It would certainly be an interesting idea to add more thematically warm and friendly ways of making pokemon more statistically viable. But remember that Pokemon Go is in fact built on the groundwork of Ingress and Ingress players which was a faction based struggle for land-control on a larger scale than Pokemon Go gyms. Naturally, everything outside of “catching them all” is built around Gym control and by extension pokemon stats. “Stardust steroids” are an easy item to both reward with and monetize in-game, monetizing “friendship and love” with a pokemon is a little more difficult. Lets not forget that like it or not, 5 paying customers is better than 100 free players.

However, to treat Pokemon Go “as a standalone” and ignoring it’s game history, but building your article and argument around the show (which existed to sell the game and products, not that that makes it a bad show) seems rather selective. The point would have been stronger if it took into account the games too, or ignored the show as it ignores the games it is based on. Even in the show, plenty of trainers are successful (in battle) without forging the same kind of bond Ash does, this is simply a tactic that works for him as an individual.

I also believe another commentator mentioned additional feature in the latest core games. I think everything has its place and to try to add every feature into every game/game type leads to loss of focus. Things get popular, I get that, but it’s not that game or movie, or whatever’s job to apologize or change on behalf of masses who are entirely or partially oblivious to the history behind it. Yes, Pokemon Go has been introduced to a large number of people who never really got into the games, or the show, and an even larger number of people who didnt know Ingress existed, let alone played/understood it, but the game would be successful with or without those uninitiated, perhaps it wouldn’t have been featured in the news as much, but it would have still been immensely popular without the Oblivious market. It feels like much of the complaints about pokemon go are coming from voices akin to someone stumbling into a book store and complaining that they don’t carry power-drills. That doesn’t make it a bad product, and it owes nothing to the world to “to make itself good” More so when features requested or demanded already exist in a space where they make more sense (like the 3ds games that do not revolve around micro transactions)

Perhaps I am being short-sighted. However, I would like to hear your design suggestions for a “friendship” feature that continues to encourage you to KEEP going back outside (as it is, going back out and getting more stardust, and proverbially getting and tossing in lower CP pokemon into the wood chipper for candy encourages you to keep catching even once you've, some day, filled your pokedex.) As well as not impede on the potential for micro transactions and actually keeping the game profitable. If you can just catch one of each, and bond with it, then whats the incentive of getting lures, incense, balls, etc, its a moderately complex ecosystem of features, and while well-intentioned, on the outset, I feel like adding a feature deep and impact enough feature as you describe, would seriously unbalance the systems in place. It is never easy to balance FUNCTION of a game with theme and influence it may have.