Necronic
Staff member
I'm sorry, but how do you NOT see what's wrong with this statement. You are making an assumption as a core tennet of your argument: That DLC was never considered an "extra" in the development costs/cycle by the producers up until the point that they realized that they could price gouge you on something they already made. That until the day some executive steepled his fingers and realized he could overcharge you for a product.???
The sky is blue,
There's no oxygen is space,
And you're giving me a headache with your irrelevant questions.
The sky is blue may be a fair comparison since it assumes an arbitrary perspective to be objective and universal, which it is not.
And I am still waiting to hear why this is so different from Collectors Editions or Pre-order bonuses that come out before the game is released, other than the fact that in this situation the game was unplayable without it. Those are, imho, worse for the consumer because they transfer risk from the producer to the consumer.
I'm sorry if this is giving you a headache, but I feel my argument has been incredibly straightforward, unemotional, and consistent. D1DLC is not inherently bad. EA's use of it in this case was, because they produced a core product that did not meet it's value proposition.
You guys have said the following:
1) That the DLC cost the company nothing extra to make, and should have been included for free
2) That the core product was inherently flawed without the DLC
3) That D1DLC is inherently bad because of 1&2.
I agree with #2. I need to see evidence of #1, because (regardless of your highly effective "because I said so" argument) and even if I do:
#3 is a non-sequitor. #1 is a matter of the company being dishonest and releasing a low-value product and screwing it's customers. #2 is the same thing just replace dishonest with incompetent. Neither of these imply D1DLC is bad, just that the company is.