FargoDog said:
I like DLC, but I don't buy it unless it's a game I really enjoy, such as Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age.
Exactly my standpoint: this thread makes me giggle because my wallet just became $60 lighter not more than two hours ago to catch up on all the Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC. I'll buy DLC for games I absolutely adore (the aforementioned and Fallout 3 being the examples), and only rarely for games I like (Left 4 Dead 1+2, only if the DLC is interesting).
The trend towards DLC both delights and disturbs me: on the one hand, it's a way to explore new content and enhance my gameplay experience months or even years after the game's release. Borderlands is a decent example of this: the developer doesn't even plan on a sequel, they just plan on adding to the game as it is. Then again, with the revenue DLC guarantees to go straight into the studio's pocket, some feel that games are being chopped up and truncated in order to force players to re-buy the game over and over and over again. Do I really want to pay two dollars for three additional weapons in Mass Effect 2, or should the weapons have been available in the first place? Why should I pay $4-10 for map packs that are free to PC gamers?
Even though I was on the receiving end of the stick, the DLC carrot Dragon Age offered players who bought the game new is a good example of ways DLC can change the way developers are paid: they offered "The Stone Prisoner" free to those who bought the game and entered an enclosed code by April 30. Hilariously, I bought my copy three days after the deadline, so I just forked over $15 to try the expansion. Still, it's a neat example of ways DLC is changing the way we enjoy our games. Do you think it's for the better or for the worst?