So far I am split in my decision to change the ending. I should make it clear that I think the endings should not be changed because they sucked (and they really did). The only reason I could justify a change comes from a possibility that I have too little information on to make my decision. That possibility is that there was a different ending planned for dlc. As of right now I have only been able to find internet rumors on the subject. Those rumors are supported by a little bit of the narrative (I am not going to list the evidence, just go to YouTube if you want to know). The truth is though that until someone at the company talks about it, this cannot be confirmed. With all that in mind I have come to this conclusion. An ending change could only be justified if the original story was altered, or written in such a way that the ending originally sold would be made invalid, and as such drive up the desire for a different ending. In other words, if they made an ending that you had to buy an additional part to see the real conclusion, then the forced ending change would be a good thing.
The games as art argument is the most compelling to me for not changing the ending as it stands. If you take that same argument and look at the possibility that they always meant to change the ending, you just had to pay for it, then the games as art argument is strongly for making the company change the ending. It?s not a perfect comparison, but what if they cut out the last ten minutes of a movie except for those who paid a little more. It is a form of extortion. Not only that, it was at the detriment of the piece as a whole. If there is a dlc ending, then as it stands we paid full price for something that they deliberately ruined to get more money to fix. This would be the worst example of dlc I have ever seen.
To re-iterate, I have no hard evidence that they planned for dlc originally, or wrote the ending to drive up the desire for said dlc. But, the possibility has been shown to have enough merit to at least think about. And if it is true (or was since the backlash might have squashed it) then the ending deserves to be changed. Not because we are owed it, but because it was wrong to do in the first place.
The games as art argument is the most compelling to me for not changing the ending as it stands. If you take that same argument and look at the possibility that they always meant to change the ending, you just had to pay for it, then the games as art argument is strongly for making the company change the ending. It?s not a perfect comparison, but what if they cut out the last ten minutes of a movie except for those who paid a little more. It is a form of extortion. Not only that, it was at the detriment of the piece as a whole. If there is a dlc ending, then as it stands we paid full price for something that they deliberately ruined to get more money to fix. This would be the worst example of dlc I have ever seen.
To re-iterate, I have no hard evidence that they planned for dlc originally, or wrote the ending to drive up the desire for said dlc. But, the possibility has been shown to have enough merit to at least think about. And if it is true (or was since the backlash might have squashed it) then the ending deserves to be changed. Not because we are owed it, but because it was wrong to do in the first place.