I have to post this, It's funny as hell(debate about DLC)

[BetaWolf47]

The expansion pack release isn't as often as DLC. So basically you can expect 1 expansion per game or 3 expansion if the title is successful. These day you can have company releasing 100+ separate DLC. For me I would rather have all DLC with one price than 1 DLC with separate price.

Expansions didn't get released as often because they're not as cost-effective as DLC. Some games did get a crapload, even before DLC, however. The original The Sims game has a total of seven expansion packs, and the last one was released in 2003. A lot of successful games had two expansion packs. Expansions cost $10 less than core games, so if a game cost $30, it would cost $70 with two expansions. That's better than $60 + whatever the cost of DLC is, but you aren't force-fed stuff you never plan to use.

[The Sage of Sega]

I didn't see if this was mentioned, but I'm just going to mention that console DLC is way worse than equivalent stuff on PC. It's just the nature of the platform though... Microsoft and Sony can create their own market, but on the PC there's much more of a modding community. I've really enjoyed playing downloaded campaigns for Left 4 Dead and fooling around with downloaded weapons on Oblivion. Commercial DLC is moreso a cash grab than anything else (remember the Ace Combat crap for 360?), only rarely does it make any sort of sense. GTA IV DLC was awesome, and people might bitch about the Map Packs for games like Call of Duty and Halo, but you have to realize that while that content is out there for the purposes of creating income, if they were to include it in the retail game we would have had to wait a couple more months at the very least for the release. I have no issue with a game that has an acceptable amount of content on the onset, and then charges a very nominal fee for new, DECENT content; at least it shows the developer is willing to support their back catalogue rather than do a smash-and-grab.

[ScourDX]

One thing really gets on my nerves is the DLC price. I played the Dragon Age Origins on PC, but the Stone Prisoner DLC cost $15. The quest only takes 2-4 hours of gameplay and I doubt it should cost a lot. If developer constantly doing this, I doubt I will support them.

[Porksta]

One thing really gets on my nerves is the DLC price. I played the Dragon Age Origins on PC, but the Stone Prisoner DLC cost $15. The quest only takes 2-4 hours of gameplay and I doubt it should cost a lot. If developer constantly doing this, I doubt I will support them.

Yeah buy it comes with the game, so I don't see the issue. I have no problem with a company doing that. They could charge $50 for the Stone Prisoner as long as it comes with the game new. They are just trying to get people to buy the game new so they can make money. What's the problem?

[ScourDX]

Yeah buy it comes with the game, so I don't see the issue. I have no problem with a company doing that. They could charge $50 for the Stone Prisoner as long as it comes with the game new. They are just trying to get people to buy the game new so they can make money. What's the problem?

Problem is the DLC is part of the game and you cannot complete the mission unless you buy the DLC. Dragon Age is guilty of it because some stage does require you to purchased the DLC before you can progress. Most likely in the future games will release as incomplete and the only way you can finish the game is buy DLC.

[Porksta]

Again, you are buying it - it comes with the game.

[kupomogli]

Again, you are buying it - it comes with the game.

But what happens if you don't have an internet connection?

[Porksta]

Then you should own a Wii.

[ScourDX]

Again, you are buying it - it comes with the game.

Unfortunately mine doesn't come with it. I heard only the first print gets the DLC for free.

[Porksta]

Unfortunately mine doesn't come with it. I heard only the first print gets the DLC for free.

Really? I thought all new copies came with it? In that case, yeah I will have to agree with you, that is pretty lame.

[Tallise]

I think it depends what it's for. It is annoying that Fall out 3 has so many updates to buy, the game its self is complete, but the add ones really are... well... add ons to the game its self. Like extra objectives and more adventuring (lets not forget the option to survive in the end). Didn't Oblivion have so many updates with DLC that they released a new version with all the updates together on the disk? (correct me if i'm wrong on that)
Buying more songs for rock band to me is ok because the game already has plenty and seems complete (hard to fit and additional 1000 songs to a disk aswell...), but buying content that should have been on the disk like "bonus costumes" for street fighter or what dragon age apparently did (i haven't played it myself but people are obviously pissed, and my dad is annoyed with his) is rather obnoxious of them. I remeber when you EARNED bonus features by PLAYING not paying. DLC should be for extra features like skins or patches, maybe not patches to fix glitches (thats too easy ot exploit) but patches for silly things like how you can patch pc games to customize things...
DLC to me is basically expansions to games, many of which should have been on the game in the first place, but many that were just little after thoughts and legitly deserve to be on there. Somethings, however, should maybe be free, rather than paid for, or just held back for a sequel game. Honestly it's hard to say DLC is the devil.. it really does bring some good excitement (adding maps to L4D after it was succesful).. but its not godly either, and sometiems feels like a rip off...

[MASTERWEEDO]

The first time I got really pissed about DLC was one of the Smackdown vs Raw games, where you needed the psp to unlock Jake Roberts and then download him to the PS2.