>>38037365>You clearly weren't alive in the 90sMario still existed. I didn't say Sonic wasn't super fucking successful, just that it didn't utterly dominated. At best it had a small lead with Mario nipping at its heels.
>Everything else aside, you're underestimating how fucking huge sports games areWhat makes you say that? I never said sports games weren't big sellers. EA still has that market cornered though, if I'm not mistaken.
>Which isn't a fucking genre, at best it's a subgenre. Pokemon's genre is JRPG, which there are plenty of games that can take Pokemon's throne It's a noteworthy subgenre, which very few other JRPGs offer competition in, and its closest competition comes nowhere near close.
But hey, I'll indulge you, anon. I'm pretty sure Pokemon sales utterly demolish any other JRPG franchise's, even big names like DQ and FF. And if you really wanna talk about hubris, maybe you should be pointing fingers at FF before anything else. At least Pokemon is still true to itself, FF turned to total trash. THAT kills a franchise's reputation.
>Just because "people are gonna buy it anyway" isn't an excuse, and will still damage your brand. And my point is releasing a third version at a sixty dollar pricetag isn't going to harm the brand, the rest of the industry pulls twice as greedy shit and still survives and gets "taken seriously". Pretty sure those yearly sports titles still cost sixty bucks a pop and are loaded with DLC all the same.
>Even shit like CoD and Star Wars face blowback from time to time. And yet they're still huge franchises and CoD at least appears to be doing well. Dunno about Star Wars, I've heard bad things.
>And frankly why are you defending GF's business practices? All this is dependent on the audiences willingness to put up with bullshit. Don't you want them to be a better company?I'm not you idiot, I'm merely being realistic. Continuing their practices at the sixty dollar price point probably won't harm them.
