Amazing. Cognition is really something else. Presented with a marketing decision, invariably someone will ascribe some bizarre form of benevolence to it. Okay, sure, others will unerringly decry it as vile avarice, two sides to a coin and all that, but really, a gift? Isn't it possible, maybe, and bear with me because I'm just spitballin' here, but isn't it possible that this was simply an interesting and novel business decision to, I dunno, increase pre-orders and in so doing increase retailers' initial purchase numbers?
Oh, I know, how cynical. But it isn't as though I'm implying that they are trying to lock in preorders well in advance of potentially bad or middling previews. Not even sarcastically or implicitly. Seriously. I'm just saying that maybe it's more, let's say "value neutral". Rationally self-interested. Sensible, from a business perspective.
So maybe making a thread to sing paeans to it is just... ugh. Sycophantic, maybe?
I definitely appreciate the Shale situation for what it was, on multiple levels. In my opinion, that was was a confluence of a slight design issue (Shale's size), budgeted time that was already overrun, an increasing focus on DLC instead of expansions because of improved sell-through, and the growing movement by publishers to try to get a piece of second-hand sales and/or dissuade them. Shale was Shale.
On the other hand, deciding 5 months before going gold to allocate a character to only be available to buyers pre-ordering 2 months before release... That just doesn't sound like the same situation at all, does it? It doesn't sound like the character is in the same state, that the project is at the same point, or that the marketing goal is the same. They might be. But even that doesn't really matter. Getting Shale 'free' for buying the game new wasn't a [Paragon +10] act. Neither is this.
Seeing people outright praising the decision as munificence just feels embarassing. Ugh.
WWS(ten)D?