JWeinCom said:
Dude. You said it wasn't what anyone in this thread was saying. I showed you someone in the thread saying it. How is that acitvely avoiding what you said? It would have been impossible to address your comment any more directly. And that was the post he was actually addressing when he made the point that you were saying was invalid. If that's the person he was responding to, why does it matter what other people might think? Do you understand how conversations work? But, I will address the goalpost you just moved. The posts in this thread don't represent the entire gaming community, and most people posting didn't give like a dissertaion on the exact reason they do or do not take issue with the DLC. That would be silly. Plus, at this point you are actively just lying. There are 10+ other comments saying " that it doesn't matter that it's from a different developer, with the timing it feels like it was held off deliberately to ask for more money shortly after release". Really? Show me those ten comments, in this thread, from people other than you, and I will give you a thousand dollars. I shit you not. Being 100% sincere here. |
I never moved any goalposts at all, I said exactly the same thing from the start to the end. I'm not going to quote the posts because I don't want to give notifications to people who aren't interested, but here are select quotes:
Zippy6: "Oh wait they had $20 DLC waiting for less than 2 months after launch. I can't comment in the quality of the content included with the DLC as I've yet to play it but it's the timing that's objectionable. Your $70 wasn't good enough for Nintendo. This should have been a free update regardless of it's quality."
Zippy6 again: "Pretty much yes. While it may be the same product and same price the timing matters greatly. You just paid them $70 for a game and then immediately they're banging on your door asking for another $20. The close proximity to release also gives the impression it's something that they could have finished earlier and included with the game for added value, or it could have just been a free update to the people who had just bought an expensive $70 game less than 2 months ago."
curl-6: "Nah, I'm a big fan of Nintendo and Bananza is my game of the year, but $20 DLC coming out like 2 months after the game itself is kinda iffy. I'm not too pissed as the base game is already a complete experience on its own, and the extra stuff isn't my thing, but the circumstances do smack of greed."
curl-6 again: "As Veknoid says, it's more about context; the fact this followed so closely after the base game is just not a good look as it suggests it could have been included but was held back to get another $20 for us."
Veknoid_Outkast: "I think this is more about optics than anything. [...] That said, the timing of this DLC suggests a certain cynical, money-grubbing approach by Nintendo. Had they held onto it and released it next summer, I think there would be far less disappointment and skepticism. I don't think the problem is the existence of the DLC, or even the price tag; it's that we can all tell it was developed in tandem with the base game but sold à la carte."
JackHandy (btw the same person you used a comment from earlier, clarifying that the development team has no bearing on his frustrations): "If a publisher plans on DLC before the game even drops, even if it's from another team, then to me it might as well be from the same team because you literally had the chance to include it."
Otter: "For me, If it's completed near enough to the time of launch and the game is already expensive, I do expect any successful company to incorporate it as free content to support its on going sales or at least be very cheap. Essentially its something they have to be conscious of imo."
So I find myself having to apologise - there were only 7 comments, not 10, so forgive my exaggeration. That's still 7 compared to the single one you presented, which also clarified in a later comment that they did not have any concern on whether it was a different developer or not.
You can re-read my comments and see very clearly that whatever goalposts you imagined to see were never moved - I said the exact same thing the entire way through. You highlighting "I actually don't see a single comment that directly addresses the different developer issue" is exactly in line with my point - that it being different developers or not is not actually part of what people are taking issue with, at the very least in this thread. Many people here acknowledged that even if it's made by a different developer, the close proximity to the game's launch and a separate price tag is what irks them.
You can very freely disagree with me - but stop being so unnecessarily aggressive. I stated one point - which I've maintained - and I've continued to show how that point is reflected right here in this very thread. You are actively calling it bullshit, accusing me of random stuff and insulting my intelligence. Calm down, dude.
