It was a $40 difference when Smith suggested that die-hards would purchase the $80 noob-tastic collector's edition instead of only the $40 Taken King DLC. Now the sweet dance moves can be had for $20 on top of the DLC $40.
Yes it kinda stings how these charges seem to add up (especially since I had to by the base game again when I upgraded consoles), but if you actually use it the price averages out to something like $11 a month. That's way more value for engagement than I got from a stack of other games on my shelf.
For all the folks that self-identify as ignorant of video games in general or Destiny specifically. Hurling insults accusing gamers of being too splineless to boycott on this either A) completely misinterprets the situation or B) is highly hypocritical.
The people who are upset really like Destiny. They want more of it, and they plan to spend money to get it. If they weren't invested they would walk away. This is the third major DLC in under a year, without which the base game is essentially useless. That's because the game is centered more around events and community than delivering a static narrative; it's a living organism that changes over time. So if you don't like buying DLC or you want to wait for the "Game of the Year" edition, that's fine but you'll be playing a vastly different game than the rest of us.
Bungie and the Destiny community have nearly weekly feedback sessions about how the game is running, what to expect, what we've broken, and what we'd like changed. Pushback is a regular occurrence, this time it happens to be about price structure instead of Shotgun Damage which means non-gaming publications are giving it more credence because they understand the terms. (Smith giving a douchy interview didn't help things)
So $40 for some dance moves and a new gun doesn't seem fair, but it's not worth burning your profile over. Do you cancel your ISP subscription because they give better promotional rates to new customers? Do you quit the gym because they have pizza night for new members? Do you trash all your team jerseys because the game airs at a strange time of day when they travel? It's not that big a deal, and frankly you all should wish you have as much pull as the Destiny community does at Bungie.
And I understand their thoughts on this, try to get the people who haven't tried the franchise with a whiff of exclusive content. Honestly the blow-back wouldn't been as bad if they'd said "sorry, it's for noobs only" instead of "it's so awesome you'll throw money at the screen."
I'd say the split is more between the "collectors" and everyone else who understand that they're not going to unlock everything in the game anyway.
On the one hand it stinks that there's content, ostensibly from the Taken King, that we're not getting. On the other hand it's no worse than the PlayStation exclusive missions and weapons. Someone else having a little more in no way lessens my experience.
I'd like to see the proliferation of 'artificial noses' with a verifiable number on the screen instead of a subjective 'my dog looked at a thing' analysis.
"Do you know why I pulled you over today sir? My K9 indicated that you were 15 mph over the speed limit. He also says you weren't wearing a seatbelt and that you're hammered. None of that is slightly true, but wait here while I see if he smells any outstanding warrants on your license."
time to finish rotting and vanishing from history!
This is my major issue (besides the fact that it applies retro-actively somehow) with extending the term; orphaned works are already out of control. I'm fine if I can't use the latest banal pop track for backing in a home movie for the rest of my life. But these durations are so long that no one cares or even remembers the media by the time it's unshackled. Forget about monitizing it that long, it's not even worth keeping on a server unless you're interested in preserving history/culture/all that unprofitable B.S.
You know what? Screw 'em. You want your song locked up for 70 years? Fine. We'll all pretend it never existed to begin with if that's what you really want. Just keep it off the radio and outta my face.
On the other hand, it sets the precedent that we could reduce the copyright term on existing works.
You know, if we ever manage to keep our representatives from being bribed to betray us, or if the bribers finally go out of business after decades of clawing to stay above water in an irreverent industry.
While I think I understand your explanations of "transformativeness" I have an issue with this rationale. It comes off as "fair use is for famous people." If I had done this same thing, no one would have paid anything for it; does that make it less legitimate fair use?
Then you should be thanking this woman for doing what you, and probably I, are too cowardly to do. Assert her rights in the face of acts that violate our constitution and way of life. Without people standing against unlawful exhibitions of power, there will be no impetus to change these illegal policies and practices.