Pokémon Legends Z-A beats GTA VI for $100 price tag

[sc94597]

Cerebralbore101 said:

sc94597 said:

The first day DLC content is mostly cosmetic (literally costumes for Pokémon), like most first day DLC. It's not like story content is being held behind a paywall. The story content is not complete and doesn't come out until as late as February, depending on when it is finished. Although I guess they could have easily just charged $5 for the cosmetic content and then $25 for the story DLC when it comes out and it wouldn't look as bad. That's what most companies do. 

Again, we are talking about a franchise where Nintendo used to sell two copies of what were essentially the same game and a third copy that also was very similar for two decades (Red, Green/Blue, Yellow; Gold, Silver, Crystal; Ruby, Sapphire, Emarald; Diamond, Pearl, Platinum; etc.) This is relatively cheaper compared to that, for the completionists. 

Cosmetics are not an unimportant part of the game. People say that it doesn't affect gameplay, but one of the ways I enjoy playing a game is changing how my character looks. So for me it does affect gameplay and needs to be included in the regular price. 

You could easily trade to complete a Poke'Dex—no need to buy both versions. 

Do you think you are in the majority or minority on this? Do you think most people playing Pokémon care about some cosmetic features being missing from the base-game, especially given that in previous games there really wasn't much in way of customization of Pokemon outfits? In the context of Pokémon, cosmetics is pretty much a gimmick (which can be valuable for some niche of the fanbase, but not generally) in my opinion, and if creating more assets to appeal to people who enjoy them cost more then it makes sense to charge more. 

You could trade to complete the Pokedex. How "easily" that trading is, depends a lot on your circumstances, and regardless it is a lot easier to do so if you have multiple (different) versions of the game.