Shtik is Yiddish. It comes from stück, (pronounced sh, then the work took) a German word for piece.

The entry for shtik in the OED hasn't been updated since 1986, so it's dated, but it lists alternate forms as shtick and schtick. The citations appear to not favour one or the other, though modern corpus searches show the variant "shtick" to be winning. Since the word is new, basically only entering English at large in the sixties, it makes sense that the spelling hasn't yet been settled, though a direct transliteration is shtik, a largely unused variant spelling today, but the one it's in the OED as. Schtick appears to be an acknowledgment of the Germanic roots of the word, using the common letter combinations sch and ck that appear in German (a great example of hyperforeignism) whereas shtick is an entirely Anglicized version using English spelling conventions.

Kermit has been using it as a word for an act or persona put on by a person. This is a newer use for even a new word. It originally entered the English lexicon as a phrase used in comedy. Comedians have a bit, piece, gag, or shtik. Evolving from this meaning, a whole set or a whole act could become a shtik. It then evolved to be an entire character. Recently, it has been used to describe a put on personality or act by a person not in comedy, and also a behaviour for which a person is known, how it was used here.

My years spent taking German probably influenced my spelling preference.

Didn't list it because it was free. But so are The Dark Below Crucible maps now too so it kinda balances... in Destiny's favor. If the House of Wolves maps similarly go free with The Taken King (something that is by no means for sure) then the balance will be significantly in Destiny's favor! :)

Ugh, had a whole thing typed and lost it. Summary: Halo pricing models that fit the market at the time (even CoD had $10 DLC for maps until Activision bumped it to $15 during MW2) do not compare to this current time. I've never even implied it. The market was different back then. Activision set a funky pricing scheme for Destiny, and within that pricing scheme has worked itself into a corner. Blizzard releases a base game for $60, and then releases an expansion for $40 that's just as big if not bigger than the base game. TBD on the next expansion. And I've already made the Halo 3 vs. ODST pricing comparison.

The pricing models do compare because they are very similar. $10 during the Halo era got you three multiplayer maps and nothing else. $20 ($15 if you bought the season pass) during the Destiny era gets you three multiplayer maps plus new single player content. The pricing scheme isn't funky. It is largely in line with the pricing DLC schemes Bungie has used for nearly a decade.

So within Activision's own pricing scheme, set up by Activision, expansions cost $20. A lot of the irritation felt at DBO on many occasions, as well as throughout other Destiny communities, is how it feels like the base game did not include a lot of content (subjective), and that a lot of content was either cut or held back purposely for DLC (subjective, or maybe a mix of true and false depending on whatever changed during production). Then the Collector's Edition pricing comes out, people get mad. Then Luke's interview. Even angrier. Then an apology that throws out a price point that matches the cost of an entire expansion for nothing more than emotes and shaders. You may not like the cynicism, but it's hardly unique to myself or the megathreads here at DBO.

Sometimes people get mad at things they shouldn't. I think this is one of those times. Destiny's DLC prices are not outrageous, for the most part. Even the collectors edition upgrade (the thing with the emotes), which we both think is priced too high, has some solid, defendable reasons for being priced the way it is. The problem I'm seeing with you is you're all cynicisms and sarcasm and negativity when it is not warranted. Certainly not to the degree you express it.

Does that mean I'm right or that others are right? Not necessarily. Does it mean you are? Not necessarily. The pricing scheme definitely appears hostile to the consumer. At this point, it's so sad that it's gotten funny. What's next from Activision?

No, the pricing scheme, for the most part, is not hostile to the consumer. We are paying more for the DLC these days than in the past, but we are also getting more for our money. Are we getting enough above and beyond the "standard" three multiplayer maps to justify the extra $10 cost? Maybe, maybe not. I think so, you might not. But I don't think reddit going ballistic over this is nearly enough proof that Activision or Bungie is being hostile to the consumer. Lower the DLC prices to $15 (what most people probably actually paid for them thanks to the season pass) and Destiny's DLC prices at least approach the realm of fairness.

Either way, they have my Taken King money guaranteed. I've thoroughly enjoyed Destiny, even with my problems with it. Doesn't mean for a second that I enjoy Activision. I wonder how much Bungie's enjoying them. I bet they thought they were finally free once they escaped Microsoft. I guess potentially not as much as they'd hoped with Activision. :P

Based on the Bungie DLC prices over roughly the last decade, I simply do not understand where all your negativity is coming from. I think if you'd do the math and look at things rationally you'd see that things are more or less how they have always been.