>>45047445>But if the games are your primary draw, it might as well beAnd I find that faulty logic, unfortunately. It's not valid to say that you're upset about (thing being removed from franchise), being told that said thing is also in (other facet of franchise), and then saying that (other facet of franchise) is bad and dumb and you hate so it doesn't count. Sorry.
>Then why bring it up? >Luvdisc is gone from Pokemon>not isn't, its still right here.there, that's why I brought it up. Of course the anime isn't a replacement for the games, but Luvdisc was not deleted from the pokemon franchise, simple as
>third point (because I would hit word limit going bit by bit)Games and "merchandise" have been largely separated for the sake of argument and consistency before, so I don't see why we should suddenly stop. The games themselves are, quite obviously, treated differently from stuff like Plushies or Phones cases or Keyrings. Games aren't treated as part of the collective whole of merchandise by us because GF and TPCi don't treat them as part of the collective whole, and most websites and analysts don't treat them as part of the collective whole. There's a reason "video games" and "merchandise" are separated on literally every profit breakdown for the franchise ever.
So no, I do not find it valid to say that "games sell more than individual merchandise" by way of raw sales numbers, because that's not how anyone treats it. And, to be quite frank, sales numbers don't mean shit. Profit does. A game can sell 7 million and still be considered a flop if some retarded bigwigs blew money on advertising or were expecting much more
Battlefield V, if you want to know.
the games are incredibly popular, and are the founding pillar of the franchise, and they make tonsa money. They're the lifeblood of the whole, I'd go as far to say.
But that doesn't mean they'll be the most popular part of it. Kinda like how mascots aren't always the most popular figures.
