That's pretty much how I feel as well; I'm somewhat mixed on the notion of DLC set on release day though. While it's nice to potentially get content that got cut from a game due to a whole variety of issues, it's still somewhat odd that it wouldn't have been released in the actual game in the first place.

Agreed.

Also to note, games that come in physical boxes need to be done at least a month before release... there's creating / buying parts, printing discs, packaging items, signing distribution deals, delivering to stores... people seem to forget that these things take time.
1,613.18 USD around here. :|
That would be for the best... something similar is happening with WoW, of course if we don't count the monthly subscription.

Bad examples. By all means point out crap like Horse Armor for Oblivion or the Dog Suit for Fable 3 but allow me to defend the Dawn of War and Super Street Fighter IV ones.

The Dawn of War Ultramarines, Dark Angels and Ulthwé packs are purely cosmetic. They are not required in anyway to play the game. They are for fans of those chapters/craftwords and some people really like them. I was tempted by the Ulthwé one myself because the Farseer outfit is based on Taldeer's outfit from Winter Assault and Dark Crusade. I have absolutely no problem with the production of these cosmetic packs because they would never have been included in a base game or an expac. I'm sure Relic are planning a Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Black Templars pack as well and good on them. I won't buy them but I'm sure actual tabletop players will love to play as their armies in the game especially as they actually do alter the models significantly. They aren't just skin-jobs as you can see from the screen shots.

As for the Super Street Fighter IV packs individually, yes they are a rip off but the All-in-one pack acutally represents good value and again none of these costumes would have ever been made for the base game, ever. Some are purely fan service (Cammy in Bison Uniform) and some are classic outfits (Chun-Li's Street Fighter Alpha costume) and again they are cosmetic, you do not need to buy them neither does it impact your gameplay if you don't. However as someone who plays online I like the variation they give and I thought they were worth the money because they were professionally made by Capcom.

End of the day my point is cosmetic DLC is fine and dandy if people want them then let them buy them, what's the harm? The only DLC I have a problem with is DLC that separates gamers and Activision are masters at that with their stupid map packs that ensure the gamer base is divided in to the haves and have nots.

Cosmetic DLC = FIne
Expac DLC = Fine
Limited weapon thingy that gives players an advantage = Not fine
Map Packs that can only be used by people who have bought them = Not fine

I hate DLC as much as the people on this forum hate DRM.
FUCK YOU BETHESDA.

edit: I'm actually reading the thread now... I genuinely cannot believe how some of you people are actually justifying Fallout 3 DLC? 10 dollars for 2 hours of gameplay? Are you kidding? Or do you just like being milked?

Same goes for the mediocre quality of the DLC's for New Vegas. I don' really have a good explanation as to why but I personally think DLC's are the poor mans expansions pack.

Okay technically DLC's are Expansions packs, but at the same time they are not. True EP's would be like Half Life Opposing force or Yuri's Revenge for Red Alert 2 (those we're stand alone game titles in their own right).

You mean a rich guy's expansion pack? Because I fail to see how anyone would believe that is good value.

poor man's *insert object here* is just a term used to show it's a lower quaility subsititute, it's not used to mean it was made for poorer people .

You might have been joking and already known that, but I wasn't sure

Ye it was a pun.

I always edit my posts way too late

In theory: DLCs are great.

They allow the game developers of a non-continually-funded (read: non pay to play MMO) game to actually be able to make extra money while creating new content for the game. If they're continuing to work on the game, that should me they're fixing issues that pop up.

In practice: DLCs are usually overdone moneygrabs.

Developers have realized that people are stupid and will buy DLCs (because they're cheap), so they will release a game with nowhere near the content we, the players, should have gotten for our initial purchase price (especially if bought new at $60!).

Granted, DLCs aren't as bad as the games that have a microtransaction system built in. Sims 3 anyone? "Buy stuff for your Sims house with real money!"

For me, the measure of the 'validity' of a DLC pack is a combination of how close to the original release it comes out, how much it costs, and what it adds.
Borderlands, for example, the DLC isn't too bad, it came out over the course of like .. 2 years I think, and adds new stuff. Shows the company is doing it right.

Dragon Age: Origins though?
Let's see, original game, DLC packs on release, couple other minor 'buy me!' things, and then an expansion? To be fair, if you bought the retail version of the game you got the DLCs, too (I did like that.)

They aren't 2 hours long. You clearly haven't played any of them.

Exactly.... I spent about 20 hours in Point Lookout alone.

It's great that GOG is only in $$. That really saves me some ££

And yes, Dawn of War is really milking their profits by charging for some flashy new textures.
I got it on sale on Steam, I was hoping it would be a Rail Tycoon clone but was sorely disappointed by the lack of content. I could not hit the uninstall button quick enough. With all the DLCs it made me feel like I was playing a single piece of jigsaw puzzle.
All about choice. I can respect that.