>>39630415You sound like one of those douchey p2w grinders who tell people who can't afford to spend thousands of dollars on microtransactions to "stop being poor"
Also, Pokemon was never good enough to be a triple A title. It was always marketed as a budget-friendly handheld title, essentially designed for the masses and not just for "gamers". There's a BIG difference between a $40 game on a $200 system and a $60 game on a $300 system. That's what makes the "it's a kids' game" argument to defend GameFreak even more asinine: exactly, it's a kids' game, so why does it cost as much as a triple A game?
>>39628240Doubt it. Most of Pokemon's sales have always been from parents buying for their kids. Parents are far less likely to buy their kid a $60 game and a $300 console than a $40 game and a $200 console. The best selling console Pokemon game was Stadium, which sold almost a million copies less than Crystal (the worst selling handheld Pokemon game)
