>>13884611I do not imply your argument was that anything was ever necessary. I directly state that your points did involve the issue, as seen in
>>13884374"You don't 'need' anything. You don't even need graphics! Game Freak doesn't 'need' to make any more Pokemon games at all.
Nobody has made any arguments about necessity here..."
Now the tricky part is whether "arguments" refers to valid points regarding the issue or simply bringing the issue up itself.
Even so, the entire paragraph of yours deals with "necessity" and why these features are not "needed," which you go on to then qualify what a game needs or doesn't need.
Again, my point is that, from the standpoint of a business operation, had 3D been more important to potential buyers, Game Freak WOULD have been OBLIGATED to provide the feature if at all ever possible. Your arguments imply that 3D could never be a potential issue that alters the Quantity of Demand for this very game. It most certainly can, as 3D or lack thereof will move the demand curve noticably left or right, changing the equillibrium that is so vital to both Game Freak and Nintendo (remember, Pokemon is a system seller).
In other words, 3D IS "necessary", but people will have to live without it for legitimate reasons that many times they do not understand.
