>>47868377For what people got, it should've been $30 at launch. And then people paid an extra $30 for the missing shit while saying "this is better than paying another $60 for the same game" after paying $60 for a game that possibly had less features/concepts than X&Y out of the box
You hear all these pseudo-intellectual kids yelling "third version BAD" while not realizing that these games can be made into "third version quality" without charging extra. Look at it from the perspective of someone who skipped initial releases and waited for the third versions; those people just needed to pay for one game. If Pokémon is deliberately selling their not-quite finished games at full price, how could they have the nerve to ask for more money in order to have the complete version of their games in this day and age?
And somebody's going to resort to talking about other game series and how they handle DLC and I'm going to say "we're not talking about other game series, we're talking about Pokémon, the game series that has notoriously sold games that eventually had a definitive versions sold later down the line." And they're STILL doing exactly that to this day. The amount of money doesn't matter because the fact is that people are STILL paying extra after purchasing the initial releases.
Needing to pay extra for main series Pokémon games should be the outdated concept, not just the third version formula. So many ideas and concepts have been slowly stripped away from these games ever since the series went 3D that it started to set a new standard in the past near-decade. A new standard such that Sword/Shield AT LAUNCH were seen as "typical" Pokémon games despite, in my bold opinion, somehow did less than X&Y. Where were the unexplored post-game routes full of strong trainers? Where were the dungeons full of items and puzzles/mazes? Where were the few legendary Pokémon that the story didn't railroad you into? All gone. Welcome to modern-era Pokémon.
