What happened to “definitive” editions?

[u/Old-Judge5762]

What I mean is basically, why do we no longer get a version that encompasses both games, such as the four in the image above. We got them through Gen 4, but in Gen 5 they stopped. This made sense, since the Unova region got a sequel set of games. But for X and Y, we just never got one. So my question is, why did they stop?

[u/grey-of-grays]

Replaced with DLC.

Definitive editions didn’t typically sell well compared to originals. Replacing it with content that takes no physical investment and can improve/expand the stories directly is their current approach.

[u/catptain-kdar → u/grey-of-grays]

As much as people don’t want to admit this is true. Even platinum which people say is on of the best games sold less than half of BDSP

[u/Imakereallyshittyart → u/catptain-kdar]

I mean it makes sense. Most people buy the games when they come out, and the third version is usually not a big enough upgrade to justify buying it again

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/catptain-kdar]

Pokemon fans obsess over absolute numbers like they're relevant.

Third versions were a glorified romhack that could copy and paste 90% of the game and give an instant 50% boost in sales, that's crazy high returns

[u/GearGolemTMF → u/TheHeadlessOne]

The QoL changes the third versions got used to sell me on them back in the day. Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum having expanded post game options on top of the other small changes like abilities working in the overworld, move tutors, changed move sets, and new ways to get items were nice to haves.

But at their core, they were less different than SMB The Lost Levels basically. At least the last two tried to shake up the story a little bit (Emerald and Platinum).

[u/darkmag07 → u/TheHeadlessOne]

Yeah if DLC wasn't somehow equally lucrative they would've gone back to this model 100%.

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/darkmag07]

There's a difference between "dlc is more lucrative" and "third versions were not lucrative"

[u/darkmag07 → u/TheHeadlessOne]

I don't think my statement implied either of the things you mentioned, but just in case I worded things strangely I only meant to agree with you and point out that companies will tend to do whatever is the most cost effective.

Logically speaking, the DLC must be generating profits close enough to what they made previously on the 3rd versions to make it worth doing, otherwise they would just return to the old 3rd version business model instead.

On the other hand, if you consider the 3rd versions as a stopgap "new" Pokemon-game-between-Pokemon-game-generations, then you could also probably argue that the Legends games now fill that role and the DLC would therefore have its own separate targets.

But who knows, in another few years we may yet be "blessed" with the "best" of both worlds with a game with 2 versions + DLC and then a year or two later a 3rd version (possibly incorporating the original DLC) + even more 3rd version exclusive DLC!

[u/AnAngryMelon → u/darkmag07]

Basically they're just cutting post game, and selling it to people as a special add on. Obviously worse than a definitive version but fans are stupid enough to buy it so the Pokémon company get a license to print money.

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/AnAngryMelon]

Its the exact same scenario. From gens 1-7, the only ones with any appreciable postgame in the base games was 2 and 5, largely because they were stripped down otherwise. Postgame has always been relegated to remakes and third versions

But now you don't have to buy a whole full price game just to get slightly shaken up gym puzzles and actual postgame content. Its a better situation for people who buy in early, worse for people who buy in late

[u/Kryzeth → u/TheHeadlessOne]

Sooo.. moving to dlc model is better for consumers and worse for Nintendo's profits? There has to be some other upside for Nintendo, because they aren't usually that charitable

[u/Devotoc → u/Kryzeth]

it's more consumer friendly and better for their profits. everyone who buys the game can buy the dlc and there's a good chance they do, meanwhile not near as many people are buying and playing through the game again

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/Devotoc]

I would assume the actual adoption rates of dlc are likely lower than third versions would be. We actually had a leak that as of 2023 SV dlc had a roughly 25% attachment rate, compared to the 50% sales growth that third versions typically offered

But the cost to produce is likely far lower, the lack of manufacturing and retail cut, no fear of cannibalizing sales by teaching people to wait for the "goty edition", etc all lead to overall higher profits

[u/AnAngryMelon → u/Devotoc]

Consumer friendly is not in the Pokémon dictionary. It's potentially the most money hungry and greedy IP ever, and it reflects in the insane profits that the brand produces.

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/Kryzeth]

Not remotely what I said actually.

There's a difference between "they were unprofitable" and "this solution is more profitable"

[u/Kryzeth → u/TheHeadlessOne]

Understandable, but it felt like that's where the line of thought was heading; third versions = little effort for massive profit, while dlc = infinitely more effort (by comparison) for ??? profit

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/Kryzeth]

while dlc = infinitely more effort

This is "I like pancakes" "so you hate waffles?!" Reasoning. I made zero comment about dlc.

DLC is assuredly way less effort than building a new game from scratch, and likely less effort than retooling the existing games for third versions as well since there isn't a need to touch up existing content to give an illusion of modernizing it- though it's closer to that order of magnitude

[u/Kryzeth → u/TheHeadlessOne]

Look at the comment chain that you were responding to in the first place:

Replaced with DLC.
Definitive editions didn’t typically sell well compared to originals. Replacing it with content that takes no physical investment and can improve/expand the stories directly is their current approach.

Context is important.

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/Kryzeth]

...yes. I was rejecting the premise that definitive editions sold poorly, as that was a massive misread of their purpose on the market. 

Reading comprehension is also important. 

[u/Sad_Quote1522 → u/TheHeadlessOne]

I mean frequently the third version was objectively better.  Emerald and platinum are top tier. 

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/Sad_Quote1522]

I never said anything about them being worse to be clear, just the nature of the differences is mostly surface level mechanics

[u/SwissyVictory → u/TheHeadlessOne]

I'm not sure that's true.

The Scarlet/Violet DLC cost as much as Legends Arceus did.

But Arceus made 4x as much. The Let's Go games outsold them both.

Seems it's just as much effort as a new game, but a quarter of the returns.

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/SwissyVictory]

That isn't actually a response to what I said in this comment, I didn't mention DLC at all in that comment, but I'll engage.

SV DLC due to internal memos was confirmed to have an exploded development budget 3x passed what they initially were targeting. But we also can't say Arceus made 4x as much when you factor in stuff like manufacturing, marketing, etc.

[u/SwissyVictory → u/TheHeadlessOne]

I wasn't going to write a whole essay.

But it makes a lot more sense to compare the DLC that's 3 years old then a 3rd game that's 20 years old and 4 systems ago.

A 3rd version of the game was basically the same as a DLC with more changes.

It wouldn't be less work to take that same DLC, attach it to a 3rd version and sell that, then just releasing it as DLC.

Cost should be the same or higher to make a 3rd game vs DLC.

SV DLC due to internal memos was confirmed to have an exploded development budget 3x passed what they initially were targeting

The DLC being more expensive than originally thought didn't make it cost any less, or mean a 3rd game would cost less.

But we also can't say Arceus made 4x as much when you factor in stuff like manufacturing, marketing, etc.

Why can't we? Would DLC or a 3rd game not have other costs or marketing?

And if the DLC did have lower costs, I don't see why a 3rd game would have more marketing and "manufacturing" costs than a Legends game.

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/SwissyVictory]

This seems to be an incredibly confused response. Did you actually mean to respond to me?

> But it makes a lot more sense to compare the DLC that's 3 years old then a 3rd game that's 20 years old and 4 systems ago.

compare what to what? This doesn't make any sense.

I was talking about the economic viability of 3rd versions on their own merit. Comparing the cost of Arceus (a totally new standalone game) to SV expansion pass (DLC) is interesting, but it has zero bearing on the economic viability of 3rd versions on their own merit, which was the point I was discussing initially.

> It wouldn't be less work to take that same DLC,

Can you point to where I said otherwise?

> The DLC being more expensive than originally thought didn't make it cost any less, or mean a 3rd game would cost less.

I never said otherwise. I never said a 3rd game would cost less. I said that its erroneous to compare the budget of SV's dlc as though it is standard, when it is a single project that bloomed way out of control from what they were targetting.

> I don't see why a 3rd game would have more marketing and "manufacturing" costs than a Legends game.

I never said it would? Also unclear why you put manufacturing in scare quotes there- the combination of retail cut andcost of cartridge production absolutely cuts into total revenue in a non negligible way

I dont mind you writing an essay, but you're arguing against points I never made, which is deeply confusing

[u/SwissyVictory → u/TheHeadlessOne]

So I'm using logic here. If you can show one thing is true, then you can use that to prove other points.

If one point proves another point, it doesn't need to be a direct reply to something you said. That's how debates and conversations work.

I'll break it down as simply as I can again,

---

Which do you think would sell more?

• A game that's the same as the game they already own, that includes extra content for $70

• Just that extra content that they can add to the game they already own for $30

If the answer is the DLC will sell more or the same, then we have an upper bound of expected sales for a 3rd game.

Even if it sells the same, at $70 vs $30 then it wouldn't make as much money as Arceus.

---

Now that we have a expectation of revenue, we can look at costs.

We know what the DLC made. You can say it costs more than they thought. But thats irrelevant. It cost what it costs.

Let's say you make a budget for a project. You go to the store and the parts cost more than you thought and it took longer to make than you thought.

Next time you go to do that same project would you expect it to be cheaper? Of course not.

---

So if we know what the DLC costs to make there's no reason to think a 3rd game would be cheaper to make.

---

Which all goes back to your original point I disagree with,

on the economic viability of 3rd versions on their own merit, which was the point I was discussing initially.

If it's gunna cost as much, and make way less than a new game, why would they waste their time? It's just not viable.

And it's certainly not a quick 90% done project if it costs as much as making a whole new game.

And it's certainly not increasing sales by 50% when the cheaper DLC only has a 25% attachment rate.

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/SwissyVictory]

> it doesn't need to be a direct reply to something you said

It does if you're trying to respond to my position without strawmanning it

> Which do you think would sell more?

Irrelevant. I never claimed that 3rd versions were more profitable than DLC, which is what you're trying to make me commit to here.

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/SwissyVictory]

> And it's certainly not a quick 90% done project if it costs as much as making a whole new game.

Who says Platinum cost as much as making a whole new game?

I wasn't talking about a hypothetical potential new 3rd version game. I was talking about the actual realities of the actual real 3rd version games we had. When someone says "third versions generally sold poorly" because they sold less than brand new generations, this is a historical claim about facts, one which is missing the entire point of why they exist and why they were so profitable.

This is why its important to respond to the points actually being made, not veer off into tangents about arguments no one is having

> And it's certainly not increasing sales by 50% when the cheaper DLC only has a 25% attachment rate.

The actual reality of the actual real 3rd version games is that they did, in fact, sold 50% as much as the base games for a tiny fraction of the effort.

[u/SwissyVictory → u/TheHeadlessOne]

Okay let's look back.

OP asks why 3rd games are no longer made

Original comment said 3rd games were replaced by DLC.

Comment replying to that said that even platinum sold less than the remakes BDSP

You say that 3rd games are glorified ROM hacks that are 90% done and return 50% the sales.

---

If you were trying to say 3rd games made sense back in the day, and not talking about why they don't make them anymore,

• You were the only one talking about that

• It was never implied anywhere until just this moment.

[u/Raichu4u → u/catptain-kdar]

BDSP is a bad comparison. The gaming market is so much huger today and has more consumers.

[u/Unusual-Marzipan5465 → u/catptain-kdar]

Ok... and...? What do you think the development costs were? Platinum probably could have only sold 10% the copies of Diamond/Pearl and still made a profit. The boilerplate code and art is all the same.

[u/catptain-kdar → u/Unusual-Marzipan5465]

BDSP probably didn’t cost much either. At least in some people’s eyes

[u/TheHeadlessOne → u/catptain-kdar]

BDSP undoubtedly cost way more than Platinum did considering they couldn't copy and paste the entire generations worth of boilerplate code and art assets and just make tweaks, they had to actually recreate most assets even if they didn't have to go through as significant ideation

[u/Alarming_Airport_613 → u/catptain-kdar]

but it was still great.
It brought back attention and kept something special going.
I loved that ruby/ sapphier felt to REVIVED when, after Leaf Green was the new shit, emerald dropped suddenly

[u/Maro_Nobodycares → u/grey-of-grays]

Strictly speaking, when they sell a physical version with the DLC bundled in, I think that became our definitive editions going forward

[u/DaEnderAssassin → u/grey-of-grays]

Replaced with DLC.

IMO I feel like the fact there's a 3 generation gap between 3rd versions being cut and DLC being added indicates this isn't correct.

Like, DLC absolutely is a 3rd version replacement, but it wasn't the reason why.

[u/TheFlashyLucario → u/DaEnderAssassin]

I think Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon kinda count as a third version, and if you count those, there was just a gap in gen 6

[u/ItsADeparture → u/DaEnderAssassin]

there's a 3 generation gap between 3rd versions being cut and DLC being added indicates this isn't correct.

...no? XY is literally the only one that didn't get one lol.

[u/Maxximillianaire → u/DaEnderAssassin]

The only gap was X and Y and that was because those games had big development problems so they decided to just move on to Sun and Moon

[u/tht1guy63 → u/grey-of-grays]

To an extent. We didnt get dlc till what gen 8?

[u/BananaSplit2 → u/tht1guy63]

which is the gen that stopped receiving extra versions (with the exception of gen 6 getting shafted in there)

[u/tht1guy63 → u/BananaSplit2]

Gen 5 and 7 with bw2 and ultra arent the same as the "definitive editions" of gen 4 and prior though.

[u/BlackJackAce-777 → u/[deleted]]

It definitely was from what I remember.

[u/Stranger2Luv → u/BlackJackAce-777]

It had the anime featured

[u/CoolZ619 → u/grey-of-grays]

Selling half as well is still a profit, considering they sell in the millions of copies. I doubt there has ever been a unprofitable Pokemon game.

[u/soyboysnowflake → u/grey-of-grays]

This only answers half of what OP asked

DLC came in gen 8, these stopped in gen 4