Getting, Skipping or Canceling Pre-Orders (Poll)

[Sabre_King]

I have both the games pre-ordered. Honestly I have played Pokémon ever since gen 1 and I don’t mind returning back to kanto and seeing all the updated graphics. Yes for some, people don’t want to go back to kanto because gen 1 is overused yet I don’t see why that should matter. Also I get they have taken some of the basic mechanics out of the game but let’s be real the company has been up front with this appealing to a more casual audience. One trend I’ve noticed over the years is where fans started playing the games. There are fans like me who started with gen 1 whereas others started with the more recent generations. For a lot of people that complain about kanto that’s fine it may not be something you want to go back to but think of the fans who never explored kanto before, the last game to explore kanto was HG/SS while the last stand only kanto game was FR/LG, neither of which are cheap to get now a days. FR/LG may be cheap but would require the proper hardware to play the game or you could just buy the virtual console versions of R/B/Y. Whereas getting a copy of HG/SS ranges from $40-$60 pre owned. Everyone has their choice in playing the games or skipping them. I can admit that the game is the least bit hyped but honestly I’m ok with hardly anything being revealed just yet only because it’s a nice change of pace when getting nearly everything revealed like in past recent games.

 

[Carina]

I feel like this game is aimed at those fans who gave up after Gen 1...aka the ones who say, "The first 150 were fine, then they went overboard!!"

I was there for Gen 1 and it HAS been a while since I've revisited Kanto, plus it'd be nice to experience the original gen's soundtrack again.
Not a huge fan of Pokemon Go though.
If I do get Let's Go, it's because I really think the art and style looks amazing and so cute.
Still undecided though.

 

[Storm the Lycanroc]

When the series celebrated its 20th anniversary back in 2016 I had a feeling we'd inevitably return to Kanto at some point. Turns out it that prediction came true with the announcement of Let's Go. I think it's better they do it sooner than later. By doing so they get their Kanto worship out of the way.

Some of us will play Let's Go and some of us won't. We're all free to make that choice.

 

[Sαpphire]

There's ten times as many of them because they're playing for free on hardware that can do much more than gaming. How many of those 150 million are going to spend $300 on a device that can only play video games and then an extra $60 for the game?

I mean, I agree with the sentiment that Go doesn't really need to be "saved", that's a poor choice of words, but I also don't see its success translating onto the Switch. Switch games succeed through a VERY different strategy from Go. Mostly the opposite strategy in fact.

You know, it's really easy to nitpick at "oh how many would buy a Switch???" - but I'd be more interested in an in-depth analysis of why you think people with pretty expensive smartphones are unlikely to pick up this game (and with it a console that can play a heck of a lot more than Pokemon) at a rate of, oh, like 5%. Because that's the thing; if literally just a small, single-digit percentage of those Go gamers buy this game, plus a mild portion of the core fanbase, then suddenly Pokemon once again has the top selling title on a Nintendo console. Do you really think that's so unlikely? Like on an actual critical, business-focused basis, not whether or not you hate the idea of these games.

Not to mention I didn't say anything about any of that but pointing out that there are just tons of casual fans and Go players. Didn't once mention the success of LGPE as it's related to that. You must've projected that.

 

[WhiteBlair]

You know, it's really easy to nitpick at "oh how many would buy a Switch???" - but I'd be more interested in an in-depth analysis of why you think people with pretty expensive smartphones are unlikely to pick up this game (and with it a console that can play a heck of a lot more than Pokemon) at a rate of, oh, like 5%. Because that's the thing; if literally just a small, single-digit percentage of those Go gamers buy this game, plus a mild portion of the core fanbase, then suddenly Pokemon once again has the top selling title on a Nintendo console. Do you really think that's so unlikely? Like on an actual critical, business-focused basis, not whether or not you hate the idea of these games.

Not to mention I didn't say anything about any of that but pointing out that there are just tons of casual fans and Go players. Didn't once mention the success of LGPE as it's related to that. You must've projected that.

A phone is an essential need and an inelastic purchase from the economic approach: Whatever the price is, you or your parents would pay as you cannot communicate without it, which is a daily-life activity.

On the other hand, Switch and LGPE are elastic purchases; people, excluding the fans of franchise, can give up on the idea based on it's price. It's luxury to have a console, and customers may spend it for other games or their life needs. That's why the entire debate: "Is LGPE worth paying 360?" comes from. Regardless, I'm buying the games and know the majority of people discussing here are, too. But, people do have the right to skip if the games do not introduce feature(s) to reach the audiences' interest to give it a try and instead continue with 3DS till the very end of its life span until next year.

Still, Pokémon is one of the best franchises ever made it to the history and its' customers cannot be underestimated. Even if LGPE is on a brand new console, it will sell. Franchises similar to Pokémon (Mario, Zelda) have sold around 9.5 to 10M so far, so an optimal expectation would be for 8M initial. Since the games are $60, that would mean it'd sell as if a 3DS game sells 12M, which is similar to what ORAS achieved in its first quarter.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

You know, it's really easy to nitpick at "oh how many would buy a Switch???" - but I'd be more interested in an in-depth analysis of why you think people with pretty expensive smartphones are unlikely to pick up this game (and with it a console that can play a heck of a lot more than Pokemon) at a rate of, oh, like 5%. Because that's the thing; if literally just a small, single-digit percentage of those Go gamers buy this game, plus a mild portion of the core fanbase, then suddenly Pokemon once again has the top selling title on a Nintendo console. Do you really think that's so unlikely? Like on an actual critical, business-focused basis, not whether or not you hate the idea of these games.

Not to mention I didn't say anything about any of that but pointing out that there are just tons of casual fans and Go players. Didn't once mention the success of LGPE as it's related to that. You must've projected that.

A phone is an essential need and an inelastic purchase from the economic approach: Whatever the price is, you or your parents would pay as you cannot communicate without it, which is a daily-life activity.

On the other hand, Switch and LGPE are elastic purchases; people, excluding the fans of franchise, can give up on the idea based on it's price. It's luxury to have a console, and customers may spend it for other games or their life needs. That's why the entire debate: "Is LGPE worth paying 360?" comes from. Regardless, I'm buying the games and know the majority of people discussing here are, too. But, people do have the right to skip if the games do not introduce feature(s) to reach the audiences' interest to give it a try and instead continue with 3DS till the very end of its life span until next year.

Still, Pokémon is one of the best franchises ever made it to the history and its' customers cannot be underestimated. Even if LGPE is on a brand new console, it will sell. Franchises similar to Pokémon (Mario, Zelda) have sold around 9.5 to 10M so far, so an optimal expectation would be for 8M initial. Since the games are $60, that would mean it'd sell as if a 3DS game sells 12M, which is similar to what ORAS achieved in its first quarter.

Well technically a smartphone is also elastic, having one isn't a matter of life or death in the same way that other inelastic goods such as say, food. Still, smartphones are definitely less elastic than a Switch since a smartphone has much more utility than a Switch. Mobile devices are used for much more than video games, they're also used for talk and text, browsing, social media, music, movies, pretty much anything you can think of. They're essentially do everything devices. That's why they're more willing to spend the money on smartphones, for double the cost of the Switch they can use it for 5 times as many things, it's a much better value for them. Perhaps if the Switch offered the same variety of apps as a mobile device it'd attract more mobile gamers, but since Nintendo wants the Switch to be a dedicated gaming device and focus on the games, mobile gamers are going to be inherently uninterested in the console. So mobile gamers are simply a poor target audience for a Switch game, the Switch appeals more towards hardcore gamers that play games as their primary hobby, spending hours and hours on gaming, not just switching between whatever form of media they feel like it. And the demographic that's actually buying the Switch is going to be the one complaining about the game being too casual, too dumbed down, and just wanting more for their $60. Now I'm not saying LGPE will completely bomb, but I do think it'll underperform. Say, somewhere in the 5-8 million range, still fairly well but bad by Pokemon remake standards (which are all about 10-12 million). Yes, BotW and Odyssey sold gangbusters on the Switch, but that's because those games fully understood what the Switch userbase wanted and delivered an experience that pushed the franchise forward in the direction that they wanted. LGPE is doing none of that.

 

[Pikasaur]

Im skipping these games mostly because I don't have a switch. Though the wild Battles being replaced with Pokemon Go doesn't help. Neither does the Gym requirements. Venasaur Hopping around like a frog still bothers me a bit too.

Really, if i want to visit Kanto i still have Fire Red and Leaf Green

 

[Sαpphire]

A phone is an essential need and an inelastic purchase from the economic approach: Whatever the price is, you or your parents would pay as you cannot communicate without it, which is a daily-life activity.

On the other hand, Switch and LGPE are elastic purchases; people, excluding the fans of franchise, can give up on the idea based on it's price. It's luxury to have a console, and customers may spend it for other games or their life needs. That's why the entire debate: "Is LGPE worth paying 360?" comes from. Regardless, I'm buying the games and know the majority of people discussing here are, too. But, people do have the right to skip if the games do not introduce feature(s) to reach the audiences' interest to give it a try and instead continue with 3DS till the very end of its life span until next year.

Many of the most popular smartphones - iPhones, the Samsung Galaxy flagships, Google Pixels, high end LG phones - are absolutely not inelastic. The percentage of Go players who paid upwards of $700 for their phone, or will through installments, aren't in economically dire situations and shouldn't really bat an eye at the cost of a Switch, if they would otherwise like the console and be likely to be casual gamers. Some budget phones can't properly, efficiently run Go - it's hard to argue that Go's success is too inexorably tied to an inelastic good.

I agree, people have the right to skip them; I never suggested otherwise.

I won't, but I didn't suggest other people couldn't make that decision for themselves, even if some of the reasoning I have seen has been on the unreasonable side of things. That's their prerogative.

Preorders of this game have been strong, and I maintain that they will stay strong; I further maintain that a statistically notable portion of the Go base will make the decision to buy these games, and in many cases a Switch as well.

Well technically a smartphone is also elastic, having one isn't a matter of life or death in the same way that other inelastic goods such as say, food. Still, smartphones are definitely less elastic than a Switch since a smartphone has much more utility than a Switch. Mobile devices are used for much more than video games, they're also used for talk and text, browsing, social media, music, movies, pretty much anything you can think of. They're essentially do everything devices. That's why they're more willing to spend the money on smartphones, for double the cost of the Switch they can use it for 5 times as many things, it's a much better value for them. Perhaps if the Switch offered the same variety of apps as a mobile device it'd attract more mobile gamers, but since Nintendo wants the Switch to be a dedicated gaming device and focus on the games, mobile gamers are going to be inherently uninterested in the console. So mobile gamers are simply a poor target audience for a Switch game, the Switch appeals more towards hardcore gamers that play games as their primary hobby, spending hours and hours on gaming, not just switching between whatever form of media they feel like it. And the demographic that's actually buying the Switch is going to be the one complaining about the game being too casual, too dumbed down, and just wanting more for their $60. Now I'm not saying LGPE will completely bomb, but I do think it'll underperform. Say, somewhere in the 5-8 million range, still fairly well but bad by Pokemon remake standards (which are all about 10-12 million). Yes, BotW and Odyssey sold gangbusters on the Switch, but that's because those games fully understood what the Switch userbase wanted and delivered an experience that pushed the franchise forward in the direction that they wanted. LGPE is doing none of that.

You can't really apply the series standards to the sales of these games in the short term - only the rather long term. The best selling Switch game so far has not met sales of Pokemon games from X and Y through Sun and Moon, because the Switch really hasn't sold enough since it's just two years into it's lifespan.

I also strongly disagree that the console is geared toward anyone "hardcore" and wouldn't make an excellent platform for mobile compatibility. We've already seen mobile games get ported here and there, it's a portable console, it's got a touch screen and good resolution - functionally it is capable of appealing to a mobile market. All it takes to make a jump between smartphone gaming and the Switch is the knowledge of the price barrier - which is not significant for people with high volumes of in-app purchases - and the desire for a little more power behind their games.

 

[WhiteBlair]

Many of the most popular smartphones - iPhones, the Samsung Galaxy flagships, Google Pixels, high end LG phones - are absolutely not inelastic. The percentage of Go players who paid upwards of $700 for their phone, or will through installments, aren't in economically dire situations and shouldn't really bat an eye at the cost of a Switch, if they would otherwise like the console and be likely to be casual gamers. Some budget phones can't properly, efficiently run Go - it's hard to argue that Go's success is too inexorably tied to an inelastic good.

It depends on the population. Sure, I'd accept any adult having a smartphone to play GO can fund a Switch and LGPE. Can't say the same for kids however, as 360 is nowhere near 3DS and its' Pokémon games combined. A product being affordable does not mean you 'have to' buy it, which is why I've given the elasticity example. Parents may simply think it is unnecessary to pay that amount of money for a game when their children already own a 3DS, or a casual gamer may prefer PS4 or XBox over Switch for that price along with the wide repertoire of their specific games.

So, you either have to bring something innovative or remarkable to the table for the community to say: "Yes, I'm buying a Switch for that and I can't wait for it." rather than "I'd rather buy a PS4 plus GTA V for that price." to make the franchise go all-out and ensure both the system and games promise a robust statistics.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

You can't really apply the series standards to the sales of these games in the short term - only the rather long term. The best selling Switch game so far has not met sales of Pokemon games from X and Y through Sun and Moon, because the Switch really hasn't sold enough since it's just two years into it's lifespan.

Most of a game's sales tend to take place within its first few months, maybe with a bump around Christmas if it doesn't release then. Waiting another year won't really prove much.

I also strongly disagree that the console is geared toward anyone "hardcore" and wouldn't make an excellent platform for mobile compatibility. We've already seen mobile games get ported here and there, it's a portable console, it's got a touch screen and good resolution - functionally it is capable of appealing to a mobile market. All it takes to make a jump between smartphone gaming and the Switch is the knowledge of the price barrier - which is not significant for people with high volumes of in-app purchases - and the desire for a little more power behind their games.

It's not about being compatible with the hardware, it's about the demographic the hardware is targeting and what characterizes them. Portable gaming's been around for 30 years and you never really saw anything like Angry Birds or Candy Crush on it. Mobile games came about as a means to target new audiences that weren't interested in traditional video games, the kind of blue ocean market we saw Nintendo target with the DS and Wii. They're meant to be cheap and casual and mixed in with other forms of entertainment to satisfy people who just want something to do when they're out and about. Home consoles and even portables like the Game Boy and DS/3DS lines, on the other hand, are more geared toward dedicated hobbyists who spend most of their free time gaming. The games are more expensive and there's not as much software spanning other forms of entertainment, especially for Nintendo who is adamant about their devices being gaming devices first and foremost. The vast majority of that market is and always has been turned off by that form of gaming and it wasn't until the DS, Wii, and mobile market really expanded the idea of what a gamer could be that they really became interested. Yes, there are some mobile gamers that spend a lot of IAPs and so the price barrier wouldn't be a big deal to them, but not many. Most of the mobile market either wants their games free or dirt cheap, and they usually want something other than games to sweeten the deal. The Switch doesn't offer them that, so they mostly wouldn't be interested. It's portable, yes, but part of the excitement of the Switch's portability is the opportunity to experience console scale games on the go, so it's closer to being a console than a mobile device and would appeal more towards the console demographic than the mobile demographic.

To put it another way, mobile gaming is like the fast food of video games. It's quick and cheap for people who are out and about can just get a meal and do other things. Unfortunately that comes at the cost of quality, but they may not particularly care all that much about the quality as much as the convenience of having a place to get some food and go. Console gaming is more like the sit down restaurant. It takes longer to get your food and it's more expensive, but it's designed to be a more ambient experience where you can enjoy higher quality food. Now you could point to there being McDonald's everywhere to say that fast food is a much larger market and more worth the attention and you may have a point, but sit down restaurants haven't exactly died off. It's just that sit down restaurants appeal to a different, more premium market. And you can still take food from a sit down restaurant with you if you want, you could eat a meal in and take the rest in a to-go bag or order from their takeout menu. Now imagine a chef gets hired at a 5 star restaurant and he decides he wants to serve fast food hamburgers because he's seen how popular McDonald's is and wants to get more people that like McDonald's to come to the 5 star restaurant. On the surface, this might seem like a good idea because of the sheer numbers McDonald's pulls in compared to the 5 star restaurant. But neither the typical customers nor the people that like fast food are going to be particularly interested, especially if the chef charges the same price for the hamburgers as the other gourmet meals the 5 star restaurant serves. The typical customers won't like it because it doesn't taste as good as the food that they're used to. Whereas the McDonald's customers won't want to come to the restaurant because it's too expensive or out of the way. Both markets are simply better off just buying the burgers at McDonald's at that point because it offers the better value, so the entire endeavor just defeats the purpose of even having a 5 star restaurant in the first place. It might be a good idea somewhere else, but here it's a mismatch.

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

I preordered Eevee and I plan on keeping it. I think I will enjoy the game.

 

[lemoncatpower]

Really pumped for these games, although I don't have a switch... so I'm not going to pre-order it... but I'm going to buy a switch for this and Smash Bros. There should have been an option for buying as soon as it comes out and a switch.

Also as this is a website that a lot of casuals don't comment on, I would not take this poll as serious what so ever.

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

Most of a game's sales tend to take place within its first few months, maybe with a bump around Christmas if it doesn't release then. Waiting another year won't really prove much.



It's not about being compatible with the hardware, it's about the demographic the hardware is targeting and what characterizes them. Portable gaming's been around for 30 years and you never really saw anything like Angry Birds or Candy Crush on it. Mobile games came about as a means to target new audiences that weren't interested in traditional video games, the kind of blue ocean market we saw Nintendo target with the DS and Wii. They're meant to be cheap and casual and mixed in with other forms of entertainment to satisfy people who just want something to do when they're out and about. Home consoles and even portables like the Game Boy and DS/3DS lines, on the other hand, are more geared toward dedicated hobbyists who spend most of their free time gaming. The games are more expensive and there's not as much software spanning other forms of entertainment, especially for Nintendo who is adamant about their devices being gaming devices first and foremost. The vast majority of that market is and always has been turned off by that form of gaming and it wasn't until the DS, Wii, and mobile market really expanded the idea of what a gamer could be that they really became interested. Yes, there are some mobile gamers that spend a lot of IAPs and so the price barrier wouldn't be a big deal to them, but not many. Most of the mobile market either wants their games free or dirt cheap, and they usually want something other than games to sweeten the deal. The Switch doesn't offer them that, so they mostly wouldn't be interested. It's portable, yes, but part of the excitement of the Switch's portability is the opportunity to experience console scale games on the go, so it's closer to being a console than a mobile device and would appeal more towards the console demographic than the mobile demographic.

To put it another way, mobile gaming is like the fast food of video games. It's quick and cheap for people who are out and about can just get a meal and do other things. Unfortunately that comes at the cost of quality, but they may not particularly care all that much about the quality as much as the convenience of having a place to get some food and go. Console gaming is more like the sit down restaurant. It takes longer to get your food and it's more expensive, but it's designed to be a more ambient experience where you can enjoy higher quality food. Now you could point to there being McDonald's everywhere to say that fast food is a much larger market and more worth the attention and you may have a point, but sit down restaurants haven't exactly died off. It's just that sit down restaurants appeal to a different, more premium market. And you can still take food from a sit down restaurant with you if you want, you could eat a meal in and take the rest in a to-go bag or order from their takeout menu. Now imagine a chef gets hired at a 5 star restaurant and he decides he wants to serve fast food hamburgers because he's seen how popular McDonald's is and wants to get more people that like McDonald's to come to the 5 star restaurant. On the surface, this might seem like a good idea because of the sheer numbers McDonald's pulls in compared to the 5 star restaurant. But neither the typical customers nor the people that like fast food are going to be particularly interested, especially if the chef charges the same price for the hamburgers as the other gourmet meals the 5 star restaurant serves. The typical customers won't like it because it doesn't taste as good as the food that they're used to. Whereas the McDonald's customers won't want to come to the restaurant because it's too expensive or out of the way. Both markets are simply better off just buying the burgers at McDonald's at that point because it offers the better value, so the entire endeavor just defeats the purpose of even having a 5 star restaurant in the first place. It might be a good idea somewhere else, but here it's a mismatch.

I think you're being a bit too harsh here. Let's Go might not be really delivering in wide-scale content but it is a lot more than just a mobile game, and I'm think that they still have more stuff to reveal. It wouldn't surprise me if they still have motion-controlled Z-Moves or something like that hidden away (something that I would actually really like). It wouldn't make much sense to include mega evolution but not Z-Moves, the things that Pikachu and Eevee can actually do. You're also generalising Switch owners a tad too much. Sure there are trends and differences in the averages between Switch owners and mobile games, but there are still millions of people with a Switch and I'm fairly certain that at least a portion of those are interested. You see it here on the forums, plenty of people are interested. Maybe not so much the competitive players, but they're only a small portion of players. Take a look at the statistics for how many people participate in the online battle competitions on USUM, it's generally in the thousands, while USUM sold millions of copies, and it's not like the online battle competions have a high barrier for entry (unlike VGC) either, you just need an eligible team of pokémon and an internet connection for your 3DS.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

I think you're being a bit too harsh here. Let's Go might not be really delivering in wide-scale content but it is a lot more than just a mobile game, and I'm think that they still have more stuff to reveal. It wouldn't surprise me if they still have motion-controlled Z-Moves or something like that hidden away (something that I would actually really like). It wouldn't make much sense to include mega evolution but not Z-Moves, the things that Pikachu and Eevee can actually do.

It pretty much is a mobile game. Or at the very least designed with a mobile game mentality. It's intentionally shallow and dumbed down so it can be played for a short time and then dropped. Not to mention, you know, that it includes game mechanics from an actual mobile game.

Furthermore, the fact that it isn't delivering wide scale content is the problem, because that's what's expected out of a console game.

You're also generalising Switch owners a tad too much. Sure there are trends and differences in the averages between Switch owners and mobile games, but there are still millions of people with a Switch and I'm fairly certain that at least a portion of those are interested. You see it here on the forums, plenty of people are interested. Maybe not so much the competitive players, but they're only a small portion of players. Take a look at the statistics for how many people participate in the online battle competitions on USUM, it's generally in the thousands, while USUM sold millions of copies, and it's not like the online battle competions have a high barrier for entry (unlike VGC) either, you just need an eligible team of pokémon and an internet connection for your 3DS.

To some degree, it is a generalization, but that is the way the market is behaving on a macroeconomic level. Of course there's some portion of the fanbase that owns a Switch that wouldn't mind a mobile game, but enough to turn a profit and maintain sales levels? Probably not.

 

[BCVM22]

Also as this is a website that a lot of casuals don't comment on, I would not take this poll as serious what so ever.

Are you suggesting a sample size of 44 people doesn't tell us a whole lot either way?

 

[lemoncatpower]

Are you suggesting a sample size of 44 people doesn't tell us a whole lot either way?

I think it's skewed and biased in it's wording and leads people into certain ideas about the game before answering the poll.

Or were you being sarcastic?

 

[Sceptrigon]

I think you're being a bit too harsh here. Let's Go might not be really delivering in wide-scale content but it is a lot more than just a mobile game, and I'm think that they still have more stuff to reveal. It wouldn't surprise me if they still have motion-controlled Z-Moves or something like that hidden away (something that I would actually really like). It wouldn't make much sense to include mega evolution but not Z-Moves, the things that Pikachu and Eevee can actually do.

Well judging by the past few months, it doesn’t seem like there’s really anything left to show at this rate. They may bring out something completely brand new at the last minute, but even still I don’t think it would compensate for the minimal content that it already has compared to other main series games. Z-moves are most likely going to be there and motion controls could be fun for some, but if it comes with having to perform the exact motions and poses for every Z-move, then it could actually be more frustrating.

 

[BCVM22]

Or were you being sarcastic?

Intensely so, yes. I was agreeing with your point that the poll ultimately tells us very little.

 

[Erron Black]

I don't know why these games are getting so much flak tbh

They're not traditional main series and they may be Gen 1, but that doesn't mean they won't be any less fun or worth investing time into.

I'm seeing so many complaints about little things that are just dumb to complain about. It's not like this is the last game in the series, and it's not like we aren't getting a set of traditional main series next year.

Let's Go to me is just testing the waters on what they could do with Gen 8 on Switch and seeing what players enjoy and what they don't. It's also a gateway for Go exclusive players to get invested with the main series games, which is a great idea. Not only does it grow the community, it also gives us something to tide us over with until Gen 8 instead of trying to find some way to make Sun/Moon and Ultra Sun/Moon interesting for the 10th time.

 

[ArtFenix]

Oh, the Let's Go apologists are something else.

I don't know why these games are getting so much flak tbh

Yes, you do. It's been mentioned why many people are against these games countless times already. In details.

They're not traditional main series

They've been officially confirmed to be a part of the main series.

they may be Gen 1, but that doesn't mean they won't be any less fun or worth investing time into

It kinda does mean that they aren't worth investing money in them for reasons mentioned countless times. And the price tag of 60$.

and it's not like we aren't getting a set of traditional main series next year.

Key words here are "next year", which honestly doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean we can't be against Let's Go games just like it doesn't mean you cannot enjoy them.

Let's Go to me is just testing the waters on what they could do with Gen 8

I am sorry, but how can a Gen I game with recycled region, models, animations etc, and cut content help them "test" anything? What does it have to do with Gen VIII? The graphics are clearly not up to what many expect from a Switch Pokemon game, the "Pokemon Go" stuff has absolutely nothing to do with Gen VIII, at least, I hope it hasn't. And it just bothers me how Let's Go apologists say things like "they just need more experience with the console". They are not some noob indie developers. They have more than 20 years of history and are behind the most expensive gaming franchise in the world. They are Nindendo first party developers. They should be able to just make a Gen VIII game. Let's Go games aren't supposed to "test" anything (other than if they can sell cheap "you know what" to get more money). They're just cheap quickly made games to make some easy money before they finish working on THE actual main series games next year. Thinking they're anything else than that is consciously making yourself delusional.

It's also a gateway for Go exclusive players to get invested with the main series games, which is a great idea.

It's not that great of an idea. Pokemon Go is a FREE game for mobile phones/tablets, which pretty much everybody has. Not many people would pay 400$ just to play more or less somthing they can already play for free.

Not only does it grow the community

Right. By bringing in people with the wrong idea of what Pokemon should be all about (speaking of Pokemon Go fans and Pokemon Go game mechanics).

it also gives us something to tide us over with until Gen 8 instead of trying to find some way to make Sun/Moon and Ultra Sun/Moon interesting for the 10th time.

This is, like, the only thing I can agree with. IF you are willing to spend money on these games, that is.