I'm torn. On the one hand, it seems like a pretty decent DLC with a fair price tag. But on the other hand, scamming your costumers by releasing a "Gold Edition" and then still releasing more DLC is pretty shitty.

Maybe they used to work for Sony? Everquest released a gold edition after 2 expansions, then a platinum edition after 4, then I think two or three more? But they kept releasing them saying they were the 'complete collection', when they had already talked about another expansion or had it about to come out.

I love the game, but this DLC just screams "Horse Armor" to me. And I'll agree with everyone else. If you want to put together a compilation of the original game and all of the DLC content in a "Gold Edition", then, great, more power to you, but make sure you're done releasing DLC before then. Also, make sure your DLC has enough content to justify releasing and charging for it. This release seems to break all of those rules simultaneously. Thumbs down...

Dunno. I also dislike the DLC thing, and the "Gold edition" system on GOG. But, 1) I don't think that games ever cease to get DLCs ever anymore ever ever anymore ever, and 2) it's still 1 Gb for a graphically minimalist tile-based 2D roguelike, so I do expect it to hold some content.

This feels a little counterproductive as just a couple weeks ago 'the pit' had a special up with all it's DLC's for a few dollars, and now this is a separate release? Feels like it should have been the pit on sale this week with it's new DLC on sale as well, and then the few weeks ago something else could have been on discount...

All games eventually stop seeing support. I don't think it's a lot to ask that, as a dev, you wait to release a "Gold" or "Game of the Year" version until you're done supporting the game.

And honest, I don't care what the size of the DLC supposedly is. When I read the list of additions in this "Pilgrim" DLC, I'm left shaking my head. "Mindgames" had 2 new characters, 2 new play modes, 10 new "floors", and several tweaks to gameplay (admittedly, the latter should have been in a patch, not DLC). The "Gold" upgrade had 3 new characters, 65 new items, 35 new monsters, 30 new weapons, 2 new levels, 2 new play modes and a few other tweaks. Now, read about the Pilgrim: 1 new character, 8 new monsters, 2 new armors, 13 new weapons, and a few other items.

Comparatively speaking, it's a very small update, and I realize that the price is also less but still. It's this nickle/dime DLC that I hate the most. I'll admit it. I'm a DLC hater. Now, I'm okay with it when the updates are substantial, more "expansion" like. But this is the type of DLC release that really gets me bothered. It the "good ol' days", there would have been the initial game release and then an expansion pack that cost approximately half the cost of the initial price of the game, and if the expansion didn't have at least half of the gameplay time of the original game, people would call it too short. Nowadays, for many releases, if you buy all of the DLC released for a game, it costs twice as much as the game did in the first place.

I realize that isn't the situation here, but at this point in time, I'm not sure how much more there is to come. How many more "1 player character" DLC releases are there still to come? How many more Gold/Platinum/Game Of The Year/Ultimate releases are yet to come. Devs need to be more open about their development processes if they want to keep goodwill with their customers. This isn't just directed at Kerberos. It's also for Haemimont (Omerta) and any other dev doing this type of thing. I would think indie devs would know better, that they can't do this type of stuff, but apparently not.

But when ? When I look at GG or steam catalogues, I see that games get avalanches of DLCs for years. Games are getting milked with more and more little bits of content for ages. Maybe some day the dev dies, or starts a sequel, but... I really expect the norm to become indefinite numbers of DLCs. And "gold" ceasing to mean anything. My point is, I don't think you can expect to "wait for a gold edition". Yes, the principle is absurd, but, in practice we're stuck with either ridiculous "gold/platinium/x-treeme" milestone editions, or just an increasing cloud of DLC dust gravitating around every title. What is worse ?

As for the quantity, I was purely speculating. I haven't even installed The Pit yet, so I don't know exactly what content to expect. I'm simply surprised that "little content" would take up such behemotic size for a "low tech" game (and yes I come straight from the era of 880k amiga floppies). I'd be happy for someone to explain me how come, if it's the case...

Would say that the developers are exchanging a potential mistake for a certain one by proclaiming that such and such is a "gold edition" before they know for certain that the project has reached its conclusion. The habit of downloadable content continuing to sprout up like weeds months/years after a game's initial release is annoying unless the new content is of such quality that it truly justifies being produced.
For me, a key example of how the process can go ridiculously astray is with a title like Borderlands 2, wherein they decided to keep on spewing out more and more crap to the point of absurdity. All they managed to do with that is ensure that I will not be purchasing any later titles from them until at least a year or more after release, until they get the cash reaming nickel-and-dime impulse out of their collective systems. Definite degradation of trust there, and they'll lose money for pushing the tactic too far. Inclined to give smaller groups a bit more leeway since they don't have the people or cash of a larger group, but it still works to leave a bad taste in the consumer's mouth.
People crave simplicity. One purchase, all items, done deal. Insinuating that such a point has been reached and then going against that won't end optimally. All that being said, I'll still purchase the newest bit since the combined total is still acceptable. Gods know I've played shittier things for more money. But hopefully they'll learn and dispense with the current setup for future titles.

This sorta reminds me of when I tried to get involved in the Xbox 360's DLC a little bit. I had the impression based on the description that your gamer score would act as currency, by that it would be for DLC and extra content. This was a good idea as you played you weren't paying for money, instead you earned the DLC. Most content I saw was avatar crap, so why couldn't I spend 300 gamer points to get a snazzy T-shirt and have to spend 50 cents instead? DLC SHOULD BE FREE! I wouldn't mind seeing an optional 'donate' button, but not 'new content for sale' every other day.

I can only look at games (like borderlands 2) that are mostly DLC and can't help but think I would never ever play the game until it's all bundled into a single package and there's no more DLC to buy. I'm not going to buy the core game, then 20+ DLC packages that cost more than the original game, and then find out I have some wrong DLC combination(s) in order to play with friends because it could be missing weapons, maps, or other details. I'd also hate to see that in an online game if you don't have some texture packs they paid for you get big question marks on all content you don't have; However if you can see them and can't select them then it's a form of limitations like on-disc DLC where you need to pay to unlock what you already possess in your hand. Annoying.

I won't be nickel and dimed. It's probably one of the larger reasons I won't get a PS4 or XBone, I got a impressive enough PC here at home.

It's undoubtedly part of the overall marketing scheme, using players who pays for all to help entice friends who don't have every optional component to spend more money. What's really annoying to me is that the term "expansion" seems to be getting lumped in with DLC. Icewind Dale had an expansion. Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 had expansions. Expansions are worth it, and enough good quality DLC could justify being called an expansion when bundled together for a reasonable price. But DLC on its own tends to get out of hand very quickly, and it's often stuff that could and should have been put out with the original release. Far less interested in my 360 than my PC, and infinitely more interested in GOG over other places because the DLC isn't at completely insane saturation levels (and a whole bunch of other reasons, of course).
For all the shit people tend to give Nintendo, they'll be my next hardware purchase because they look like they're still in the business of putting out complete games in one shot. (Course, I've also heard that they screwed up the Wii U launch so hard it's not even funny thanks to patches too large for some hard drives to hold, so they're starting to go down the bad path as well.) They might be behind in the whole multiplayer/social aspect/blah blah blah of consoles, but not everything that's come along has been a good thing. A whole lot of it has been for the worse.

I remember when the Wii came out. I looked at it on the commercial, cocked my head and went 'huh!?'. Just the graphic style of the avatars (which M$ later copied and did slightly better) told of the quality of the system as a whole. They basically took their GameCube in the middle of it's life cycle, added motion controls and threw a new name on it. It's accidental success (a fluke) made them push for their new system the Wii-U.

Honestly I hate the Wii, or what I've played of it, so why would I want a Wii-U? Their bad marketing is based on them showing off the secondary screen/controller which makes it seem like it's an Add-on rather than a new system. They couldn't call it a Wii-2? Better Wii? Or if you wanted two of them, the Wii-Wii? The Super Wii? There are much better names they could have used.

The hardware itself is a hair weaker than the 360. A number of Nintendo items make more sense in Japan where you have limited space, limited electronics, so you want to put as many features into one or two of their items. But in the US, TV's are cheap, kids have their own rooms, a lot of the 'benefits' just don't apply, so having a Wii-U controller which you can stream the game or content to a hand-held doesn't make as much sense with the saturation of cheaper Tablets.

And their games aren't interesting me, There would have to be 5 must-have games to consider the Wii-U; And honestly Zelda and Mario are overrated and they need something more than re-hashed versions of their old IP's and franchises. Really doesn't help that a number of really good games were never planned to be brought over to the US even though they were translated and released in the UK. I've seen maybe 2 games I really want from the Wii-U. I wonder if the Wii-U will die a slow death or if they could fix the problems.

As for their patches, I've heard the patches were big, it would make more sense if you could download it and burn it to a disc so you could then hand it to your friends who have Wii-U's too, instead of possibly having internet troubles and getting a brick. That's an annoyance. sigh

edit: Oh yes and I forgot to mention that Nintendo ditched their old target market (everyone who grew up with the systems) to instead go after little kids of 12... So they could keep concentrating on kid-friendly content and not more adult titles... Geez... Honestly it seems like a bad idea since usually kids have to get an allowance whereas adults have thousands to blow on toys and crap. Nice move Nintendo...

Yes, in many ways, they have screwed up, and continue to do so. My interest lies in a portable from them, rather than a console. Having recently decided that I would rather focus on the additional 150+ titles remaining on my GOG wishlist, I'm content with a single console and one portable. Have found that I really, really enjoy Etrian Odyssey. As it pertains to the whole DLC thing, I'm liking them because they haven't gone down the same bad road the rest of the industry seems to be gravitating towards. They instead choose to continue with their own set of piss poor decisions.

Well we currently have a couple of companies to look at who made really bad choices to see where things will go. CapCom currently is barely keeping afloat, and would probably do better if they actually made a few games we wanted and begged for, given the proper attention and loving care. Atari banked on ET for their console only to never fully recover.

Microsoft, Nintendo, Blizzard, Square Enix and Bethesda are currently full of themselves; Sony recently calmed down and become more reasonable, not that they don't try to DRM the crap out of their consoles and handhelds, cause god-forbid I could play my games without having the actual disc in! Geez...

I'm sick of the overtly proprietary crap and I've dealt with only a little bit of it for a short while. I wish a lot more people were like me: Quit after less than 6 months and refuse to get back into the same trap regardless how tempting something is. With that what works for a short time would quickly backfire (steam would become a wasteland).

Maybe my standards are too high.

Microsoft wants domination and thinks they can have it after decades of people eating shit and taking one garbage OS after another, Nintendo wants a time machine to go back to 1989 when they aren't doing everything but using employees as blood sacrifice to try to get people to give a crap about the Wii U, Blizzard has enough massively multiplayer boredom-fest money that people don't even tell them to go fuck themselves when they put single-player games as online-only, Square-Enix keeps thinking that games with characters that players want to put through a wood chipper and storylines you'd have to be on acid to think were good are the way to go, and Bethesda's gotten so many blowjobs over how "great" (great being encased in 200 foot high burning red air quotes) their Fallout hatchet jobs (think psycho killer having cut someone's face off and started dancing around while wearing it, saying "I really AM your aunt Susie! Don't pay any attention to the bleeding corpse in the corner!") and Elder Scrolls pretty landscape with half-assed gameplay simulators that they actually believe the corrupt bullshit and think their path isn't composed of nothing but mediocrity and the reanimated corpses of desire from people who wanted Fallout to continue no matter what it might be massacred into. As for Steam, the novelty wore off real quick. Now it's a matter of hours I'll be playing a game and enjoying it versus the cost. If it's worse that what it'd cost for a Blockbuster rental, I skip it, sale or not. And fortunately, I'm getting more and more to the point of telling them to piss off all together, regardless of how much cheap shit they waggle in my face. Would rather get my wallet fondled inappropriately by companies I don't loathe.

Anti-thread derailment postscript - Sword of the Stars - The Pit is pretty cool from what I've played, another character and some other stuff for 2 bucks sounds reasonable, hoping they don't do it another ten times though, wish they wouldn't have whipped out the Gold Edition thing prematurely, and yeah I have no idea why a few things takes over a gig of space to add in.

I really dont understand what everyone is upset about with this $2, pretty nifty looking dlc. The gold edition is constantly on sale for $3 to $5, maybe if it was priced like omerta i'd get it, but extra content reasonably priced seems fine. i know kerberos has had its share of customer relations screw ups, but this doesn't feel like one to me.