• escapesamsara@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing; but zero day one DLC released for any game has been anything but carving up a complete product into an incomplete main product and several DLCs to increase the price without increasing the price. Oblivion was the first example of this. Horse Armor was already developed.

    • scubbo
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing

      No, that’s precisely the point I’m trying to make - “every example of X that has existed so far is Y” does not imply “by definition, X is provably and definitively always Y”.

      You can claim that all DLC that has ever existed is predatory and exploitative (I suspect there are counter-examples; but, fine, whatever, not relevant to my point). You can say that, because of past performance, you are disinclined to trust future examples of DLC or give them the benefit of the doubt. That is all reasonable. But you can’t conclude “because all DLC so far has been bad, the concept of DLC as a whole is bad and can never be used well”.

      As a super-simple example - here are some prime numbers: 5, 11, 37. Are all prime numbers odd? I can give you a bunch more examples if you want!