Majin-Tenshinhan said:
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: 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." |
So, you told me that nobody was complaining that the DLC was a chopped off piece of the main game. When I posted a quote saying literally that you said I was avoiding addressing your question. I don't know how I can address that without questioning your ability to follow a conversation.
When you said that "nobody was saying that" and I pointed out someone was saying it in the exact comment that OP was responding to, that is indeed moving the goalposts, on that point. Your overall opinion on the matter may remain unchanged, but on that particular point your original position was proven wrong and the goalpost was initially moved.
Overall, it just seems like you are either trying to avoid acknowledging when you are proven wrong, or you just legitimately don't understand that conversations often have multiple threads, and certain counterpoints are meant to address certain points. The fact that a particular counterpoint may not address every point does not make them flawed. Maybe I could have been nicer about it, but I am legitimately not sure if you are capable of following a forum thread.
To explain what I mean, you have stated that my "highlighting" that people have not mentioned developers is somehow demonstrating your point. But, I was not bringing that up to address the main point of the argument, I brought it up as evidence that you are simply making things up as support for your point. You specifically said that there are 10 comments in this thread which are saying, and I quote, "that it doesn't matter that it's from a different developer". And only one of the posts you referenced says that. And I do not think it is a reasonable inference from what they do say, as I'll discuss later. So, you are, in fact, making things up to support your argument, and I think bullshit is the correct term.
You are also trying to claim that comments by a handful of people in a thread is somehow enough to make broad generalizations. So, I think it is quite fair to question your understanding of how sampling works. This is bluntly a stupid argument that is along the lines of "it's cold today so global warming is fake".
But I'll get back to the substance of the argument and give you a chance to prove me wrong by actually addressing what is said in a rational way.
Obviously, nobody has specifically said anything like, "I don't like this DLC because it was the same developer." The point that you are somehow missing is that the original comment that you were replying to was a counter-argument to a particular point. It is not something that someone would proactively bring up directly on their own, it it a response to the notion that there is something unfair about Nintendo releasing this content for a fee. One reason why people may feel like that is because they feel that the content was either cut or was something that they just didn't finish in time of the main game.
For example, Veknoid's post about the "optics" shows that the content releasing close to the release date is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, but it suggests that it raises suspicions of some kind of unethical behavior on Nintendo's part. Curl's comments likewise echo that there is something "iffy" about the scenario. Again, this implies (to me, and they can correct me if I'm wrong) that there is nothing inherently wrong about releasing additional content so close to launch, but it makes them suspicious that Nintendo has done something untoward such as releasing unfinished content as DLC or cutting content from the main game.
Showing that a different development team made the game (which I'm not so sure is what occurred based on Otter's point) would indeed be relevant to the discussion of whether or not it is reasonable or fair for Nintendo to charge extra for the content. It gives more insight about the development process, and indicates that the content represented an investment beyond what was originally planned for the main game. That may not convince everyone, but it is definitely relevant.
I'll sum it up in an actual logical argument.
Premise 1: If someone believes that DLC is content that was cut from the main game, it is relevant to point out that it had a different development team.
Premise 2: Jackhandy stated that he believed the DLC was content cut from the main game.
Conclusion: Firebush's counterpoint about the game having a different developer, if true, is a relevant counterpoint.
Either you can show why one of those premises is false, why the conclusion of the argument does not follow from the premises, or the argument is sound.
