This DLC policy is absurd and violates business ethics. (Destiny)

by Vortech , A Fourth Wheel, Friday, December 12, 2014, 14:44 (3858 days ago) @ Monochron

Why should it be this way? What is stopping Bungie from having two different weeklys/dailys for different content holders?

Time.

What you are getting at is the point I was trying to make. Bungie made the decision to shrink the game for players who don't pay up in order to work on other cool things. It is a priority choice that they made, but there is no hard bound keeping them from making the opposite decision.

I spoke a lot about one viewpoint in the last post because I felt like it was being under-represented. I can simultaneously see two viewpoints, but what you have said here is slightly aside from either of them. Bungie didn't shrink the game. The game operates the exact same way as before (unless you are too low level to play the new harder dailies/weekly). YOUR EXPERIANCE however did shrink. The number of things you can do is less. I think a lot of the problem I'm having aligning with people on this is this conflation of two different things. (The other is the hyperbolic language).

I'm not without sympathy for the people who are enjoying the game less now, but I don't suffer the accusations of immorality. Anything sold for a cost — especially an upgrade to something —will leave some people behind. I see this as a hard fact of life in a capitalist system. No reason not to feel bad or not to be upset when it bites you but it's not an immoral act.

How about a bad analogy? In this capitalist system you go out and buy a sweet rocking chair, and the designer tells you that soon you can buy upgrades to the chair. That's awesome, you buy the crap out of it.
In a couple months the designer comes to your house and says, "The upgrades are available!" and you say, "Cool, I'll actually wait and see what other people think first". The designer says "Well, okay that's your choice. But I have to take the rockers from the chair from you. Don't worry, you can still sit in it, and it is still perfectly comfortable, it just won't rock anymore."
Legally you probably signed some document on purchase that had this buried in the fine print, but ethically, the designer is an asshole. Had the designer told you that he would be removing chunks occasionally if you refused to pay up, it would be a much more above-board deal.

You admitted up front its a bad analogy (as most analogies are) so I won't spent too much time picking at it. I'll just point out again that nothing was removed from the chair, only from your enjoyment of it. Beating the analogy well past death: You used to be able to bring your chair to chair club run by the designer and this week only the upgraded chairs will fit in the new location chair club meets at. You can't go to chair club this week. You can still sit in your chair in all the same places with all the same people, just not while the club meets at the new location. They won't make a new chair club just for the people who don't upgrade their chairs in the weeks chair club meets at the new location (but combine it other weeks? And then make a third and fourth chair club when the new chair upgrades release so as to cover all 4 permutations? This scales nearly exponentially, people) You miss chair club, but that does not make the chair damaged. These are different things.