less criticism but also you wouldn't have to hold everyone's older Pokemon hostage.
Usual disclaimer: I'm sure the games are fun as hell.
Actual answer: why should they care? It's like part of the most aware playerbase has Stockholm Syndrome's to GF: whatever they put forward, I may complain, but I will accept and buy regardless which is,
rightfully so, the only thing they care about.
Sales are impressive (more on that later) and I doubt that the population I belong to ("I'm not buying the game but still participating in the active discussion and keep an open mind about it") is approximately anything more than 0.01% of the prospect clients.
I'm not pulling 0.01% out of thin air: they already sold 16 million copies and, if we count those as 16 million players (I know it's less, but the released data I'm basing my analysis on does not provide the specifics), I highly doubt that people that decided against buying are hardly more than 16000 (which is exactly 0.01%): of the vocal complaining minority, anecdotal evidence if you will, I've seen an awful lot of "well, I still gave it a try". Even if they were more than 0.01%, the likelihood of finally giving in is high. And I am confident that people actively only purchasing used copies to avoid giving their money directly to GF are but a literal handful.
Now, I don't have the most important piece of information to judge sales impact (like expected sales, contribution margin and increase in per unit development cost compared to previous entries), but just to put it into perspective of how little it means to them:
16'000 people (0,01%) not buying * 60 USD pricetag = 960'000 USD
Total sales: 16.06 million units* 60 USD pricetag = 963'600'000 USD
It would be so minuscule that even if the game margins only 10 USD a copy due to extra development, marketing and consolle porting costs (which they don't, trust me), the 20 USD increased pricetag
alone would cover for the lost sales within the first 96'000 units, or 5.76 million USD if you prefer. It's a literal drop in the ocean and I'm sure they accounted for such a minuscule backlash and were pretty safe.
All of the above was really, really rudimentary, but it's just to give an idea. Their financial structure is actually pretty remarkable.
Question, do they count the combination package as two separate games? Cause I think a lot of people might have gotten that deal this time around and if you count that as one sell I think that number might be lower.
From both statements I've seen I cannot dissect data between Sword, Shield and dual game package - but it's still two units/software produced, so it is irrelevant to the count, I guess.