In the past few years the popularity of DLCs has grown exponentially. Online distribution sites have made it easier than ever for studios to fill the roll that was traditionally held by modding communities and the trend has taken off with almost every dev team. I am not against adding new content to games in order to continually keep them up-to-date but I am against profiteering for the sake of...well, profit.

What I mean by profiteering is that while some DLCs do contribute to the game as a whole, most are just add-ons that fill little purpose other than to make money. While some may say that publishers need all the cash they can get to make up for lost revenues due to the rise of pirating, I do not feel as though companies can DLC their way out of this problem. They get out of this problem by creating respect and fan loyalty through releasing good games and content added after the release of the main game has never been able to make up for a bad game in my experience.

So what do the rest of you out there think? Is this a positive trend that will benefit gaming as a whole or will we someday see our games released in small packages of 10 at $10.99 each?

What about online play in games, my experience comes mostly from strategy games like Empires Total War or the Dawn of War games. If you do not get the DLCs and expansions you will have to stop playing multi-player altogether unless you like the sour taste of defeat each game. Where is the line between good new content and profiteering?

If you don't have anything against the thing per se (and GOGs could also be seen as DLCs) but only find that they are on average too expensive for the amount of fun they include then don't buy them. However you cannot forbid others to do so.

In general I don't think that games for PC are too expensive. They are getting cheaper and cheaper if one can wait a little bit. I guess that I pay around the same amount of money each year for games but each year I can buy more games with more content for the same price.

There is no big differences between traditional overpriced products and overpriced DLCs. The market will solve it eventually by itself.

I like the idea of DLC, but very few companies do it right IMO.
It's a great way for players to increase the time they get to play with good games (by adding extra missions and such) and for developers to make money without the time and risk of developing an entirely new game.
I hate the EA type of DLC where you're paying to unlock things that are already included in the game though.

This.... some brands are using them to great effect, but not many.
For example, DLC for then Fallout series is for the most part good stuff, same thing for Borderlands.
Those for GTA4 were absolutely great!

On the other end, EA/Bioware/Activision titles are pushing too much on the money milking thing...

I like DLCs given that these are either free or give enough content for their price. Ohh, and availability is important too since I have games which I cannot buy DLCs for since the DLCs are not available in my region.

I agree with what Swannesman and Antaniserse said ( and really everybody else so far )

Full agreement.

Mostly nay.. If they are free then yay.

I dont mind DLc as long as it is not 1 Horse armour or a stupid costume costing £££.

DLC like Fallout or Borderlands - Yes!
(I like those mini-expansions of sorts)

Any other type of DLC - No

Especially if its a small download or its already on the disc. Thats a cheapshot right there!

..Always look on bright side of life la la, lala and something.

Personally, I tend towards nay. I'd have no interest in paying extra for things that are either irrelevant for the game or required to fully enjoy it. I'd want the whole package, a complete game right from the start, balanced for everyone alike. But I admit that most games that offer these DLCs nowadays wouldn't run on my system anyway, so at the moment I don't have to deal with it yet.

And I guess I'm prejudiced because I already have special models in mind, e.g. the one where DLC requires you to pay in order to add powerful items and stuff to the game, which I believe would seriously mess with the balance, or the one where not buying DLC will mean vacancies in your game, like "if you want to do this quest, you have to buy it first". I'd hate to read stuff like that while playing, it would certainly mar my enjoyment of the game.

I've got nothing against solid and fairly priced expansions though, preferably the kind that add extra campaigns, levels etc. to be played AFTER you're through with the original game and that have no direct impact on the latter. In these cases DLC could be something enjoyable and worth paying for.

I just quickly glanced at your name because it seemed easy enough to spell but I paid extra attention to Antaniausevery's name to make sure I got it right

Well.. OK than.. Captain Gyros.