Dude. You said it wasn't what anyone in this thread was saying. I showed you someone in the thread saying it. How is that acitvely avoiding what you said? It would have been impossible to address your comment any more directly. 

And that was the post he was actually addressing when he made the point that you were saying was invalid. If that's the person he was responding to, why does it matter what other people might think? Do you not understand how conversations work?

But, I will address the goalpost you just moved. The posts in this thread don't represent the entire gaming community, and most people posting didn't give like a dissertaion on the exact reason they do or do not take issue with the DLC. So acting as though this is representative of the gaming community at large is what would be silly. Are there even ten unique people posting here? We can add representative sampling to the list of things you do not seem to understand.

Plus, at this point you are actively just straight up lying. There are 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". Really? Show me those ten comments, dont have to be verbatim obviously, in this thread, from people other than you, and I will give you a thousand dollars. I shit you not. Being 100% sincere here. 

The reason I can make that offer, which again is completely serious, is because I'm 100% you won't do that. Because those comments don't exist. Maybe you were being hyperbolic, but I actually don't see a single comment that directly addresses the different developer issue, except those from you. Maybe I missed one, but are there even like three?  You are trying to extrapolate the opinion of the gaming community from the posts in one thread. Thats a dumb enough argument as it is, but its much worse when those posts don't even exist. Remarkable levels of bullshit.

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:

Zippy6: "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."

Zippy6 again: "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."

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."

Veknoid_Outkast: "I think this is more about optics than anything. [...] 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."

JackHandy (btw the same person you used a comment from earlier, clarifying that the development team has no bearing on his frustrations): "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."

Otter: "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."

So I find myself having to apologise - there were only 7 comments, not 10, so forgive my exaggeration. That's still 7 compared to the single one you presented, which also clarified in a later comment that they did not have any concern on whether it was a different developer or not.

You can re-read my comments and see very clearly that whatever goalposts you imagined to see were never moved - I said the exact same thing the entire way through. You highlighting "I actually don't see a single comment that directly addresses the different developer issue" is exactly in line with my point - that it being different developers or not is not actually part of what people are taking issue with, at the very least in this thread. Many people here acknowledged that even if it's made by a different developer, the close proximity to the game's launch and a separate price tag is what irks them. 

You can very freely disagree with me - but stop being so unnecessarily aggressive. I stated one point - which I've maintained - and I've continued to show how that point is reflected right here in this very thread. You are actively calling it bullshit, accusing me of random stuff and insulting my intelligence. Calm down, dude. 

That’s a fair clarification. Yes, the ER dev team was under the same leadership as base game, but the developers being led were different.

It's a layered situation.
Nintendo charges a lot for stages and characters in Super Smash Bros. (relative to the content you get), and $20 seems like a lot for what the DLC is for DK. I'll still get it at some point and I'm sure it's fun. But it should've been free or $5-$10.

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. 

Quick note on this: I believe “different team” may have been a poor choice of wording on my part. Same leadership as base game, but the devs being led were entirely separate from that of base game. This clarification should not discredit the original argument, however, as this would still suggest Emerald Rush as not being a product of the base game that was sliced off and saved for later, but was a separate project intended for release at a later date.

I'm just going to address this part because as I've said multiple times - I'm not personally invested in this issue and I don't particularly care - I did not say that to begin with. My post to you was: 

"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."

The part that you're caught up on is probably my next post which said: "When it doesn't seem to be what anyone in the thread is saying" ... which I still maintain to be the case, based on the posts that I highlighted. If you disagree, that's fine, but even the post you showed had the person point out in his very next post that the developer difference (which apparently isn't even true it turns out) doesn't matter to him. 

I don't know why you're putting words in my mouth, but I am not going to defend things I never said to begin with. I never said "nobody said this", I said "this does not seem to be the general sentiment based on this thread". Especially when I said multiple times that I could be wrong and I was just basing it off of the vibe I got from the thread's posts. I've been consistent in my statements, I've stayed consistent, and staying consistent - I am also not interested in continuing this conversation. I don't think it's a good argument, you do - and that's fine. I'd like you to apologise for insulting my intelligence and coming with completely unwarranted hostility, but since you totally glossed over that part I'm guessing that won't happen. Have a good day, I guess. Hope you don't jump at everyone you see online like this, because it's thoroughly unpleasant. 

I do not believe I have addressed your overall intelligence. I have explained why I think your ability to follow logic and threads is suspect. So, no, I don't see the need to apologize.

Another prime example in the above post. You said "it doesn't appear to be what anyone in this thread is saying". If it doesn't appear that anyone in the thread is saying it, then it must appear that nobody is saying it. That is a direct logical negation. If there dont appear to be any apples on this table, then it must appear that there are no apples on the table.

So, why would you complain that I am putting words in your mouth? We can add paraphrasing and logic to the list of areas in which you are demonstrating a deficiency. 

The reason I am fixated on that point is because if there is a fundamental flaw in somebody's ability to engage in a conversation, then that has to be addressed before anything else can be discussed. If I show clear evidence that something you said was wrong, and you are still going to insist it's right, than it is kind of pointless to address anything else. If you would have said "Oh I guess someone is saying that, but that's not the general sentiment", then we maybe could have proceeded pleasantly.

Or maybe not, because as was pointed out several times, that is the exact comment he was responding to, which is why his comment was relevant in context. That has been explained several time to you very clearly and been ignored several times, so either you are unable to comprehend or incapable of honest conversation. Sorrynotsorry.

It's like if someone says, "there's doesn't appear to be a white dog in this room". You point out that there is a white dog in their lap and their response is "I never said there was no white dog in the room". I'm not sure how any conversation on that is going to be pleasant. I don't know how to politely respond to that without calling the person's honesty or intelligence into question. Getting called out on bullshit probably isn't a very fun experience. For the bullshitter at least. I myself had some very hearty chuckles.

Lol, alright. I think you need to re-read your own posts. Have a good day and I hope you learn to treat people who disagree with you better. 

I did. Very well written which is why you are unable to address the actual argument and are now resorting to passive aggressiveness. Once again, you have the opportunity to demonstrate where I was wrong, and did not take it. I would assume it is because you can't. But if it is truly because what I said was so offensive you cannot bear to continue... I gotta tell you. This whole internet thing may not be for you. 

If you want to demonstrate where I was wrong, about Dk dlc, go for it. If you dont want to, then dont. You can end the conversation, or you can have the last word. Can't do both.