But you don't know that's what people are upset about. From my experience, people are upset because they already paid for the game just 2 months ago and now are asked to pay more. Whether it was developed by the same developer or not, you're still being asked to pay again in very short order. I could be wrong, but that has been what I've seen most frustration with and this thread also seems to reflect that, given that many posts are saying that they'd be fine with it if it came out 6-12 months later than it did. Who developed it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant - the fact that the content is totally ready so short after launch makes it feel like it was held off on from release, regardless of who made it. 

That's how it looks to me anyway. Again, I don't have a personal horse in the race, I just don't think that argument at all addresses the issue people actually have. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but almost every post I see seems to reflect it. 

Not every point will be relevant to every reader. If that doesn't apply to a particular person, they can move on. That doesn't make the point/argument flawed.

When it doesn't seem to be what anyone in the thread is saying, it probably should be relevant to them but alright. 

Literally the first response in this thread, which is the also first post in the quote chain you're in right now, says exactly that. 

Lol I’ve tried explaining this to him during this whole thread. I don’t think he wants to listen. I say just leave him alone.

... and then you have 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. I don't really want to keep posting in this thread, but I kind of have to when you're actively avoiding everything I'm referring to. 

My point was, and still is, it being a different developer seems largely irrelevant to the issues the majority have with this. The comments in this thread very obviously support that notion. If you disagree personally, that's fine - but singling out one comment against all the others which support my argument is kind of silly, don't you think?

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.

Especially the fact it's DK island (essentially what people associate with the franchise and probably originally wanted location wise), it feels like a very calculated choice from my perspective. Nintendo has also been known to sit on games for a very long time too, so Im extra suspicious. Where is your source of it being made by a different developer?

If I google it, it says it was made by the same dev? In any case multiple teams can work on one singular project, for example in regards to ports or with external studios helping out on bigger games (Zelda/MArio Kart World being helped by Monolith)

They are under no obligation to give free content away but I think it just reeks of greed when a company is doing so well, upping the cost of software and also penny pinching consumers with DLC right after they already spent a hefty amount on the game. Meanwhile Games like Astro Bot, Splatoon,  Ghost of Tsushima, God of War all delivered some meaty post game content months and months down the line either as a gesture after their success or to support sales.

As always in world where these corporations are raking in higher profits than ever and whereas average person is struggling fund gaming hobbies, I do think these choices should be judged accordingly.

Just so it doesn't get lost, where is the source of it being a separate dev?

end credits of Emerald Rush compared to the end credits of base game.

Hmm, okay. Just to add some context I wouldn't describe it as different developer. This is from chatgpt.

• Base game credits → cover the full studio: directors, producers, programmers, system architects, art leads, sound, QA, localization, etc. It’s the standard “everyone who worked on the shipped game.”

• Emerald DLC credits → don’t re-list the entire main team. Instead, they highlight specific groups brought in for the extra content:

  • More NPC / enemy art staff (concept artists, modelers, animators).

  • QA testers / QA leads assigned to the DLC.

  • Backend programmers for Emerald Rush mode.

  • A handful of additional support / contributors not visible in the main game credits.

So the DLC credits aren’t full replacements — they’re add-ons. They acknowledge the smaller team that handled the expansion, while the bulk of the base developers are unchanged and not repeated.

👉 In other words: the cast is not “totally different” but “narrower and specialized.” The DLC credits bring in some new names (often junior staff, contractors, or specialists) but don’t feature a big reshuffle of directors or producers.