Sales differences between dual Pokemon games (R/B, G/S, R/S, D/P)

[Linkachu]

This might be a pointless thread, but GM sparked the question. If I'm not mistaken, in every generation of the games one version seems to outsell the other by a notable amount. Logically speaking, this isn't that surprising because we expect such a thing to happen, but there must be specific factors behind it too, eh?

We've had topics before related to what makes a person buy one version over another, but I want to look at it this time from a mass-related point of view verses a personal one. Why do you think such a gap exists between game sales? Is it simply that the Pokemon displayed on the box art is more appealing? (exm. I know I like Dialga MUCH more than Palkia, but is that the general consensus of the fandom?) Is it the colors? Or are most people still basing their purchases off the version exclusives?

The latter I question because a large majority of Pokemon sales aren't directly related to the people playing - parents buy them for them. I've seen some parents go into a store, see "Pokemon" on GBA/DS/etc., and just buy whatever version stands out to them more. Would this be a significant detail concerning mass sales, though? Obviously some parents buying the games have actually been told which version to buy.

So, what are some insights into it from you guys? And if someone could post the total sales for each version of the games up until now it'd be appreciated.

 

[RLRL]

I can't say sales figures personally, but I know for a fact Diamond outsold Pearl by shedloads in the UK, for whats essentially the same game just with a couple of version exclusives, Diamond kept a very controlling position in the games charts, whereas Pearl slipped lower and lower. When I worked in a Zavvi over christmas Diamond was at number 13 in the chart, and Pearl was 29.

I would wager that groudon and kyogre were huge defining factors in R/S sales, I know so many people that preferred Groudon and bought Ruby because of that fact.

Personally I've only ever been influenced by the version exclusives and what my friends are getting. There was no doubt i'd be buying Diamond when I was in Japan, purely because it had Stunky as a version exclusive, otherwise it would have gone down to me asking anyone else what game they were buying, now we have the GTS its not as big a problemo so it just comes down to colour more than anything else I guess.

 

[Carmen Lopez]

When I was younger my cousin and I would agree ahead of time about who would buy what game. After my cousin grew out of it, I went with the version with the cooler version exclusive or cover Pokemon. I.e. I preferred Sapphire over Ruby because I liked Kyogre; FireRed over LeafGreen because Charizard was on the cover; Diamond over Pearl because I preferred Dialga (and Skunky) over Palkia (and Glameow) and because I liked the name Diamond over the name Pearl. I evetually obtained Ruby, Emerald, LeafGreen and will eventually get Pearl just because.

In my case, sometimes version exclusives play a part in my decision, sometimes it doesn't. With Diamond and Sapphire it did.

Here are the sales figures for Diamond and Pearl in Japan...

But I can't find it for the US or the latest figures. But this shows the solid lead that Diamond has over Pearl.

 

[Satoren]

There's a large chance that people actually bothered to do a little research about the game they were going to buy, in hopes of knowing which of their favorite Pokemon are version exclusives.

If I could theorize, I think it has something to do with the demand for legendaries, so in a manner of speaking, it does affect the cover somehow. Dialga is a Steel/Dragon type, one would consider a very tough type of Pokemon, where as Palkia's a Water/Dragon Type, a type previously covered by a non-legendary Pokemon. I'm not entirely sure of this though, since I haven't visited the GTS to actually know which of the two legendaries is higher in demand.

But I think its safe to say that most people buy a game for the sake of version-exclusives. Although it is somewhat odd, seeing as how both games have their fair share of Standard competitive Pokemon. (Diamond gets Tyranitar, Pearl gets Salamence for instance)

 

[King of Rhinos]

also, during the days of Ruby and Sapphire, I was in a younger grade where guys were the only people I knew who played the game, and most of them got ruby because Groudon seemed more macho than Kyogre, and since a lot of sales go to younger kids, it's probably also influenced by the gender of the buyer. Frankly, pink just doesn't seem to stand out as much as blue and gray to a little boy that wants to be manly just like his dad

 

[leehage]

I believe Game Informer put it best when Firered and Leafgreen came out:

"You notice how one version of Pokemon always outsells the other? Well, this one with is obvious. Who wants to play with a wet moldy leaf when you can have cool burny fire!"

 

[Gardevoir Master]

Well, I think the Pokemon on the box influenced my purchasing decisions. I got Blue 'cause Blastoise looked like a tank with those shoulder-cannons, I got Silver because Lugia looked sleeker than Ho-oh, Sapphire because Kyogre looked more like a UFO (I guess), and Diamond because, and I can't stress this enough, Dialga doesn't have a head shaped like a giant phallic symbol. I remember once at least attempting to make one of these decisions based on the non-legendary version exclusives, and one did have Pokemon I wanted more than the ones on the other, but I forgot which one it was by the time I got to the store and just went by the cover. It might've been Silver.

But I think color might have a subconscious effect on which version someone buys. When we were redecorating my dad's house, I was told that some people try to paint rooms their favorite color only to become uncomfortable in them because the color incites a particular emotion. For instance, green makes people angry and yellow makes you hungry. I think. Anyway, graphic designers have to pay special attention to color so it shines a favorable light with the intendent audience. Thinking about it, I'm more comfortable with the color silver than the color gold, and I have no idea why. Maybe its because that gold chain I wore in middle school pinched my body hairs or something, and for some reason I only wore it under my clothes (I guess I was afraid it'd get stolen).

 

[Awenmir]

I think the box art plays the biggest role in the sales. Luckily whenever a new game comes out I can get one while my brother gets the other and we can trade. Not so much of a problem anymore though what with WiFi trading and everything.

 

[baratron]

It's all fairly irrelevant for me because I'm an adult with a real income, and therefore end up buying both anyway. But I do wonder whether there's an aspect of perceived value in the names. This doesn't apply so much with Red vs Blue, but does with Gold vs Silver, Ruby vs Sapphire and Diamond vs Pearl. For example, gold is a rarer and more valuable metal than silver, meaning that most people prefer to wear gold jewellery than silver. Winning a gold medal in a sporting event means that you did better than if you only won a silver medal (usually gold is the first place, and silver is second). Similarly, if you're a recording artist, you get a silver record for a certain number of sales - but a gold record for even more sales. If you're joining a club, then Gold Members usually get more benefits than Silver. Etc, etc. I can't think of anything in mainstream Western culture where silver would be prized over gold. So it doesn't surprise me at all that faced with a choice between Pokemon Gold and Pokemon Silver, most people would choose Gold over Silver.

With Ruby vs Sapphire, both stones are of approximately equal value, depending on where they're from. They are in fact different versions of the same mineral, corundum. They're both regarded as precious stones, and are closely linked in mainstream culture. For example, the Ruby wedding anniversary is 40 years, and Sapphire is 45 years - there's hardly any difference. I suspect this means that "red" vs "blue" and the appearance of the two legendaries on the boxes was much more of a determining factor than the names "Ruby" and "Sapphire". However, contrary as ever, I have a strong emotional connection with sapphires through family history and tend to see rubies as "blood stones" (90% of the world's rubies are from Burma, where people work in the mines in near-slavery), so it's obvious which game I was going to choose.

When it comes to Diamond vs Pearl - I know that genuine, freshwater pearls are extremely expensive. However, pearls aren't regarded terribly favourably in Europe. Little girls wear fake pearl necklaces made of plastic, and real pearls are worn only by old ladies with their knitted cardigans - not by fashionable people. Whereas diamonds are the hardest and most precious of all stones - nothing will cut a diamond but another diamond, and diamonds are a girl's best friend, and Diamonds Are Forever (James Bond movie), and rappers get diamonds set into their teeth for the bling factor. So, faced with a choice between Pokemon Diamond and Pokemon Pearl, most people would choose Diamond.

 

[Doctor Oak]

I've always thought it was pretty obvious - it's simple psychology. The names are always said in the same order, with a dominant and submissive one, Red being dominant, Blue being submissive. Obviously, more people will buy the dominant title because the name is pushed to them more - while the other will sell well to those who like to buck the trend.

Obviously, there are other factors, such as Pokemon available and favourite colours and so on - but the reason why one title outsells the other overall does seem like pretty clear cut psychology. (Incidentally, I always wind up with the dominant title myself - Red, Gold, Ruby, FireRed, Diamond [as my main games anyway]).