>>47946783>I don't want to spend more money to use intended connectivity features or find friends to trade with who may have gotten those games instead of the games I got or traded with someone else who did and bred more to share.Okay, here is a solution to get around that. It even has uses in non-pokemon games.
>No, not like that! The games that have always been intended to promote cooperation as well as friendly competition to sell link cables need to stop doing that so I can maintain moral purity standards and play the game "as intended" while ignoring the way the game was intended to be played.Bro what do you really want?
>>47945791Nobody ever said you should/had to buy the system(s) only for pokemon and anyone obsessed enough to do that clearly doesn't mind spending money on a bad deal anyways and would be a hypocrite to complain. Only casuals or broke people don't get multiple consoles to play the exclusives, and casuals have proven they don't care about catching them all while broke people have higher priorities than completing a bestiary in a jrpg. At least there were multiple routes to finishing your collection back then, now you either have to pay to maintain a subscription and not be able to use some of them because they aren't even all programmed into the games, leave the ones you already have behind, or make back-ups through the hacking/3rd party tools that are apparently unacceptable - on top of either buying both versions and the dlc on the new $200-300 hardware to get everything yourself, or going the trading online route which is now another subscription to pay and even less worth it if you really are only playing pokemon than the link cables of the past were as it's a recurring fee. No matter how you look at it the situation is worse than it was in gen 3, we have fewer releases with less variety in those experiences for those interested in them and they cost more on top of having a lower % of pokemon that exist at the time available.
