>>38517760I really fail to see how arbitrarily dropping Pokémon transfer would make the game any better
The entire transfer system has been overhauled to no longer rely on hardware, and it's a paid for service... Removing it would add what to the game, exactly? What's the point of Pokémon if I don't get to keep what the very title of the game is?
I don't play the game for its washed-out story or forever-unbalanced and uninteresting (imo) competitive scene, I play it for the Pokémon and the adventure I get to have with them
Of course, I'd "survive," whatever that means, but would I return? No, I might as well play TemTem or something if I'm just playing for the features of the game, instead of the creatures themselves.
I also never said I expected continued support because of my sentimental value, I expect it because they've been doing it for over a decade and, as you said, it's a line of data. It's 2019, how is that an unreasonable idea that warrants removal?
Anyways, sorry you didn't get to transfer your Espeon, anon. I'm not sure how this reads since I'm tired, but I just don't understand why you think removing the backward combability is a good idea. If it was 6 years ago and everything was hardware based, I'd be more inclined to agree. But your argument in the OP is competitive viability and "keeping track of Pokémon" (if you don't like them, ignore them; if they're competitively unviable, then you don't need to keep track of them anyway), which I argue isn't what the majority play Pokémon for (and nothing prevents others from training new Pokémon, anyway) and that they need to stop trying to make everyone happy...? They're having people pay an annual fee for the service now, I'd say it's less about trying to make people happy and more about a viable, profitable solution. If people are willing to pay for the service, why shouldn't it stick around?
I just don't see how this would make Pokémon any better for anyone who plays it
