A reported internal Pokémon Company document suggests the company considered raising Pokémon game prices above $60 while using dual versions and double packs to steer buying behavior.
Image: nintendolife.com
A reported Pokémon document puts price and double-pack strategy in the same frame
A reported internal document attributed to The Pokémon Company says the company had past interest in raising Pokémon game prices above the old $60 Switch-era baseline while also encouraging customers to buy both versions of paired releases. Nintendo Everything reported on July 11 that the material surfaced from the Game Freak “Teraleak,” and My Nintendo News separately covered the same CentroLeaks post, framing it as evidence that The Pokémon Company had wanted a higher price point since the Pokémon Sword and Pokémon Shield period.
The immediate tension is that this is not an official pricing announcement. No source in the provided material confirms a new MSRP for any future Pokémon game, and no current Switch 2 Pokémon price has been announced here. What the reporting does show is a commercial discussion around three linked ideas: keeping individual game prices at $60, raising the individual price, and using the dual-version model, including discounted double packs, to shape how many copies a single customer might buy.
That makes the reported Pokemon Company document more consequential than a simple “games may cost more” leak. Pokémon’s mainline releases already sit in an unusual retail structure, because the headline product often launches as two parallel versions rather than one SKU. A Pokemon price increase would therefore land differently than it would for a single-version RPG. For a player who buys one copy, the question is the new baseline. For collectors, families, completion-focused players, or anyone who routinely buys both versions, the question becomes multiplication.
What the reported document actually says, and where the evidence stops
Nintendo Everything says the surfaced internal document shows past interest in increasing Pokémon game prices and encouraging people to buy both versions. The outlet notes that original Nintendo Switch-era Pokémon titles were priced at $60 per version, and says one factor that prevented a higher price point was that higher prices were not standardized in North America at the time.
The machine-translated excerpt published in Nintendo Everything’s report describes a “Price proposal” with three possible patterns. The visible translation says option one kept “Beluga’s” prices unchanged. Nintendo Everything identifies Beluga as the codename for Pokémon: Let’s Go, Pikachu! and Pokémon: Let’s Go, Eevee!. The rationale attached to that option, according to the translation, was that unchanged prices would maximize the sales figures forming the base for DLC sales, while leaving no room for royalties to increase compared with Beluga.
The second visible option is described as a price increase while the “W pack” price remains unchanged. The translation says this would encourage purchase of the discounted double pack, although the excerpt provided by Nintendo Everything cuts off before the full risk assessment is readable. That incompleteness matters. The document, as presented in the report, is useful evidence that these scenarios were discussed, but it is not a complete business plan available for public audit.
My Nintendo News also cites CentroLeaks and says the document indicated The Pokémon Company wanted to encourage people to buy both versions of Pokémon games. It adds that the company had wanted to increase prices from the old $60 level since Sword and Shield, but that this was not possible at the time because higher prices were not yet standardized in North America. That is a reported leak-based claim, not a statement from The Pokémon Company, Nintendo, or Game Freak.
The dual-version numbers explain the commercial appeal
The most concrete numbers in the reports are the dual-version purchase rates attributed to the document. Nintendo Everything says the document includes percentages for consumers who bought both versions of several games. My Nintendo News specifies that these figures came from the first 15 weeks of sales. The reported figures are striking: 41 percent of players bought both versions of Sun and Moon, 50 percent bought both versions of Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon, and 23 percent bought both versions of Let’s Go, Pikachu! and Let’s Go, Eevee!.
Those figures, if accurately represented from the document, are the clearest explanation for why Pokemon dual versions matter commercially. A paired launch can turn a portion of the audience into two-copy buyers during the early sales window. That does not mean every double purchase is the same kind of behavior. Some may be households buying for multiple players, some may be collectors, and some may be fans who want the paired release as a set. The reported document does not break those motives down, so any claim about why each customer bought both would be speculation.
What the figures do support is simpler and stronger: the dual-version format gives Pokémon a built-in lever that most RPG series do not have. A conventional RPG launch typically asks one player to buy one game. Pokémon’s paired structure can invite a buyer to consider the individual version, the other version later, or a bundled double pack upfront. If half of Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon players bought both versions during the first 15 weeks, as My Nintendo News reports from the leaked material, then the second SKU was not a marginal collector’s curiosity in that period. It was central to early revenue behavior.
From a progression-minded player’s perspective, that is also where the business system touches the play system. Pokémon has long sold the fantasy of a personal journey, a chosen partner, a region to fill out, and a roster to complete. The reported document does not need to say anything about Pokédex habits to reveal the pressure point. Completion-driven players are exactly the audience most likely to feel a dual-version structure as a purchasing decision rather than a cosmetic fork.
A higher baseline changes the math before the adventure begins
The old $60 baseline is the anchor in both reports. Nintendo Everything says Switch-era Pokémon titles were $60 for each version, and the reported document considered going higher. My Nintendo News likewise describes the old $60 price as the level The Pokémon Company wanted to move beyond, according to CentroLeaks’ reading of the leaked material.
At $60 per version, buying both versions of a paired Pokémon release already meant a $120 commitment before tax unless a double pack carried a meaningful discount. A higher individual price would make the single-version purchase more expensive, but it would also make the double-version habit more costly unless the double pack absorbed the increase. That is why the reported “price increase, W pack price remains unchanged” scenario is important. It suggests the company was considering a structure where the individual copy becomes less attractive relative to a bundled purchase.
That is a classic RPG monetization tension, even if Pokémon expresses it in its own family-friendly retail language. The player sees versions, boxes, starters, creatures, and save files. The business side sees conversion paths. A discounted double pack can be framed as a better value, but only after the individual baseline has moved. The document excerpt reported by Nintendo Everything appears to recognize that relationship directly by tying a higher individual price to encouragement of the double pack.
There is also a practical limit to what can be concluded. The source material does not provide a final approved price, a date, a regional chart, or a confirmed future product using this model. It also does not show how Nintendo, Game Freak, and The Pokémon Company divided authority over the decision. Pokémon’s games sit inside a partnership structure that is often publicly simplified by fans, but these reports do not establish which party would have final say over a future MSRP.
Switch 2 buyers should treat this as a pricing signal, not a confirmed MSRP
For Switch 2 buyers, the relevant question is not whether this document proves the next Pokémon game will cost more. It does not. The useful takeaway is that a higher baseline was reportedly under consideration before, and the obstacle cited in the reporting was market standardization in North America rather than a lack of appetite for higher pricing.
My Nintendo News raises the open question of whether this pricing direction could apply to Pokémon Winds and Pokémon Waves, while saying that remains to be seen. Based on the provided material, there is no confirmed Switch 2 Pokemon price, no confirmed upgrade path, no confirmed edition split beyond what that outlet discusses in its own coverage, and no official statement from The Pokémon Company announcing a price increase.
The buyer guidance is therefore conditional. If a future Switch 2 Pokémon release stays at $60 per version, the familiar cost structure remains. If it moves above $60, the impact depends on whether both versions rise together and whether a double pack is discounted. A single-version player would feel the increase once. A two-version buyer would feel it twice unless the bundle changes the effective per-copy price. Parents buying for multiple children could face the same multiplication even without collector intent.
The safest move for anyone budgeting around a future Switch 2 Pokémon game is to wait for official store pages or publisher pricing before assuming the cost. Watch whether the individual versions and any double pack appear at the same time, whether the double pack is a true discount or simply both games bundled together, and whether digital and physical pricing match. The reported document points to a strategy discussion, but the retail listing is what will decide the bill.
The TCG price surge is separate, but it colors the audience reaction
Several other recent reports in the provided material concern Pokémon Trading Card Game pricing rather than video game pricing. They should not be treated as proof of The Pokémon Company’s console-game plans. They do, however, help explain why fans may react sharply to any Pokemon game prices discussion in 2026.
Kotaku reported that Target appeared to raise prices on some Pokémon TCG products, citing Polygon’s reporting and describing the move as retailers responding to popularity and scarcity. Polygon separately reported that GameStop increased pre-order pricing for Pokémon 30th-anniversary TCG products, including an Elite Trainer Box with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of $49.99 listed at $129.99 and later reportedly $169.99, and an Ultimate Premium Collection described as supposed to cost around $120 but sold at $600. Game Rant also reported criticism of GameStop’s Pokémon card prices, including a claimed $600 price for a 30th Celebration Ultra-Premium Collection against a cited $180 MSRP.
Those TCG stories involve retailer pricing, aftermarket pressure, and scarcity dynamics. They are not the same as a publisher setting an MSRP for a Switch or Switch 2 game. TCGplayer’s own seller-facing price trend report also frames some card increases around market behavior, including buyouts, low supply, and rising demand for specific cards. That context is useful because it shows how intensely Pokémon demand can affect pricing across the brand ecosystem, but it does not establish a direct line from card markups to a future console game price.
Still, perception matters. When players see reported retailer markups on cards in the same period that a leaked Pokemon Company document is said to discuss higher game prices and double-version purchasing, the stories will naturally collide in the public conversation. The clean distinction is this: TCG reports show market and retailer behavior around physical collectibles, while the leaked document reporting concerns internal consideration of video game pricing strategy.
The unanswered question is whether Pokémon changes the default or the bundle
The most revealing part of the reported document is not merely that a Pokemon price increase was considered. It is that the price discussion appears tied to the double-pack funnel. If the individual version rises while the double pack holds, the bundle becomes the stronger value proposition. If both rise, the company captures more from every purchase type but risks making the two-version habit harder to justify. If prices remain unchanged, the reported document’s own translation suggests the tradeoff was maximizing sales volume while limiting royalty growth compared with Beluga.
That leaves the next official pricing reveal with a lot of work to do. Players will need to know the individual version price, the double-pack price, whether any physical extras are included, and whether digital buyers get the same option. Switch 2 buyers will also need platform-specific clarity if a Pokémon release crosses generations or offers any upgrade route, although none is confirmed in the provided source material.
For now, the story is best read as a rare glimpse at how Pokémon’s familiar paired-release structure can be evaluated internally as a pricing system. The reported document does not confirm the next MSRP. It does suggest that The Pokémon Company, at least at the time of the document described by Nintendo Everything and My Nintendo News, understood the commercial power of a fan base willing to buy both versions and considered ways to make that behavior even more central to the launch plan.