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?)

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.

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?

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.

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. 

The reason the developer is relevant is because people have a strange notion that if the DLC comes out around the same time, they just chopped out a piece of the game to sell separately. Which doesn't make a ton of sense, but w/e. As the game was made by an entirely separate team, it demonstrates that this clearly was not the case. 

As a follow up question, why, as a consumer, does it matter that the DLC soon after launch? It if it released a year later for the same price, then it wouldn't make a difference, right?