Because it’s fun. Thus concludes my argument. There's more words below, but they basically equate to this statement.
The price of games is such a peculiarity. The argument of what a game should cost versus what it is actually priced at is frequent, and most prevalent when the price point is $15 or less. This is because a game that is not the full retail accepted price of $50-$60 assumedly has a defect. The graphics are retro, the game is too short, or in this case the game is too old. The depth of the arbitration used to decry the purchase of a relatively cheap game, is simply astounding.
A typical piece of lopsided logic is the comparison of a game to another product. We’ve all heard these, right? I don’t want timed DLC because when I buy a steak, I want to be able to eat it in one bite if I so choose. I can’t accept even a second of downtime because when I buy a car, I expect the engine will always turn on when I turn the key. Old movies and TV shows are free on YouTube or available for streaming on Netflix so old games should be a dollar or free. This specious reasoning is so absurd, yet trotted out as though it were pure debate gold. Yeah, when I buy a lamp I expect it turn on instantly, so I no longer accept load times in any game.
Every product has its own set of standards, much in the same that every hobby has its own price points. I don’t expect the cost of an afternoon of paintball to equate to the cost of an afternoon of gaming, and neither should you. Trying to draw the line between the two is about as silly as comparing the standards of a $15,000 car to a $60 video game.
With regards to Pokemon and ageism in video games, the title is about 20 years old. So that means it should be free by common argument. Or at least a few bucks cheaper, by way of an even more obtuse line of reasoning. The thing about fun is that it doesn’t have an inherent expiration date. When I play Zelda I for the millionth time, I still enjoy it. Fun is worth paying for even for those ruddy ol’ things that aren’t brand new and shiny, which is why I bought Zelda I for the nth time on my 3DS, and bought Rare Replay on the Xbone. But ROMs are free, right? So are PS4s if you try hard enough.
I wouldn’t deign to disparage someone’s justification for not buying this game if they think Pokemon is garbage or think the first games were inferior (in these parts we call those people wrong). But to hold back a purchase for what is about the cost of a lunch at Taco Bell because it is $10 and not x dollars less is absurd. Regardless of age, graphical style, or any other arbitrary definitions one tries to apply to a game, fun is fun and fun inside of a product costs money.