@KzTxL7:
I don't see this as the right direction when the cost of the game + the cost of the expansion costs more than Sun/Moon and it's Ultra as well Pokemon Bank all together.
Mathematically, the only issue you seem to have is that SWSH costs 60 bucks, which is just the basic price of Switch games. I agree that they don't have as much content as some of the older games in the series, but I understand that being HD games on Switch, they were going to have the basic Switch game price.
As for the math, we're technically getting a better deal.
If X=The original cost of the game and Y is the cost to get the full experience then
Handheld: Y=2X
Switch: Y=X+.5X (or Y=1.5X)
The Switch cost is better, but Switch games cost more. I personally prefer this model because the idea of buying the same game with expansion like features is unappealing to me. I'd much rather spend a little less and get an expansion, and I didn't buy USUM so I didn't have to play through the same stuff again to get to the new stuff I wanted to play.
There are three alternatives:
1. Delay the game a year and release more full games. This is the best possible one, but also the one that will never happen because of Pokemon being a multimedia franchise.
2. Free DLC. Very few game developers will do stuff like this, and even the ones who do, don't always stay that way. For example, Monster Hunter World eventually released a paid expansion after a year and a half (or more) of free monster downloads and the treasure dragon.
3. Release a second version. To me, this only supports the people who didn't buy the original, which has historically always been less than who have bought the original versions. I think there are far less people who wait for the third version than there are people who have bought both. That's just conjecture of course, but if true, then this seems to be a less consumer friendly route if DLC is an option.