It's been semantics from the start. People are reacting to the word "delay" instead of what is being proposed which is staggering/twopart content.
I understand what people are trying to say and it's flawed logic.
If you complain about a delay (in say, releasing tomestones as many have) it means you're necessarily assuming a due date has already been set. There's no delay if there's no due date. A fixed due date is the very basis of this argument (I'm repeating myself but it's important). If you assume a due date, it can be countered with the argument that you would still get the full patch on the due date, and that just some stuff would be released early. As I have done.
Arguing that they could still just move the due date for the entire patch, as you have done, leads to the argument just being cyclical for one but it also completely removes the initial premise that a due date was already set. You're basically creating a different argument on whether or not patches should be released closer to their completion date.
To elaborate on that last point. There's always a buffer between patch completion and patch release.. Patches don't just hit the servers right after they're completed. Releases follow a planned set of internal rules and strategies, roadmaps, etc. So in your words, we're already in an on-disc DLC scenario.
All that is being asked is for this content to be released staggered. Just like 5.3 and 5.4 content is staggered, just like how the first savage tier was staggered, etc. etc. etc. This is an abstract request, totally outside the scope of any due date being defined. No delays and no waiting.
That isn't to say that an argument can't be made against staggering the content. But "delaying/waiting" aren't it since patches are already delayed, you can just twist that around and present it as some content hitting early. Exactly like how mmo devs introduced rested EXP instead of implementing decreasing EXP. Exactly the same thing, just presented differently.



Reply With Quote

