Is it? Let's see.
Does it require the original game? Check.
Does it depend on the original game? Check.
Does it add new gameplay? No.
Does it add new content? Maps and/or cars.
Should the cars/maps be included with the main game? Released in the same month, so they could have.
Could those be added as patches? Yes.

Apologies, it's clearly an add-on, similar to how this (or really, any of these) is. Or have I missed any of the checks for add-ons above?

There were add-ons with little content, there are DLCs with a ton of content. Main reason we had few add-ons with little content was logistics, though UT did attempt to introduce them (see bonus packs), but infrastructure for reliable online distribution wasn't really there back in 1999.

Any direction of plot progression I don't like. Playing a game is an expenditure of time and effort which is supposed to produce Fun. Specifically games with a plot aim to model a world and demand that a player engages with said world and form a preference of one state of said world to the other and derive Fun from that. Playing a game is deriving Fun from effecting fake change in a virtual world.

When I play a game, I research what the game is about and whether I want to do what the game is made to allow me to do. Let's say a LotR strategy game comes out and I can play either the sparklypoo alliance or Sauron & friends, and that playing Sauron is in no way a prequel to be overridden by the events of the sparklypoo campaign and I can conquer MIddle-Earth and kick all those racist douchenozzles' asses. So I buy the game and do exactly that. Then a DLC comes out, which contains a new beard style for Gimli, more locations for hobbits to prance around and an Eowyn romance for Aragorn.

And that's a very obvious example; there can be subtler shit which marketing execs will never get. Suppose I cleaned up a location in my playthrough and was very proud of it, but the expansion says it has gone to shit in like a year. Suppose I befriended an awesome character, but the expansion says they've finched out on everyone. Suppose I escaped from prison, only for the expansion to announce that ohnoididnt. This shit can get so bad that it retroactively ruins the base game, even if I never buy the expansion. Because ALL OF IT runs on make-believe.

yes, that's correct.

1) As others have noted, that's a game expansion. I've never had problems with game expansions.

2) The only console I own is a Wii; for me personally, the case does not arise.

3) Absolutely not. That feels like "bait and switch". I'd wait for a complete edition of the game, on steep discount, or more likely not buy at all. Two hours of side story might be OK DLC, for the right price, but not an ending. If it takes 10 hours or more to get to the ending, then I can class it as an expansion, which is not a problem.

Otherwise, cliffhanger games should A) get a proper sequel or B) not end on a cliffhanger. Also, I want to know about the cliffhanger before purchase (which is what reviews are for).

5) No. I dislike it.

6) I'm not much into multiplayer.

7) It has no place in single-player games.

8) Don't get me started on the Steamification of Rail Simulator! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! (It's a very sore subject with me, that my perfectly good non-Steam game got suddenly leashed to Steam for DLC. I didn't purchase a Steam game.)

However, on the topic of its DLC, I doubt that most players own all the DLC. They will pick and choose what appeals to them, which means individual items will sell fewer copies, leading to increased price. Frankly, TS is cheaper than model railroading and takes up less space.

I was just checking a bit to refresh my memory.

It was already rather common at this time to download patches, although a lot of publishers still offered patches via CD and post.

BUT if somebody would have tried something like what is being done to us at this time, they would have gone out of service.

Even mods already existed at this time.

And after your last post, don't get me wrong, what is the difference in our viewpoints?

I never said that DLC can not be add-ons, it is just that everythign is being thrown into one category: DLC, so that people get used to it and buy every little stuff instead of seeing it was once quite different, do we agree? (Yes I agree that even in the old days some companies did try to pull things off, but they were rather the exception than the rule, or?)

I do believe that add-on and DLC are interchangeable terms. You can have meaty DLCs and lackluster add-ons, and saying that one term is there to "mix things up" is incorrect. In both cases it's additional content, some paid for, some free, some worth it, some not.

And I do react a bit too fast when I read (or often misread) something like "DLCs are things to trick us, add-ons of old were the real deal". May have misread your comment though.

Last point first: Spoken conversation is always better then written ;)

I am not generally against DLC, but what I find disturbing is what some companies are trying to do. The main difference I see is (good list by the way ;) ) the add-on normally has more checkpoints to be accepted as an add-on as a DLC. DLC remind me off micro-transactions, they are not necessarily bad, but are/were misused already.

And one thing which is always being left out with DLC is the mods. which were the starters of DLC, or?

If I look back in time through my memories: Yes they were also really bad add-ons, but they were getting the appropriate testing results.

Now, how shall a reviewer nowadays really test all the DLC? (commercial ones to be precise and being used further on as such) If some are only on one platform but not the other?

Yes there are also really good DLC available, but why do they not call it by its real name add-on? I do admit it might be only my point of view, but the same publisher giving good add-on out and micro-DLC, what is the intention?

IIRC think of Diablo 3, first no shop, then shop, no shop (OK, no DLC, but this micro-transaction)

I have the feeling (same for so called apps) you pay for something which you got prior for free or a rather reduced price. And by establishing this they can push it further and further....I might put too much thinking into it, but it sounds fishy, or?

Again, I don't think per se DLC is bad, but what is the intention too label everything the same even as proper names do exist?

or in other words: It smells like a fish, it looks like a fish hence it is a DLC ? ;)

For a degree in...? I have disliked DLCs in the past, I dislike them in the present, and I likely will dislike them in the future. To me, a DLC (or add-on or expansion) is simply a part that has been cut out from the main game and published separately. I am more forgiving if I believe that the DLC was unforeseen at game publication (e.g. the game was so successful that an unplanned DLC was developed as a reaction), a lot less so if it is clear it was planned, even if free (e.g. The Witcher 3 DLC pack) and even if actually probably developed after the game publication yet planned before (e.g. The Witcher Expansion Pass).

As much as possible, I will delay buying a game until all DLCs had been published. I therefore appreciate it when a company publishes its DLC plans early on -- e.g. Witcher 3, Victor Vran -- assuming they stick to it. Once all DLCs had been published, I will sum up the price of all its constituents and view this as the game price. I will either buy the game and all its DLCs (practically, all the DLCs that are still available, as some may no longer be so (e.g. pre-order exclusives)), or buy neither the game nor the DLCs. Given that I limit the amount of money I am willing to spend on a game (currently, $13.13 for most games, $26.26 for exceptional cases), I will often wait a long time until the entire pack is on sale.

It doesn't in the least matter what the amount of content in the DLC is. I only buy digital games (and for now only on GOG), so not relevant. As stated before, I either buy all DLCs or I don't buy the game at all. In general, for both games and DLCs, I would prefer "low replayability with a good story", as I usually play games only once. I detest exclusives of any kind. I don't have friends (seriously) and I therefore experience little peer pressure. Don't really know what this is. If you'd care to explain.

But if it in any way prevents me from buying the game and all its DLCs, say five years from now, or if it in any way prevents me from playing the game and all its DLCs, say twenty years from now, I don't like it. I don't play the game. I will consider buying it with all its DLCs when the total price drops to $13.13 or below.

Hope this helps.

1) Yes.
2) I wouldn't buy a second hand game especially one with DLCs that is also protected with DRM.
3) If it's well made, yes.
4) Low replayability with a good story.
5) No.
6) No.
7) I want games to be one time purchase.
8) I don't play that game.

DLC is what happens when you remove the barrier of cost and following that, commitment to getting things out. DLC is by definition shittier because its' DLC. if they had to cut a deal with the distributor again and market it again and hire packaging and or design and then send it all off to manufacturing they'd make sure it was pretty good or they'd never see that money back.

DLC is a push pull between how hard they serve themselves monetarily and how hard they hinder themselves influentially.

Actually, mods (and tools to make them) date back even earlier. Tools to mod the old Wizardry series were made at the time.

http://www.filfre.net/2012/03/the-wizardry-phenomenon/

It's also worth noting that DRM, or copy protection as it was called back then, predates the floppy; some games distributed on cassette tape (remember those?) had copy protection.

The immediate thing that jumped out to me is how you categorize release (which is ultimately a point in time) at the same level as pre and post-release (which are actually infinite periods of time). This taxonomy by itself struck me as artificial and your very first example of episodic content is a perfect one to show why: You could just as easily have considered episodic content separate releases, or a series of post releases after the 1st episode instead of pre-releases. It's unclear to me why this model serves you... but whatever, let me actually answer your questions.

1) N/A for me - I've always been neutral on DLC - some I like, some I dislike. Suggest you rephrase so you obtain clearer views on why people approve or disapprove of DLC in relation to its perceived value as proxied by playtime. Do you really want to know about that only for those that disapprove(d) of DLC? These should be two separate questions basically, which you could cross reference afterwards to confirm any hypothesis.

2) Hmmm, again two questions mixed up. The seller should be under no obligation to sell something he doesn't want to sell. Let alone something that's illegal for him to sell. This is independent of opinions on non transferable licenses for DLC versus the oringinal product. As to whether I would buy or not, depends on the specific prices obviously...

3) The way you are phrasing the question implies a mostly narrative experience being artifically cut short. It's almost begging the question... How about phrasing it more neutrally like: Would you pay for short epilogues offering more details about consequences and outcomes of the game ending? Or find actual examples... the ME3 ending might be a good one? And by the way 2 hours might be a significant portion of many games. I though 8 to 10 hours was the standard for narrative driven action for example... so 25 to 20% is not necessarily a "short" addition. Heck 120min is a normal movie length...

4) and 4.1) You're leaving out so many possibilites. How about replayable good story? Or whatever structure without story? All of these can have DLC... Anyway any entertainment media I will estimate and value the effect on me rather than the consumption time. Obviously this is something for which thematic evaluation, aesthetics and knowledge of the author as well self-knowledge is key to determine if I buy or not - play time does not come into factor mostly. Just absolute price. Actually total supply available and already purchased also counts as I only have so much time. For games I think at this stage in my life accessibility counts most. Too casual will bounce off as boring and maybe finish without impact, too long risks the same outcome due to slow starts... Both very short (under 1 hour) and very long (over 20 hours) playtimes will likely just make me consider the purchase more carefully...

5) No idea. I never made a purchasing decision based on it. If I have ay platform exclusive DLC I'm not even aware of it.

6) Not applicable. I hardly MP at all.

7) Whatever subscription DLC is my opinion of it will be independent of the specific product. My take is, whoever is ok with it should buy it, and whoever isn't shouldn't. For games, I don't see myself doing it any time soon. I have too much backlog as it is.

8) Ouch. Biased phrasing. Why use "justify"? Use neutral language: For those who play TS, how much have you spent on DLC, do you find it in hindsight to have been worthwhile? Why did you buy? Something like that...

1) Yes. If the DLC brings additional content. That additional content should be further gameplay with additional quests, missions, storyline plot progression or character advancement. It should not be just boring challenges, grinding for achievements, or in-game items that barely add any value to the game.
2) Only if I have already bought the game and have no further option for recourse. The former owner should transfer all DLCs or should make it clear the game is vanilla version only before I buy it from the former owner.
3) Main thing is price and after discount. It should not cost more than a few dollars at most.
4) Neutral to both.
4.1) It will depend on the gameplay, the storyline, the additional content, the additional DLC only achievements if any, as well as the price of the DLC. There are good cases and bad cases in both instances.
5) No. It is totally unfair marketing and I might be more inclined to boycott the entire game and DLC if any of it is exclusive only to certain types of platforms or retail.
6) Only if I know this best friend well and if I really want to play and can trust this friend a lot for me to play the multiplayer or co-op regularly with this best friend.
7) The subscription based plan would have to have a bigger discount than purchasing individual DLCs separately. The subscription based plan and DLCs it cover would still have to add value to the game, and not just churn out DLC only in-game items or boring challenges that have been used and repeated a lot in many games now.
8) I think I got that game from a bundle deal, but never bought a single DLC. I would prefer to wait until a Game of the Year version that should preferably have all DLCs included and that GOTY should not be more than $50 altogether before I would consider buying it.

Yes, I do remember those, but I must admit, I don't remember being a copy protection there....

Aaaand as I was just typing, no you are right!! ;) I do remember now!

But copy protection = DRM? Would not say so, If you wanted to sell the game (or buy it second hand), it was no problem at all, unlike DRM :(

EDIT:

First mod, not sure about, some of the old games were written in basic hence you were able to change them yourself ;)