Lonely_Dolphin said:
Shiken said:

The objective value is whatever consumers are willing to spend on a product.  If a dev prices it at 20 bucks because they feel it will not sell for more, that is what they feel it is worth.  If they feel it will sell for 60...AND DOES...why are you even still debating this?

Also the games you listed are FAR smaller in scale that Sw/Sh.  A bit of a hyperbole, but I see the point you were trying to make.  Unfortunately you are arguing based on what you feel objective value is in you our opinion, which in of itself is subjective.

No it isn't, objective value is based on facts and evidence, not feelings. 435 < 800, fact. If you still don't understand this then we'll just have to leave it there.

If this is the argument you want to make, you'd have to address the fact that we've been drastically underpaying for Pokemon games for around the past two decades.  Despite the number of Pokemon going up by more than 500%, the price of the game had only gone up by 33%.  From 2006-2017, Pokemon prices were flat, despite 300 new Pokemon being added.  When you factor in inflation, that actually means the price of Pokemon had gone down considerably during that time period.  Pokemon Red and Blue were actually more expensive than Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon when you adjust for inflation.  If more Pokemon means the game is objectively more valuable, were you lobbying for price increases as they added more?

So, either Gamefreak has been drastically undercharging us, or there is not a direct correlation between number of Pokemon and the objective value of a game.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 18 November 2019