While I’m not a fan of rogue-lites personally, the new DLC mode seems to offer much more than meets the surface. Granted, I haven’t played the DLC, this is purely based according to online testimony, but my understanding is that this not some lazily slapped together slop that Nintendo chose to smack a $20 price tag on… no, this DLC is absolutely jam-packed with premium content. Emerald Rush takes full advantage of DK’s fine-tuned movement options, it offers dozens of hours of some of the most tightly-designed levels in the entire game (with much of it being significantly more challenging than the base game). And that’s not even everything: you also get to roam around a remade DK Island from DK64, which is overflowing with tasteful nods and nudges to DK’s legacy.

On top of all this? Donkey Kong Bananza: Emerald Rush + DK Island was developed by an entirely different studio than from the base game. Again, not some slop slapped out by the base team to make a quick buck; this product was crafted with a ton time, care, and energy. I believe an apology is due for Nintendo EDP 8.

That all having been said… I know many will disagree and simply dismiss everything I say here as “bootlicker activity,” but these are my thoughts. What do you guys think? Anybody here have yet to purchase the DLC for themself? What do you think of the mode? Ofc if you don’t like rogue-lites (like me), prolly best to skip. But if you do like rogue-lites…maybe you’ll really like this.

Ninety dollars for the total package is a bit steep. And considering how soon it dropped, it's even harder to accept. Feels like one of those intentional deals where they slice part of the game out for prime milking.

But it was developed by an entirely different team. That’s a little bit much for a “slice part of the game,” no? It seems that this was intended to be DLC right from the get-go.

What’s weird to me is the choice to drop DK Island in the DLC. Maybe DKBananza team didn’t have time to flesh out the area with collectibles, so scrapped it last minute?? IDK.

This is a weird argument though, because how does that matter from a consumer standpoint? I get what you're trying to say, but how does it affect me as the consumer at all that someone else made it? If you're going to charge me twice for a hamburger just because the bun and the meat was made by different chefs, I'd understandably be confused. 

This isn't a criticism on the DLC value itself, I just don't see how it being made by a different developer is even remotely relevant from a buyer's perspective. 

Noo,we where not.

Wow, DK is $70 not $80 like MK. PHEW. 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.

Glad I didn't buy DK yet as maybe they'll have a bundle with dlc later... Though probably not. BOTW doesn't. Greed.

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.

It’s a weird argument because you’re reading it void of its context. The claim I’m responding to is irrelevant to the point on the buyer’s perspective; rather, I was responding to the claim of the DLC seeming as a slice of content that was intended for the base game, but was later pushed to make a quick buck. With this context it mind, my argument is that I disagree with this theory, and the reason why I disagree is based according to the fact that it was developed by an entirely different studio, as opposed to it being a project of the base DKBananza team that was likely developed and finished alongside the base game but “carved out” to boost profits. This was intended from the start not to be base game content, but additional gameplay, thereby accruing its own hefty development costs (“hefty” in that it wasn’t some quick thing cooked up by base team amidst their work on base game, but rather there was an entire team of devs who were paid wages to develop this project) and thus justifying its purpose in being excluded from the base game.

If you want to discuss the value for consumers, see OP. The value proposition is reasonable IMO if you’re somebody who enjoys rogue-lites (and if you don’t enjoy rogue-lites, then don’t spend the money). Again, we’re talking about upwards of 30hr of gameplay, some of the most tightly-designed content in the entire game, etc. Additionally, this content is substantially different from base game and really should not be viewed as essential to purchase in order to receive the complete experience of DKBananza.

Now, the reason for its launch so soon after base game almost certainly as to do with Nintendo having finished both the base game and DLC well before launch (as is often the case with them) and choosing to release the content in separate waves. That said, I will beg the question: Why does it matter if content (which was intended as additional content from the get-go) was finished before launch? If significant time, energy, and resources was devoted to this separate project with the intention of recuperating losses via DLC charge, then that’s simply called making and selling gaming product. If you don’t see value in the DLC, then nobody’s holding a gun to your head to purchase it. Also, the full DKBananza experience is in the base game. The additional content is fully separate from the base game. It’s like how you would never say that the full Mario Galaxy 1 experience is $120USD since Mario Galaxy More (i.e. Mario Galaxy 2) is another $60USD.

(Also, your hamburger analogy falls short because you’d need to assume the bun was made with the purpose of not needing to be apart of the dish. It’s be like charging extra for the side of french fries: it’s not essential to the base experience, and was made separately. Unless you believe consumers should feel entitled to free french fries with every purchase of a hamburger?)

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but what you’re saying is that had Nintendo released the DLC a little bit later, all the sudden it’s less or no longer objectionable? I don’t understand. Nintendo often finishes projects well ahead of release; for the DLC content to have been done similarly well in advance, and Nintendo looking to pump it out ASAP, I do not see the problem? It was developed with the intent of being it’s own thing right from the get-go as is clear by the fact that (i) a completely separate team of devs worked on it, and (ii) the content is vastly different and by no means complements nor fulfills the base game experience. It’s a $20USD bonus mode; it is by no means essential to the “full DKBananza experience.” Saying that the game now costs $90USD sounds similar to saying Mario Galaxy’s price jumped to $100USD with the release of Mario Galaxy 2 (which was intended to be DLC, and is far more of a “completion” of Mario Galaxy 1 than Emerald Rush is to DKBananza).

IDK I guess I just don’t understand what’s so wrong about dropping DLC so soon… most Nintendo games are done well ahead of launch, and likely whatever DLC they choose to pump out is as well. It’s clear the game mode was never intended to be apart of nor a fulfillment of the base game, as seen by the difference in dev studios and gameplay styles.

It’s the french fries — not the bun — of the hamburger. You don’t need the french fries to fully enjoy the hamburger.