You'll see my counterargument in other posts I made in this thread, I'm not going to repeat it for every person who defends Bungievision. If you're hanging on his battered wife analogy (which I agree wasn't a great one), then you're creating a strawman argument by attacking something largely irrelevant in order to discredit or draw attention away from his underlying point. Now, let me address the "cut-up" comment the OP made and the article he referenced for his point. If the article is based on truth, it was indeed stated that Bungie re-purposed content that was originally slated to appear much earlier on in the game under Joe Staten's version. It also states that they put together a round-table whose objective was to figure out how to reintroduce the dissected content into the game. While it stops short of stating that they did this for the sole purpose of selling it for maximum profit later, that seems to be what ended up happening at some point in the timetable. Here, you're attacking minutia such as semantics/misquotes instead of acknowledge the OP's overall point. The small-minded might have read that and thought you turned the tide of the argument but all you did was spin it in an irrelevant direction. Seems to be your go-to tactic. So, now let's talk about your attempt to rationalize that the game itself must be good/enjoyable because someone can't stop coming back to it. Do you also rationalize that about all people addicted to gambling? It might alleviate a nagging itch/impulse for him to play this game but that doesn't mean it meets his expectations of what this game should/could have been. In the case of Destiny, it seems like they focused on trying to make it addictive and [i]then[/i] build a game around those addictive components. Now, if you want to defend that as simply being "good game design", go ahead but know which side you're on. Hint: it's not the side of the consumer and the fact that you are in fact a consumers and still choose to view that as good game design is sad. It has to qualify as some category of Stockholm syndrome.

Hey hey, I'm not entitled. I got what I paid for, more or less.

Actually, I was defending Dog of War more so than Bungie in my post. However, I won't mind having a discussion of you want. Which of OP's points are valid? Microtransactions that fund future events? I have no reason to believe that's false. The key word here is [i]events[/i]. Calling people naive for thinking free DLC would be coming? You know what, I can agree with him on that point. Cutting content to sell back to us? Well, the only thing I think I can include here is the Nightfall. I could be mistaken, but what else do they take away? Bringing up the point of how other games handle their DLC? Okay... That's great. I'm glad for those games. He brought up positive examples. It makes Bungie look bad. Woohoo. There are 2 sides to this argument. Take "The Sims" (a few within the series) for example. Have you seen the cost and amount of microtransactions in those games? Man, it must make Bungie look amazing. At least, if that's the mindset we're going to go with here.

Will all you whiners just leave already. It will hit bungie a lot harder than the dumb forum posts.