>>16255509>You realize the games don't only pander to the crowd that plays on showdown right?Of course, but you're missing my point.
The games already have great-looking 3D battles with full WiFi capability. Nobody is going to spend $40 to look at it on a slightly larger screen.
That's why it can't just be "Pokemon XY: slightly different battles edition". It can't be contingent upon the XY game itself. It can't go for the "little kids who gotta catch em all" demographic.
It CAN, however, go for the "I play games with my friends on the couch" demographic. It can be a party game. That's the only way to make any money off of it because it targets people who, for whatever reason, aren't interested in the current method of 3DS battles.
The simulator demographic is worth targeting because a lot of them don't even play the real games at this point. They're a sleeping goldmine and the only thing keeping the simulators going is that playing ugly-as-sin 2D simulations of battles while hunched over a laptop is still more convenient than spending days and days playing single-player to build a team.
But that kind of game has appeal to more than JUST simulator players, it also appeals more generally to people who find the idea of Pokemon battling fun but don't want to squint at a handheld device for 3 days to earn the privilege of possibly playing with another friend who has done the same.
It's like, imagine if Smash Bros forced you to do the entire sidescrolling single player story mode before you unlocked WiFi battles and that was the only way to play pvp; it's sales would tank. It's a popular game because four friends can play it on the couch, whether it's an elementary schooler having a sleepover or a bunch of drunk college kids.
If you're going to make a Pokemon battling game, it needs to be THAT. It needs to go after the people who want something out of Pokemon that the 3DS game can't give them, not a bunch of fancy trim that needs the single player game to work.
