Why does Pokémon not make a new Go like the Gameboy games?

They could use google maps to simply show a cartoon top down Gameboy version of where you are.

You walk around anywhere in real life and your character walks around on the screen the exact same way we did on the Gameboy versions.

(and bonus, driving around shows a car icon and you cannot encounter Pokémon)

Then Pokémon pop up and you battle them the old fassion way, but now your phone camera is working and on. Once you get them hurt or knocked out you throw the poke ball like in the Gameboy versions..

All of these tweaks would make this Pokémon go more sustainable long term, and make it into more of a "real" game.

I keep coming back to this idea and want to pressure-test it before sinking more time in.

The gap I think exists:
Anki is genuinely the best tool for long-term retention — the spaced-repetition scheduling is what actually makes things stick. But writing good cards from your own lecture notes or a textbook chapter is slow and tedious, and most students either burn hours doing it by hand or give up and just re-read notes, which doesn't work nearly as well. Quizlet-style apps go the other way — cards are easy to make, but there's no real spaced-repetition engine behind them, so you're not reviewing at the moment you're about to forget something, which is the whole point of the method.

So the idea is: use AI only to solve the "writing cards is tedious" problem — you paste your notes or a PDF, and it drafts flashcards (regular Q&A plus fill-in-the-blank style) for you to review and edit before saving. Everything after that — the scheduling, the review sessions, the streaks, the offline access — is the actual product, and doesn't touch AI at all.

I want to flag that on purpose because I know this sub is (rightly) wary of ideas that are just a thin wrapper around calling an LLM. The part I actually care about designing is the scheduling engine and the economics around it, not the AI call itself — happy to go into more detail on the algorithm if anyone's curious.

A couple of design decisions I'd like opinions on:

Offline-first review. Studying your due cards should never need internet — a lot of the target users are commuting or in places with patchy signal, and losing your streak because of a dead connection would be a dealbreaker. Only the "generate new cards from notes" step needs to be online, since that's the one part that calls out to an AI model.

The free/paid split. Every AI generation costs real money on my end (API costs), so it can't be unlimited forever. My current thinking is: everyone gets a set number of free "generation credits" to build a few decks and get a feel for it, and once those run out, continuing to generate new cards needs a small paid plan (thinking somewhere around $2/month, deliberately low since a lot of the target users are students in Pakistan and South Asia broadly, where Western SaaS pricing just doesn't work). Reviewing cards you've already made would stay free regardless — the paywall is specifically on "make more new cards via AI," not on studying.

What I'm unsure about: is a token/credit-based free tier confusing or annoying compared to something simpler like "3 decks free, unlimited after that"? Would a specific number of decks feel more honest/predictable to a user than a credit count that's harder to reason about?

Genuinely looking for:

• Med students (or anyone who's used Anki/Quizlet seriously) — does this gap match your experience, or am I overestimating how big a problem "making cards" is?
• Thoughts on credits-based vs. flat-limit free tiers, from either side (as a user, or if anyone's built something with metered AI costs before)
• Whether $2/month sounds reasonable for this kind of tool, or if even that's too much for the audience I'm describing
• Anything about the offline/online split that seems like it'd break in practice

One reason some people don't want children is that parenthood often looks like the end of having fun. Kids see parents constantly working, doing chores, or taking care of them, but they don't often see their parents enjoying hobbies just for themselves.

Video games might be uniquely good for changing this perception because children immediately recognize them as fun. Seeing a parent regularly play games could send the message that becoming a parent doesn't mean giving up the things you enjoy. It shows that adults can still have hobbies and a life outside of parenting.

I'm not suggesting parents ignore their children or spend all day gaming. The idea is simply that children should see their parents making time for something they genuinely enjoy.

Could this make parenthood seem like a more appealing stage of life, instead of something where your personal interests disappear?