>>42353987When value actually became a valid argument. I think that everyone would have expected console Pokémon games to cost more. It's a given. But they're just so... lacking. In everything. And the number of potential investments has increased too. I won't count the Switch itself, but there's the standard two versions with content withheld from each other. There's the online subscription when online for Pokémon used to be free, and yet this online doesn't even do much to make up for it being paid. There isn't even a GTS anymore. Why is Mew locked behind an accessory that costs nearly as much as the game itself? Why can that accessory only transfer it once, meaning you need to buy another if you already did it for the other game that came out last year? Why can't you even use the accessory like you could in the previous game? There's the subscription to HOME too, and yet hundreds of Pokémon can't leave it once they're on. Just wait until next game? Well Game Freak says that each game will pick and choose which Pokémon to include, meaning you either have your collection spread across multiple games released years apart or you stay subscribed to HOME because you'll lose them otherwise.
Why can't I just buy a game and get to experience all of its content? Why do I have to jump through hoops and subscriptions to get access to everything? I go for 100%, and being charged extra for it has never sat right with me, but now it's too much. And how am I getting a better experience with Sword and Shield than I am on the older games? Where are all my dungeons? Where's my engaging optional content beyond grinding? Why should Pokémon get a pass when hundreds of other games are being released that completely outshine it but will make nowhere near as much profit?
Money became a factor when they started asking more for less.
