>>40191097>especially with all of the non-Pokemon games I'm currently playing.What's funny is when people talk about being poor so you're not buying them.
It's way more expensive not playing Pokémon for me (at least from a game perspective).
You know many games I've bought physically alone this year? 40. DQ11 being (appropriately) the 150th non-Pokémon game I own on Switch now. Outside PC (where I mostly just built a huge backlog collection) it used to be more like 4 to 6 non-Pokémon games a year because I had no time so it was pointless to buy them.
I played Pokémon at least 8 hours a day every day until 2014 and even until the middle of last year it was 4 - 8.
Technically from a franchise perspective I'm now not spending 5 figures a year on it so I'm overall saving a hell of a lot (well, kind of - I've gone a little crazy with other TCGs etc. since dropping Pokémon in Julylast year) but looking at it just from a games perspective, trying to replace the games in my life is hella expensive in comparison.
A theoretical ~365 on Pokémon were it good versus ~2200 on about 60 other games to have something good to play consistently... Yeah.
