/vp/,
Why do we as consumers allow Gamefreak to sell us the same game over and over again? Nintendo have famously taken a stand against paid DLC, but they are not above re-releasing titles with minor additions and changes.

It appears that X/Y are not, as many reviewers and leakers have noted, "complete" in terms of new monsters, postgame content, or gameplay innovations; presumably this will be ammended in Z, impelling the question of why a complete game isn't offered in the first place.

I do not accept the three-game scheme for each region-set of games as being at all necessary. I would instead sell two games, one being challenging, wherein the player's legacy from the previous game (pokedex, stats, etc) is transferred and your character continued as you work to contain a new evil and conquer challenging forces. Running parallel to this would be the familiar story of ascension, a game of standard difficulty for new players. To justify difference in title I would distinguish the games not only by Pokemon but by story, themes, side-content, and challenge, such as having the Pokemon Center sell you healing items like revive and ether instead of healing you so that you are entirely responsible for your own success. A third game would not be necessary with all planned features implemented right away in two, complete games unique but mutually valuable from both a narrative and communicative perspective.

For an example of what I mean, consider the Zelda games Oracles of Time and Seasons.