I see both sides of this. And, ultimately, I think this is more about optics than anything.

I paid $70 for Donkey Kong Bananza. And I loved it. You can read my review here: https://www.vgchartz.com/article/465231/donkey-kong-bananza-ns2/

The existence of $20 optional DLC doesn't make me love the game any less. In no way do I feel like the base game is missing out because it wasn't bundled with this DLC.

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.

Apology??? Are you serious??? 

you heard that right! Miyamoto and his team of EDP 8 devs is due for an apology, RedKingXIII.

These next few years are going to be expensive for every system. Maybe it's games, maybe it's dlc, maybe it's gamepass or console prices. It's not a great time to be a gamer.

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.

If this came out in 2026 no one bats an eye.

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.

But that is the industry right now. Or, at least the AAA industry. The indies will always play be different rules.

If we want it to stop, we have to stop buying it.

But who's doing that?

Depends on what type of gamer you are. If you're like me, and you bought your system before the greed tour, you're good on that front. Then, you just have to not care about DLC or online gaming, and what you're left with is a meager ten dollar bump in game prices. That's not that bad, imo.

Gamers are just going to have to make a stand, that's all. No longer can we "have it all". We have to choose. Be picky.

Agree to disagree, I suppose. Extra content is extra content. If you want bigger from an already jam-packed experience without devs asking for more in return, then that’s entitlement IMO. There are people who labored over these products who deserve compensation for their labors. With Nintendo as supportive as it is to its devs, it is no stretch to say that every single person involved in this DLC’s development will reap monetary rewards from your $20 purchase.

No, I don't think I'm missing any context, because you also said so in your opening post - not responding to anyone - and said that people owe the studio an apology for this. I repeat... As a consumer, why does that matter? It's still a full-priced game with paid DLC coming out very shortly after launch, regardless of who developed said DLC. I think you used it as an argument for why it makes the DLC better or more worth it, and I think that's not a valid argument at all. 

I don't think the timing matters much. In a year's time, Nintendo and Switch 2 will still be successful, so the very reason why so many people want to hate will still be present.

How can anyone make the argument that something has been taken out of the game to be sold separately when Bananza is a complete game and this DLC is an entirely separate game mode that is its own thing? In order to be a money grab, it has to be something where more is charged than something is worth. But here we have a game and a DLC where the price/value ratio is fine in both cases. Nintendo releasing an expansion for one of their big games isn't something new either. The obvious positive here - that this particular DLC is something that actually doesn't expand the main game and can be skipped without regrets - goes over people's heads.

What the outrage over this DLC really is at its core is the continuation of "everything about Switch 2 is overpriced." A line of thinking that could never be reasonably justified, but the people who have been on board with this line of thinking cannot take the loss. It upsets them that Nintendo can charge their prices and that the market is seemingly taking no stand against it. It means they were wrong. It means they don't understand the value of money, what purchasing power is.

In many countries a €70 game today constitutes a lower percentage of a person's wage than a €60 game did in 2017. So while 70 is a higher number than 60, video games did not become more expensive; at least not Nintendo games, because they continue to forego the inclusion of microtransactions and small piece DLCs. Donkey Kong Bananza also happens to be 40-50% longer than Super Mario Odyssey, so even if you refuse to accept the argument about purchasing power, you are still left with "pay ~20% more to receive ~40% more content." That is a good deal, hence why the idea of taking a stand against Nintendo's prices is so stupid.

You look around and see people get worked up over €70+20 because the DLC was announced soon after the game's launch. Then you remember that €70+20 was a thing in 2017 already, only worse, because the DLC was announced before the game's launch, and it was story DLC. And then you remember that that wasn't worth the money-grubbing outrage at the time, because Breath of the Wild turned out fine.