Value is inherently subjective, particularly when you are describing it with money, which is not anything stable.

But, hey, let's go with your logic.  

Pokemon Go has 417 Pokemon.  For 0 dollars.  

If the value of a Pokemon game is solely on the number of Pokemon, then Pokemon go is objectively the most valuable game.  Not just by a little, but by a literally infinite amount.  By comparison, Sun and Moon are objectively worthless and clearly a despicable cash grab.  I mean, 802 Pokemon for 40 dollars, vs 417 for ZERO DOLLARS?

Pokemon Go is an amazing value.  Sun and Moon is a cash grab.  Fact. 

Objective value is most certainly a thing, i.e. a 2lb bag of Twix is straight up more valuable than a 1lb bag for the same price.

Ha, you're really so naive to think I'm saying that's the sole reason. That's just the biggest point is all.

Alrighty then, one is free to have that opinion. Plenty of people think this series as a whole is a cash grab, and that's perfectly ok.

Value is inherently subjective, particularly when you are describing it with money, which is not anything stable.

But, hey, let's go with your logic.  

Pokemon Go has 417 Pokemon.  For 0 dollars.  

If the value of a Pokemon game is solely on the number of Pokemon, then Pokemon go is objectively the most valuable game.  Not just by a little, but by a literally infinite amount.  By comparison, Sun and Moon are objectively worthless and clearly a despicable cash grab.  I mean, 802 Pokemon for 40 dollars, vs 417 for ZERO DOLLARS?

Pokemon Go is an amazing value.  Sun and Moon is a cash grab.  Fact. 

Objective value is most certainly a thing, i.e. a 2lb bag of Twix is straight up more valuable than a 1lb bag for the same price.

Ha, you're really so naive to think I'm saying that's the sole reason. That's just the biggest point is all.

Alrighty then, one is free to have that opinion. Plenty of people think this series as a whole is a cash grab, and that's perfectly ok.

I think the Twix comparison doesn't work since if you buy a 2lb bag of Twix, even if takes you a year, you'll eventually eat 2lb of Twix. I'd say you could do an analogy with bananas. 20 bananas is better value than 10 bananas but buying 100 bananas isn't really good value since there's so many you'll never get to enjoy.

No, I'm not naive.  I asked you to clarify twice, and you did not either time.

If there are other reasons, then you cannot base objective value based solely on number of Pokemon.  So... you invalidated your own argument.

You don't know my parents then haha. That's why what the consumer does with the product shouldn't be a factor since it's completely variable from person to person. Are you saying 100 bananas isn't a better value than 10 at the same price?  Having more options like eating more bananas than usual and giving some away are always good, plus you just have to eat 11 to benefit.

Yes, you thought that was even a possibility hence you asking. I'll be straight up, I was too dumbfounded to answer lol.

Oh you still think that somehow. Perhaps disingenuous is more apt than naive. I guess I could see how you got confused after Curl n Super shifted the focus specifically to the number of Pokemon, but eh sure, I invalidated my own argument. That don't change the facts so whatever.