Everyone wondered what Konami would be like after that guy left. Well, Konami just shitted its pants with this game and is walking around so now everyone is gonna avoid them. 💩

You'll need an extra platform and an extra copy to do that with multiple save files too, so I really don't see how that's a good reason not to allow multiple save files for Pokemon...

Except you contradicted yourself here if they were doing it for extra sales Pokemon Bank wouldn't exist as it negates extra sales, you'd still need to redo everything in the game again multiple times then once more again so your trainer would be able to regain control of the higher level Pokemon again, a second save would allow someone to farm then move it straight to their main save.

The point of the matter is Pokemon it's meant to be tedious to farm otherwise it breaks competitive play that's why the's never been a second save file as it discourages people going out their way to do it the's a reason for it unlike with MG Survive where no one here has given a valid reason why the game only gives one save and charges for additional save files. Hypocrisy would be if both games didn't have valid reasons or did.

Did you even read the whole conversation to make this post?

I read everything up to the post I replied to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can you not already capture a legendary pokemon, trade it to a friend or a separate console with an extra copy you own, reset your save file and do it again, amassing multiple legendaries (trading them back once you're done)?

That wouldn't really change much with multiple savefiles, with the exception that you no longer have to reset your save file to do it, you create a new one. The amount of time you spent will be the same, because in each of the new savefiles, you still have to reach the point where you can capture the legendaries.

Even if there were some complications with allowing multiple savefiles, it likely wouldn't be that hard to patch easy exploits.

Guess what, I have never purchase or every plan to purchase any microtransaction.  What you and most gamers still do not get, there is nothing making you have to purchase any DLC, microtransaction, loot boxes or any of that crap.  As I stated, if the game is not complete as is without that stuff, I do not waste my time purchasing the game.  I never feel the need to purchase a game day 1 or pre-order.  I never have to be caught by practices I do not like.  This is the difference between being an informed consumer.  Why would anyone trust any of these companies when its pretty easy to just sit back and wait until after reviews or just do a little research before purchase.  

Also as a developer I do understand that if gamers want those AAA games they do have to realize that that the cost of making those games have gone way up from our days in the 80s.  When you can have 2 people bust out a game yes everything was included.  When you have a team of 300 do a game over 3 years there is a huge difference in scale.  Smart companies will always find the right balance between features, price and content while bad ones will not.  Everyone has a memory so which each bad attempt, its harder to get gamers to come back to your next game.  It all shakes out in the end.

Here is news for you many people who complain about the practices aren't buying them either as people like you are not who the developers are targeting it's the mass market who aren't as informed or bothered which is why microstransactions are a part of the market now days, not every person in gaming follows reviews in fact it's only the online goers who follow reviews many consumers don't that's why a game like RE6 that got trashed by reviews still went on to sell 6m and even review copies may not even have that feature in as some things are patched in day one.

Oh the old cost chestnut here we go Jim Sterling shoots this notion down on a weekly basis go watch any of his videos we hear about costs then we read articles from EA to the investors about how they still make money with out these practices please spare us the BS, like Jim said if an industry can't make money of an initial sale does that sound like a healthy industry that's going to last? Here's a suggestion work within a reasonable budget then for example instead of bringing in Keifer Sutherland to do your VAs bring in one of many competent lesser known VAs who'd cost you less than a fraction of the price you paid for the former.

You didn't read the whole conversation then because if you did you'd see he was asking a question as he doesn't follow the games, if you have another save file you'd have a main save file ready to go for when you trade the monsters back so if you got to Mewtwo on both files you can immediately have 2 Mewtwos off the bat in 2 playthroughs where as the one save forces an additional playthrough to make it more tedious. You'd make it easier with an additional save to farm.

But you'd still have to reach Mewtwo in two different playthroughs, even with multiple save files, so you have two play through ecaxtly as much of the game... (BTW I'm not suggesting you can reload an older save, just something like Guacamelee where you can have simultaneous playthroughs, because you have several slots).

Without multiple saves - you have to reach Mewtwo once, trade it to a friend, reset and do it again.

With multiple save files, you have to reach Mewtwo once, trade it to a friend, create a new file, and do it again. Both take the same amount of time, so it's just as tedious and thus still deters farming.

Yeah and? This flat out tells me you never read the whole conversation because the point is it's meant to be as tedious as possible to discourage it and it does you even just repeated what people have said is the tedious procedure to do it. With multiple save files you reduces the number of playthroughs they have to do to get set up and make it easier, on one save they have to play 3 times to get set up with 2 Mewtwos on 2 they only need two playthroughs they wouldn't even need to transfer out the Pokemon on the main save either.