DLC is the main reason I don't buy games at release anymore. There are two upcoming games that I am looking forward to: Age of Wonders 3 and Warlock 2. I wouldn't mind paying full price for them (if the user reviews are good, that is), but the idea that later on I would have to buy little tiny pieces to enjoy the full game is very off-putting.

I disagree. It's elegant and stylish, and it makes you feel that you wrote a whole book instead of a single post. Actually, I think I am going to start doing it too.

- Ryan Paul Fialcowitz

it's easily abusable, you never know how much the dev cuts from the original release to sell as "dlc". At least with expansion packs you can hope for serious content, with DLC the occasional skin or additional quest is kinda meh, threatens to turns the game into a dlc-wagon...

Especially blatant usage of DLC:
1. Day 1 DLC is bullshit, fair and square
2. Locked content on the disk is bullshit, fair and square

Real muslim/pagan gameplay, or the "play like a christian lord, with the same events and gameplay, but anywhere on the map" kind?

The CK2 Muslim, Byzantine, Norse and Republic DLCs tried to introduce specific gameplay/events/rules for each of these factions, so that the player's experience would be different. And more importantly, I think, they introduced most of these changes as patches in the main game, it's just that you can't PLAY as those characters. For example, if you don't have the muslim DLC, you can't play as an egyptian sultan, but the special decadence and inheritence rules will be used by the IA for its muslim lords. and you will be able to play a MP game with players that use the muslim DLC.

Basically, they refine the basic game (which is complete : CK2 gave you what it promised, i.e. playing as christian lords in the Crusades era), and pay for the patch by selling bonus content. The amount of said content has become quite ridiculous, I agree (and the priorities can be a little baffling : Why make a Norse DLC for a game placed after the viking era, when the Romuva and Tengri were so much more important during the crusades), but the principle sounds solid.

Are you sure you´ve got the idea of the "Imperial Edition DLC" of Dragon Commander?
That DLC was nothing "valueable" exept the soundtrack! Larian wanted give us the possiblity to decide: Do I want the soundtrack or not? I could save five bucks if I don´t want it!
And if you´ve done wrong and didn´t buy the imperial edition you´ve still keep the choice: 10 bucks for an update on the imperial edition sounds way more friendly than "Fuck you! You´ll have to buy it again", doesn´t it?

weapons/cars/etc. as long as they are not better than those you can find in the game.
All others are unbalancing the game.
A friend of mine was talking about a supercar for Forza DLC with it you could rule the streets.
Thats something i would consider stop playing the game.

I have personally been of the opinion that DLC has been out of hand for at least five years, maybe more. One of the earlier examples that comes to mind is Empire: Total War where they released a haphazard, clearly unfinished game and seemingly said, "It doesn't matter, we could just fix it later with DLC and patches." It seems like such a mentality has gotten only more popular. Which is why I liked the development philosophy behind Dark Souls. I recall in an interview they pretty much said they were not gonna have DLC because they actually were trying to release a game where it was actually, you know, done. Also, for what they charge for CoD DLC that they would make it more than a few maps. Anybody else remember expansion packs?

Or the Witcher 1-2 way, where they might expand the game, but those are released for free for existing customers (as far as I recall). Minecraft is also the same case, people get new content for their initial purchase.

They are the extreme examples but I would just only buy these games as bundles including all DLC. I just hope they do not clutter the registry with uninstall entries for each single DLC, in case I want to play Sims 3 without dirty underwear, ...


The real next step would be to rent software, like having a monthly subscription to these games.

I can't really agree with Minecraft as an example. MC updates are big, monolithic blobs that include way more than just "content" updates, including huge changes to core game mechanics (not that that's necessarily bad, but I do wish someone would ban Jeb and DB from watching any more Walking Dead...) . You really can't group those in with DLC.

I can't really say, but my point was that they don't seem to charge for the new content or (radical) changes. I think the norm nowadays is that such new content (even negative(?) one, like some new/changed move in Saints Row 3) would cost extra to the end-user.

I think the point was that there's an alternative way to do downloadable content. The Witcher series, Minecraft, Don't Starve, The X-Series- all being prime examples. These games provided substantial content updates and didn't charge for them.

Seriously, Crusader Kings II is charging around five dollars for the ability to alter your character's appearance in game. Sure some people are okay with that- but some might feel annoyed that such a simple change wasn't rolled into a patch.

Yep it is...
But it's ok. You just have to ignore games by the same companies in the future.
Some developers actually make free game updates with content rather than milking their customers.
Marketing != loving gamers.
I'm developing a game and i sure as hell don't plan any DLC. I want to make the best game i can make but if i have to release it before i implemented everything (for financial reasons) i will work hard to add them after it's been released...for free !

Wouldn't you say that silly game consumerism has gotten out of hand? People buy these DLCs, right? And, you're talking about single player games, right? So, there's no element of extortion as there is in the pay-to-win games, right?

So, what's the problem?

When I purchase a game, I consider the actual entire cost. A game like Skyrim, I waited until all the DLC were out, so I could decide what I wanted. I didn't want the house one, so I never got it. And the rest, I got on sale, just like the base game. Sims? I've counted the cost, and I won't pay it, so I won't play it. Simple.

Game companies are giving people what they want and making darn few mistakes along the way. Sure, EA pissed everybody off recently with Dungeon Keeper mobile, but that was a mistake, and they are paying for it. Would I say Sims has made a mistake? No. They've clearly got your business, because - bitch and moan or not - you're willing to pay for a pet expansion every time a new base game comes out. I'm not, and they don't have my business.

Cheers.

You're not wrong- consumers enable this bad behavior on the part of companies. My point was simply that the cost for getting a complete game these days is getting a bit insane.

Well, the true price is kinda difficult to know for modern games : The DLC bloat is going hand in hand with the "extreme sales and dirt cheap prices" mentality. The result is that the base price is cut (often severely so), but it is (over?)compensated by the fact that the game is sold in parts.
Maybe those 2 consumerist tendencies are linked to the evolutions of mentality created by digital distribution?

For example, apply a 75% sale (which happens quite often on Steam for this game) to the 160$ "complete game" price for CK2, and you have a 40$ game. Which was more or less the non-bargaining-bin price of most games when I bought them in brick-and-mortar stores...