There are instances in which I don't mind such as Borderlands or the new Bioshock DLC. But whenever games aren't released and already have DLC in the works, I think it should be included.

For instance, Painkiller was delayed 3 times and it just had 3 DLC packs announced yet it's not being released for another month. So not only was the game delayed three time, it already has 3 DLC packs slated for release. This instance really pissed me off.

If DLC is done right (As in lots of extra gameplay and items), then I don't mind. If the DLC is already done and completed before the game is released, then I'm usually pretty irked off.

That is the type I am talking about. The one they have ready and wait to put it out, when it could have went on the disk.

Story based DLC is all that I would really be interested in.  Sadly, it usually takes far too long for it to come out.  By the time Knife of Dunwall came out for Dishonored I had finished the game multiple times, and moved onto and beaten a dozen or so games.  The other problem is that the DLC always seems to be inferior to the original game.  That is how most of the reviews paint it anyway. 

I think it really depends.  Some DLC are obvious attempts at greedy cash grabs and could/should have been included in the game.  I don’t remember which game it was, but I recently bought a fighting game and a couple of the characters on the character select screen were darkened out and I had to pay if I wanted to get them.  That’s bullshit.

On the other hand, I think that some people are way too suspicious and cynical when it comes to all DLC.  Yes, all of it is made to get more money, but that could be said about every game in the first place.  I feel certain that a lot of DLC would have never been put in the game in the first place if DLC wasn’t an option.  They would have just made the game and moved on.  But now they have the option of allowing the developers to continue working on content for the game they just made that enhances the game for those that loved it enough to pay for more of it.

 Personally, I rarely buy DLC.  There are rare occasions where I want to keep playing the game enough that I’ll spend a few more bucks.  People say that back in the old days people were content with playing the game they were given.  I agree with that, but at the same time, if I was given an option to buy new bosses in Mega Man 2, or a couple new boxers in Punch-Out, I would have jumped on it.  And I’m sure that if the internet existed back then, people would have been bitching about how if it wasn’t for the option of DLC, Mega Man 2 would have originally included 16 bosses instead of 8. 

I'm ok with the idea of DLC as long as the initial game is "complete". Add-ons to extend the experience can be great and theres no harm in offering extra costumes and whatnot for most games

In my opinion if dlc is already included on the disc you buy yes it should be available to you cause after all you bought the game and if the contents are on that disc then you own it now in the case of Borderlands where the dlc is made after the fact then no but i do like the season pass idea to where you can pay one lump sum for all of the dlc for the year. Now when your talking Tigerwoods golf where ever year they put the same courses out every year and instead of letting you use the courses you bought last year making you buy the same courses over and over us crap but then again thats EA for ya.

It's not DLC if it's on the disc. it's locked Content, i understand the convinience and even the fact that that extra content not affecting the main game however it doesn't change the nature of the act.

Infact i think software giants have been doing this for years (Windows for example) but they're wrong too.

I'm ok with DLC. It adds something extra that will get the player interested again, or bring in new players who see something that gets them interested. What I don't care for is Day 1 DLC. If the publishers already had this stuff made before the game was released, why not just add it into the game. You already got the $60 bucks from the comsumer, why nickel and dime them for an extra couple of bucks? 

DLC can be awesome if you have good ideas on how to expand the game, it's not inherently an anti-consumer practice at all and I don't think it's nickle and diming. Just because some companies nickel and dime people with poor DLC doesn't mean the DLC is bad, it means the company is bad.

DLC is a necessary practice for some companies out there because it's a way to keep as many of your employees on board as possible. After most games finish a lot of people either quit and go find other work in the downtime or get fired since the company can't afford to keep paying people when there's no actual project and work getting done, people need to pay bills and eat after all so they often need to find new work all the time in the development world to keep a consistent flow of money going to pay their bills.

Recently when DoubleFine requested more money for their adventure game, of which they already had more than a million dollars donated to their cause, people were upset at the idea of companies beginning work on a new game before the previous one is out, or just trying to soak up so much money even after people have already been more than generous. It's kind of necessary though as shady as it feels to people on the outside. It's possible there's some poor money management and business going on at DoubleFine, but in general it makes sense if they want to ask for more money so that they can keep their employees employed after the new game is done. They can start working on something new, work on DLC, do whatever it takes to keep the company afloat and keep the team of people you like together. Making video games is a risky and expensive business for everybody and the profit margins are really thin. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

I agree.  I'm not a fan of dlc.  My favorite series, Mass Effect, has lots of dlc and I bought them all.  Some I enjoyed and some I didn't, but all of it could of been included on disc, or just not made at all.  As much as I love the ME universe, I felt a bit cheated by every piece of dlc.  I blame myself and I don't plan to do it again.  Honestly, if I hadn't had some much love for the games, I would of never bought the dlc in the first place.  What's also sick is that some dlc is more than the game itself after a few years.

I don't have any proof that developers hold back content to sell to us later, but sometimes it does seem like they do.   

I can't comment seriously, except as an outsider to this whole process, so I will take the middle ground many are and say, if the game is complete and they want to add to it fine, otherwise no. 

But in my opinion, the DLC I would willingly pay for would be a sandwich. We really need to get cracking on those particle transporter things. 

I'm fine with post release DLC for a game that is complete. If the game can stand alone and DLC is offered thats cool, but the DLC better be of the same standard. This was my only issue with the first three dlc add ons for Borderlands 2, they were not terrible, but they were not  as good as they should have been especially when you compare them to the final DLC campaign. What I don't like is being knicle and dimed for content that should be in the game like Capcom did with Tekken X Street Fighter. I was not put off by the DLC for Mass effect either, the game can easily stand on it own but the DLC was there if you wanted it and I was pleased with what I got. It really just comes down to what they offer and how they offer it.

The only time this bothered me was in Gears of War 3. I labored for weeks to get the Silverback leveled up so I could get the rocket shooting achievement and then discovered I needed a DLC pack to unlock rockets. I was mad, but GOW3 was so much fun, I gave in and just got all the DLC through Season Pass. Seriously, though, they should never update the achievement list before you buy the DLC. That's just dirty pool to me.

I find that I just don't play DLC, not sure why. Like others have said, I think it's fine if it's not needed to complete the experience of the original game. I'm a big fan, though, of GotY versions of games that include all the DLC. On the flip side of that, it really pissed me off when EA and BioWare released the Mass Effect trilogy with no extra content at all. Seriously, I'd gladly buy those again if they came with the DLC.

It it was content cut from the game then it should've been added to the game and not be DLC to begin with. It's hard theses days to determine if the content offered was indeed content cut or content created for that purpose. Though I have yet to fully embrace dLC in all my gaming needs I have found some DLC that truely feels like content meant to add to the experiance.

and others that feel like it should've been in the game from the start. Some day I hope one person will try to make a bulletpoint list to help decide what should be considered acceptable or unacceptable DLC.