Appealing to Worse Problems is a logical fallacy. There's always someone who has it worse. That doesn't invalidate the complaints.
I can guarantee you that if they used the old models and explained what would have happened if they didn't much fewer people would be upset.
If GameFreak wants to act like a faceless megacorp and not communicate with the people whose money they're taking, they should be treated the same as any other faceless megacorp.
I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from, but I'll outline this more blatantly. By no means am I saying the National Dex complaint is invalid. It's simply that based on the hierarchy of needs and wants, some "worse problems" are objectively more important than Pokemon. It comes down to "wants" and "needs".
Pokemon is a want, not a need. The students I teach? They, potentially, eat breakfast once every two days. Some work jobs to help their families stay afloat instead of spiraling further into poverty, and miss school in the process. Kids get beaten by their parents, or don't get the attention they need at home because their parent works two jobs. Some students can't complete my assignments at home because they don't have internet connection.
Some face discrimination on a regular basis. Some get shot and die, or have had their best friends killed.
Now, I love Pokemon. It's easily one of my favorite series, I have the National Dex currently, and am certainly disappointed by the fact that there is a good chance that I can't do it all over again. Granted, this was a reality many folks didn't want to face. The more you add, the bigger the workload, and based on scheduling, marketing, and the size of the series, it would likely happen eventually.
My biggest issue with the way some folks are complaining about it, and frankly even saying it's a "logical fallacy because someone always has it worse", is because it puts Pokemon, a media entertainment franchise, at a level with existential issues that people face. It's a false equivalency in the first place. Unless we’re actually going to entertain, the idea of the “oppressed gamer”.
Imagine this scenario. I stand at the front of class, and ask my kids, "What's on your mind today?" They say the following:
"I'm hungry because I haven't eaten since yesterday"
"I'm worried that my mom won't be able to pay the bills this month"
"I'm tired because I worked the night shift and had to come straight here"
"I hope I don't get a call home from school, or else my mom might beat me again"
(these are the types of things I've seen)
vs.
"I'm pissed that I can't get all 900+ Pokemon in one video game".
None of these complaints are invalid, you see, but to compare Pokemon, a "want", to a "need" like food, shelter, safety, affection, and others is ridiculous. To say it's equal or just as important to the first 4 because "everybody has it worse" is, in my humble opinion, a privileged take on the matter.
As a Pokemon fan, there are far worse things that could happen to somebody, and the way people are acting about it is extreme and childish
period. Saying it's not what you want was fine. Advocating that the company doing this all changes it is
fine, and I would encourage people to do it.
But to act as if it's armageddon and that Game Freak will have hell to pay because they didn't meet expectations, even though the game will likely be excellent anyway? Maybe it's because I'm a teacher that deals with this **** almost daily, but I think people need to experience
real problems. This right here, this National Dex problem, is the definition of a "first-world" problem, if you ask me.
I realize that this reply was aimed at, "Mega corps are bad". Again, I agree that advocating for the company in question to change it is bad. But even compared to what other mega corporations, like cable companies are doing? This is beans compared to that.