I've just gone back and re-read the last several pages of this thread and I have to say it again, this time with more emphasis the term DLC, especially when applied to GOG is "terribad" and really should be replaced by something contextually accurate and specific..

I've now lost count of the times I've seen (in this thread alone) people arguing about the merits or shortfalls of "DLC" while not using even remotely the same definition(s). Substituting "gaming software" for "DLC" would only be slightly more vague. Taking the literal definition of "DLC" everything on GOG counts as DLC. That definition is clearly not the one being used by the GOG survey and leads people to start conversations/debates using identical terms to represent completely different meanings.

This spins even further out of control as some people try to address business models which use the term "DLC" as a marketing trick while others try to (correctly) point out that value of any game or gaming software is a subjective matter of personal taste. These two points in no way contradict but that hasn't stopped written back and forth conversations that treat them as antithetical.

This will never happen (and might start clogging the threads) but it would be great if everyone would define the excruciatingly vague term "DLC" whenever they used it.

To provide a couple of clear examples (in hopes that their use may catch on).

Alan Wake's American Nightmare = Expansion / Good DLC
It extends the base game play, provides new/more game play, and most importantly is stand alone.
Another example would be Heroes of Might and Magic 5s two expansions: Tribes of the East and Hammers of Fate.
Both represent ongoing development in that they extend the story and base game play as well as not having been created and finished pre-release.

Example of "bad" aka money grab "DLC"
The ME series DLC. ME1 ~ Bring Down the Sky. ME2 ~ Lair of the Shadow Broker, Arrival. ME3 ~ Leviathan.
Note: These are examples of bad DLC not because of any assessment of their subjective content/enjoyment value. They are bad in that their content is chopped out of the base story arc presented by the trilogy making a complete playthrough of the story arc (even as defined within the context of single games) impossible without additional purchases. Many of them were also released near or even before the release of the base game highlighting the use of development resources to parse out the game in an attempt to milk more money from players.

The above are only examples and I'm sure some dispute could be made by someone regardless of what examples are given but it seems important to define what is under discussion when the issue is being discussed. It's also worth noting that game type effects what sort of examples would be appropriate to illustrate the pitfalls for bad DLC business practices (again not to be confused with the subjective matter of individual player tastes).
In a more sandbox style game like Skyrim or Oblivion it's easier to make 'good DLC' due to the nature of the game mechanics/presentation, an example of 'bad DLC' would be cutting out the mechanical support of learning/using "dragon shouts" unless you buy DLC for them (Skyrim) or block the ability to fully explore the Imperial City without DLC purchases (Oblivion). In essence it comes down to this, ongoing development (which should obviously include fixes, balance polish etc for the game) is on balance a very good thing and the decision to buy or pass is purely a matter of personal taste. The other side of the coin is the "I've already got your money bro" method promoted by EA et al in which milking the customer by copping up the product into multiple purchases is masked by the PR stunt of using the term "DLC" as if somehow delivering the rest of your game via download off-sets bilking someone by forcing them to pay over and over again just to play the whole game.

Cheers,
Legion

What scam? The TD2 expansion packs, that were released on the same month (could be trimester) as the base game? Or the fact that if you wanted a different distribution method, you had to pay more?
Or are you talking about my view on the Omerta pricing?

Even more ridiculous, it isn't everyone bitching about it...it's a few people condescending to the majority who feel differently than they do. Gotta love it, right?

I have no problem with those who have reasonably stated objections to these moves. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's the few who are blathering on with every excuse in the book for why this is 'unfair' and 'wrong' and that they need to 'save GOG' from 'slippery slopes' with no backing whatsoever who are annoying. Of course, they're also hilarious, so it isn't all bad.

Don't pretend you don't know I am talking about test drive.

There are 2 images concerning Test Drive in the linked post. Do you mean the expansions or the pay 5 for 3.5" floppies?

Now you are just being silly...

Dodging the question again.

Are you referring to day 1 DLC that was available in 1989, or are you referring to "pay extra for a different medium for your game", which was also available in 1989?

Depending on which one offends you, I can start posting different examples. Because you see, neither of those practices is something new. But no, it's the evil publishers we have nowdays that are trying to milk us dry (and not in a nice sense).

Dammit, JMich! He's trying to throw a childish tantrum! And then you come strolling in with your facts and actual points and questions and just confuse the whole issue!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque?

Uh oh..

You are so deluded it hurts.

Good post +1

For me personally I come here because GOG sells games DRM free and I can rely on anything I buy from GOG to be completely DRM free without reading all the fine print to check and re-check if "DRM free" really means DRM free (as it so often does not when used by other sites/services "this product is 100% free of intrusive DRM... our required 3rd party client registration and installation not withstanding" :P ).

When GOG starts selling games which contain DRM I'll take my leave (I hope that day doesn't come) but for me it's about taking responsibility for which business practices I am promoting with my purchases. Companies that employ DRM or try and milk their customers for money I simply won't buy from it does not matter what "shiny new toy" they offer, I refuse to support unethical practices (these are after all the same corporations who advocated for things like SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/CISPA). Out sides of that I literally do not care what's listed in the GOG selection, they have and will continue to add, many games I have zero interest in playing much less buying. This bothers me not in the slightest, people have differing tastes and there is no reason the whole site should be catered to my tastes.
It is important however to maintain a clear view that not everything the gaming industry does is "just a matter of taste" nor is all of it confined to effecting only "for fun" activities or recreation. Choices do not occur in a void, refusing to acknowledge that is dangerous at best.

but I digress... back on point I want to reiterate the +1 to your post, thanks for raising some interesting questions.

Cheers,
Legion

I'm going to keep asking this until someone finally answers.

Where did they ever say they would only release "complete" editions? As far as I can tell, this was never a "core" principle. I can't find a shred of text that states this was the original goal of GOG.

Just so we know : are you actually planning to present a real argument based in reality at some point, or should we just expect more stomping of the feet and empty blathering?

It was mentioned in either the "About us" page or the "Our mission" page. It has since dissappeared (I think in the March 2012 site revamp), but if you really want to, I can try to find it.