It is the same one but I was willing to handwave that part since it meant I could play some more Fallout instead of dying rather unceremoniously. But yeah, I'd have to agree that it's a bit of an ass-pull. However, it also allowed you to use one of your radiation-proof companions to turn on the machine (another gripe I had), like Fawkes or Charon, thus avoiding the messy, "Oh yeah, I can survive lethal doses of radiation now".

no citation, this definition was invented by an anonymous wiki editor. (I checked the history, he was anonymous) Ah, but terms do have colloquial meaning that are different than what the individual words imply.

A roleplaying game does NOT mean "A FPS where you role play a space marine fighting some aliens, has no levelup schema" even though you are playing a role in such a game, it is clearly not an RPG but an FPS.

If it merely meant downloadable content then every single video game, movie, and song ever made is a DLC, because all of them are content you can download

You can't find a video game for the PC today that isn't sold as a download only option. Those have the term "Digital Download Distribution" according to online stores I have been too.
The difference between "Digital Download Distribution" and "DownLoadable Content" might be entirely arbitrary but it exists

hey, don't look at me, I have already defined DLC myself earlier.

But I do like how you jump on this one and not the other posts in the thread :)

Capcom seems to think it means "Disc Locked Content".

People will agree to disagree about DLC....

Well it's always easiest to ignore what doesn't quite fit

Following this definition ... videogames are DLC for Steam :)
Provided we can put Steam in the MMO videogame category.

I know I'm exagerating but in my opinion DLC replaced what we called expansions back in the day (the only difference is the vector of distribution), it is just publishers that changed the definition of expansion in the process.

Edit : now that I read the full thread, my point is not a critic of steam in any way.
Edit : 2: and I quoted your post in particular because I consider that definition outdated. But I don't hold it against you obviously :)

Moneygrab.

I have no problems with it, as all DLC means is just that - DownLoadable Content, and I like your Steam analogy, but you will be hard pressed to call Steam MMO.... in that case you need to incorperate other DD stores with social functions (Desura?) and is not forums the same? In that case you can stretch it to games downloaded from GoG. In fact, the game of getting a complete classical collection, while discussing them. hmmm....

It's extra downloadable content for an existing video game. Quality (or lack thereof) does not change its definition. A crappy video game is still a video game. It's not Satan's Hellishly-Encrusted Turd.

Ahah : GoG, the Collectible Games Game.

DLC is weird. I'm not really biased against it, despite the fact that the vast majority of DLC I have ever seen/bought/played was crap. I keep telling myself "well, potentially DLC is as good as a really good retail addon" but I think I haven't really seen a single DLC that's blown me off my feet yet.

My main problem with DLC is that the vast majority of developers is focusing on non-sense that does not really boost the value of the base game nor fits into the actual overall experience the players are supposed to have with a game. I mean, as others stated in this thread before, DLC is usually something that requires you to start the base game all over if you want to get the best out of it but at the same time DLC is usually something that doesn't really feel like it's part of the base game as it's often shoved in in a manner that either harms the base game's continuity or even totally kills the immersion, sometimes it ruins the carefully designed balancing of the main game through items or skills that provide far too strong bonuses.

Bottom line, knowing that there's gonna be DLC often actually keeps me from playing a game before a Game of the Year edition is released or something and when I finally get it the experience is often harmed by the shoddy implementation of the DLC. Man, the industry suuucks.

And yet, I still have hope for DLC.

Real definition?
Developer's Lame Crap.

I think DLC is simply an expansion that is delivered through internet.

But, because it is indeed delivered through internet, it allows (and even promotes) quite small expansions, even ones that add only some new outfits, weapons or vehicles to the main game. Back in the retail time, it didn't make so much sense to try to ship such tiny expansions one by one, but the expansions were made bigger (and more expensive).

The downside with DLCs that I see is that there seems to be some tendency to try to milk the customer more through them. $1 for a DLC doesn't sound too bad, except when you ship dozens of such tiny expansions. So yes, I overall preferred the old way where a game would normally get only one or two bigger expansions, and not a dozen (or more) smaller ones.

It is the same tactic as with micropayments etc., ie. trying to lure the gamer to use more money than before, by dividing the payment into smaller parts (yes there are also bigger DLCs with lots of gaming content, but I am talking generally).

I boycotted Heroes Chronicles in the retail times due to the feeling of 3DO just trying to milk more money by making shorter episodes, so I bought the complete set later from GOG instead. :)

Any DLC that adds real content is welcome. New units, maps, weapons, missions, everything.

I don't like paid cheats, though. Like in New Vegas, all items DLCs are actually cheats that make your game easier. Thankfully, there are mods that distribute the new items over the game's world. So you can still use cool items, but you have to obtain them on your own.