Hes probably thinking about characters exclusive to a version of a game that may have story attached to them that you cant experience in the other version.
Hes probably thinking about characters exclusive to a version of a game that may have story attached to them that you cant experience in the other version.
Hes probably thinking about characters exclusive to a version of a game that may have story attached to them that you cant experience in the other version.
The following things are not the core business model of Pokemon:
1. Making you buy both versions
2. Lootboxes
3. Skins
Lootboxes suck, i'm talking about pokemon because unlike gacha games you can get everything only with one purchase, you can only compare the two until someone sells their car or wasted over $10000 in order to get all the pokemon
So you agree with Jim when he says that the two versions were to sell more games. hmmm
No, they don't have to. Listen, we all know EVERY SINGLE POKEMON are coded into both versions (ie, trading is not actually "trading" but just unlock the pokemon inside the code). Selling the same game as different versions is just one way to artificially set up the barrier to encourage people to trade. GF could have sold the game with only one version, but instead letting your first starter/route dictates what wild pokemon spawn. It still encourage people choosing side & trade, but without luring a portion of their consumer base into double dipping it for completion sake.Trading and the social aspects are enhanced by there being two versions.
No, they don't have to. Listen, we all know EVERY SINGLE POKEMON are coded into both versions (ie, trading is not actually "trading" but just unlock the pokemon inside the code). Selling the same game as different versions is just one way to artificially set up the barrier to encourage people to trade. GF could have sold the game with only one version, but instead letting your first starter/route dictates what wild pokemon spawn. It still encourage people choosing side & trade, but without luring a portion of their consumer base into double dipping it for completion sake.
Am I mad? No, my stance on this issue is always the same. They don't have to but they choose to. Pokemon to me is just one of the many JRPGs I have come across in my life. GF is not some evil corp I should get mad at (unlike some certain publisher charging players for a $100 year subscription which is literally a scam). But sure as hell I am not going to sugarcoat it like making the same game with different box art is the only way to create a "social aspect".Yes there are, there's something that makes people want to voice the support for thier team of choice and again you can get everything with trading (also it's trading you get the same pokemon with the stats as the one in the other game).
Honestly it's weird how people get mad for others who don't mind, you don't see this level of complaining about special editions of games with exclusive skins or missions