Edit: Heh, not to mention...
T.F.2. Unlockable. Weapons. Half of them are situational, the other half useless. Same argument.
That's not a symmetric comparison, as a) none of those items are pre-order bonuses, b) all gameplay-affecting items are eventually available to all players, and c) you whitewashed legitimate side- or upgrades.
Maybe it's not. What is this, an appeal to the unknown? Appeal to a specific potential outcome? Whatever the academic term, it's illogical. Nobody knows if it's balanced, so all we can do is infer things from a doublespeak-worded press release. The best-case interpretation is "it still has a chance of being balanced in the end", and the worst-case is "it's not balanced". That's not a good sign.
Uh, so? They're still situational and gimmicky items that were added to get people interested in buying the game.
Exactly. Yet your argument assumes it's not. EA says they don't affect gameplay. You say they're lying, I say there's no way to know. I provide example of another company that added a ton of items ex-post-facto that were next-to-useless. You just posit that they're likely gameplay-changing because they cost money. Because, you know, game companies have never taken advantage of their userbase to get a quick buck on useless in-game shit.
Right, but that's not the specific reason why people are up in arms against the BF3 preorder bonuses. It's no longer intellectually valid to continue with the comparison.
a) "ex-post-facto" - you use this to at once refer to both "post-release content" and "pre-release preorder bonus". Pick one, or retract your point.
Okay, look. There's a difference between "no evidence" and "inferred evidence". I know you know this. What EA's multiple press releases over this Physical Warfare pack have provided is weak evidence that can be inferred. It is not "no evidence". It is not conclusive evidence either, but it's pretty much just you who seems to be tacking "THIS IS THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH:" to the beginning of my posts. Everything I have written is contingent upon the literal interpretation of the Physical Warfare information releases, and I believe there's no reason that any of my posts should have been interpreted any other way. I recall using the phrase "according to this", more than once, which implies that I think the given information is literally true. Anywho I'll digress here and point out that I'm on your side as far as the second sentence goes.
Because I was totally comparing the distribution method and not gameplay significance of the content.
Which they, and other companies, have done, to varying degrees of unfairness for the people who didn't buy the DLC.
OK Miss Susan, I'll just--no, wait. It's ****ing relevant because they're both optional content that was generated FOR THE SPECIFIC AIM OF INCREASING SALES. In fact, it's extremely relevant because Valve proved that you could add a million weapons and for the most part not change the gameplay.
Not an appeal to tradition. For a teacher, Miss Susan, you don't seem to know your logical fallacies. According to you, 'looking to the past for possible outcomes based on similar circumstances to our current one' = appeal to tradition. Better tell every historian in the world they're just plain wrong.
Given. I just couldn't figure out any other reason you'd be so convinced that it's gameplay changing.
"I have no idea whether these 3 items in the DLC will change balance or not (in fact, the press release, if taken literally, says they won't), but based on nothing I'll compare it to removing core components to a class's functionality."
OK? And? I made a judgement based on what other money-grubbing companies have done in the past. In fact, BC2 had a completely aesthetic DLC that had no effect on gameplay, just like Blizzard. OF COURSE THAT MEANS I AM TOTALLY IMPLYING THAT THIS CASE IS 100% EXACTLY IDENTICALLY THE SAME THING AND THERE'S NO ROOM FOR SPECULATIVE DEVIATION.
It's probably being reintroduced because of new people who "liked" them on Facebook due to E3.
