lighten up, Francis.

disc-locked content is morally wrong, IMO. but DLC per se is alright. on PC, you never have to pay full price for DLC if you're willing to wait a little for a discount.

It really does depend on how it's done.

Mass Effect's 2 interactive comic book that costs a few dollars was great. You could skip playing Mass Effect 1 and still make all the decisions that went with the game so that you could have your very customized character in ME2.

Battlefield 3's Karkland pack is borderline for me. It's a nice little addition, but it's now to the point that if you don't have the pack, you can't join about half the servers. I suppose in a few more months or after a big sale, it'll be about impossible.

Alan Wake's last 2 chapters aggravated me. They were fundamental to the story but you had to pay $15 for them both (the game came with one for free if you bought it new, which I got it new as a gift). I'll never buy a DLC like that as long as I'll live. I'll just not buy the whole game.

DLC that adds avatar gizmos and crap like that are fine. DLC that adds mini-stories are neat (like Dragon Age), but it upsets me that the highest-paying customer is treated like their least favorite. If you bought DA on opening day for $60, you had to pay $110 or so to get all the DLC. $170 total. Or wait a year or two and get the whole pack for $60, or $40, or, suddenly, it's $9.99 on Amazon bundled with DA2.

It just feels cheap to me for the most part. But if people are willing to pay (and many are), then I suppose they'd be dumb not to charge. I'll be a second- or third-class buyer who buys on the discount rack with all the DLC included of 4-year-old games. That way, my PC is cheaper, my games are cheaper and I'm happy.

But everyone has their own budget for games. And some people are more than happy to put $1000 into ME3 or $170 into DA:O.

DLC is ok as long as it's free :D

What DLC should be: Content that should be developed after the final game was released, a way to improve and expand an already great, finished game

See: CDProjekt

What DLC is to 95% of Publishers: A way to take things out of finished games, to ripoff the customer, a way to Nickle and Dime the Customer, to released unfinished, incomplete games

See: EA, Bethesda, Ubisoft, Capcom etc... Speaking of "Complete" editions, I think Jim Sterling did a pretty spot-on video about them

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5233-Limited-Collectors-Complete-Edition

Hmm... I used to like it when a game came out with an expansion, but these days it seems the games get worse and they hold a lot back just to squeeze out some more cash down the road.

I did give in once and buy a new outfit for my ranger in Guild Wars, but that's it. I figured if I'm spending that much time playing a character I wanted a decent outfit. But other than that I don't do dlc or extra content. Updates, sure, but no extras.

I wish they'd go back to making good, solid games that don't need any embellishment, but unfortunately they now realize that many people will buy whatever they throw out there.

As long as it's not a requirement to finish the game, or it's not something integral to the story, I don't mind. There can be some good DLC and they're worth picking up. But if a game requires it for you to complete it (or, in the case of multiplayer, it's required to even play the game), then I don't agree with it. In a case like that I'd end up passing on the game altogether.

and sometimes they don't release complete editions

In this day and age, most vanilla versions are simply Beta tests of games, with the "Complete edition" that's released later: is the full, finished game

With all of this bullshit...I can't really blame people for Pirating many new releases, especially from big publishers

bethesda held back content which game was it?

The first "DLC" pack for Fallout 3, which was the actual, real ending of the game

Another example is the "epilogue" for prince of persia 2008 which is supposed to be the "real ending" for the game

I'm fine with them as expansion replacements, meaty content like Point Lookout or Lair of the Shadowbroker. I dislike the little map packs, item packs and such, but then I don't buy them and don't care, so all is well.

Honestly I find the anger some people have toward them pretty silly. Some of it is good and some of it is bad, like games themselves.
No, they made that in response to Bethesda fans whining the game had a real ending. It was not in the can before launch, or even planned.

OMG, OMG (waves arms all over the air), I can't go on-line dressed like this! Their all wearing my outfit and now I'll have to buy something new!

I find the anti-DLC crusade every bit as silly as the anti-DRM crusade. Sweeping generalisations are just so very stupid.

There is good DLC (Fallout 3 and New Vegas are the obvious examples) and there is bad DLC. The former I buy, the latter I skip. Cosmetic and item pack DLCs as means of generating additional revenue I'm absolutely fine with, but there's no way in hell I'll ever pay for that. What was the controversy again?

And it wasn't the first DLC of the game either, but the third (out of five). But well, it's the mudslinging that counts, not the mud you sling, right?