The difference in philosophies between what GameFreak wants and I want don't neccessarily contradict, but go in different directions. That difference is the problem I have with Pokemon. 

When you have a franchise that is based on collecting virtual monsters, adding more virtual monsters seems like a natural direction to take the franchise in.  I'm sure it makes it harder to make a real time game, but I'm not sure what that has to do with your argument.  

There is no reason for a Pokemon {realtime} RPG to be {not} developed, except that they don't want to for whatever reason.  

And I am giving you an aspect of that reason, they have different priorites with the franchise

Maybe it's more resource intensive, maybe they don't think they could do a good one.  Maybe they have a failed prototype. Maybe they think things like Snap and Conquest are a more natural extension of the franchise.  

You are just blindly speculating at this, furthermore Snap hasn't even had a sequel. To suggest that its a natural inclination just because they actually did it, is a fallacy. You can't claim that real-time rpg is not a natural inclination, ESPECIALLY when GameFreak has ALREADY made a 2 different pokemon game franchises using a real-time system.

Maybe they've just never had the inclination.  

However, you have nothing to suggest that they avoid a realtime Pokemon game as a result of a desire to sell Pokemon.

And I'm not suggesting that. In the OP, I give the example of Pokemon Rumble "The player controls Pokémon as they battle other Pokémon in a series of linear dungeons and enclosed arenas. The game features real-time melee-based gameplay,". Here the priority remains consistent, a design which prioritize the selling of merchandise with a real time battle system. What I'm saying is if you took Pokemon X, and the only change you made was that all battles where single battles in real-time. Then that change would priortize the battling of pokemon, instead of the collecting of pokemon, which is not GameFreak's Aim.

Again you've given nothing really to support the idea that the purpose of the games and their changes is to sell merchandise.  

There is an entire section dedicated to this in the OP.

If you just don't like the changes to the franchise, then that's your opinion, although I'm not sure why that would require a topic.

The entire introduction of the OP addresses this.

Edit:  You keep making the analogy of Skylanders, but it's a different situation.  Pokemon games (aside from Rumble) don't require any additional purchases to play the games to completion.  You don't really explain the link between in game collection and selling merchandise.

That was never part of the analogy, I never mentioned the requirement of purchases, only that it encourage purchases. Not to mention I also give examples of this in the Anime, Movies, Cards, and Manga. Because this is not solely about the games, its about the entire franchise.

This isn't an arugment, its an observation. And you are agreeing with me. When you say the franchise is based on collecting virtual monster it is virtually the same to saying that it is designed to do so.

I certainly don't disagree that the franchise is based on collecting because it clearly is.  However, I believe you further stated that this was done out of a desire to sell real life merchandise, which I disagree with.

Ok, that is a fair disagreement. However, what then of the other aspects of the franchise, especially the anime. The segment "Whose that Pokemon" or the original theme song and the motto of the game.

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

You need to read the OP completely, because this is a very complicated topic that cannot be understood by simply skim over it.

The fact of the matter is that

1. this is not an evaluation of the quality of the game design, only an observation that the priorty in the entire pokemon franchise is to sell merchandise. The best analog would be skylanders, which sells itself as a game but also prioritizes the merchandise it sells. This is entirely different from Zelda which prioritize the gameplay and the story over merchandise. This doesn't mean it zelda themed merchandise isn't sold because of it, but that the priority in its development is secondary to gameplay and story.

2. The excuse "Almost every game exists to encourages to play it, means nothing with regard to my observation." If their was a pokemon RPG with realtime battle, would it not also encourage you to play it? That line of reasoning means nothing in considering why this is not the case now. 

3. As I have outlined in the various examples I give, even the spinoffs which deviate from the base formula still prioritize the selling of merchandise to the extent that other aspects of the game are simply not as important or even forgoed completely as in the case of PokePark, Rumble, and Snap. 

4. There is no reason for something like this:

to exist as a spin off and not have free movement with 4 moves mapped to buttons in an rpg setting on a home console, at least not if the reason is to sell the game.