>>40028545>Are we talking about the people who like the game or the people who spend every second obsessing over how Stantler isn't in the game?Both.
See, this is another part of the sheer brilliance of Pokemon's profiteering. Not only do you have devotees who will purchase and defend without delay, you also have those on the polar opposite side who, while they may openly express their absolute ire for the franchise, they too are still consumers deep down, easily swayed by the simplest of things.
If Pokemon were to keep moving forward, not revoking features and mechanics, but instead continuously enhancing itself, you wouldn't get much out of that. Zealots will still purchase because it's Pokemon, but the rest will eventually grow fatigued of the franchise and drop it. And when they return, they will be "overwhelmed" by the new features galore, which may turn them away yet again.
But by removing features constantly, you keep things from getting too "out of hand", and if there was a feature someone disliked that is no longer present in the games, then that may actually sway them to make a purchase. A purchase for literally removing content. It goes the other way around too, in that you can net a purchase for restoring a removed feature, with bonus profits for rebranding it. Think Type Gems getting dropped and rebranded into Z-Moves.
But here's the fun part. Now that the eponymous creatures themselves no longer have a certain future aside from the usual suspects (Pikachu, Charizard, Lucario, so forth), you can take this to an even higher extreme of profits. People who complain about "too much Pokemon" are now potential customers again, and by revoking these critters from the game, with promise that they will one day return, games that those missing Pokemon will invariably return in, which they can and will use as a selling point for Upper Versions and Remakes alike, will see a strong boost in sales.
The common man lacks self-control, and this is all proof of it.
