I hope they are dead and I obviously loved those games, so indeed on the disagreement.

That said, though, I understand your feelings in general.  I haven't been terribly impressed with most DLC expansions as they're fun, but so incredibly easy and limited.  Fallout 3 I've been working my way towards more of the DLC...the first one wasn't that impressive, but it was pretty good...they got way more buyers than they expected so started shifting more resources to it past that point.  I'm working my way towards the second one now.  Everyone I've heard talk about them say Fallout 3 is the first time DLC has really been done right. 

The initial DLC efforts we got (especially Oblivion) were disappointing at best, either random crap or unlocks from the disc or not even worth mentioning, but companies were exploring new territory so no huge surprise there.  I don't even care about the Oblivion efforts though, as I didn't like Oblivion to begin with.  It was fun to tool around in but as soon as you tried going through the main plot, you got massacred...I hated that.

Either way, I believe the death of retail will be great for gaming in general.  It was a very limiting way of doing business.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion as I'm pretty sure we've both said our piece at this point.  Enjoy.

The problem with the free DLC model is that you don't actually know for sure in advance firstly whether you will get any DLC, and if you do, what it will be. I'd wager that a significant number of sales of a game will occur early on, before any DLC has been made available. Hence providing that DLC will only likely impact on a fairly small number of sales for that game, meaning that it would then appear primarily to be to try and build some form of brand/loyalty for future games. However this isn't that easy - do consumers look to the publishers of the game, the developers, or the intellectual property?

Even getting past that though, paid for DLC still has a big advantage, because only the people prepared to pay $x for additional content will pay it. In effect meaning that those who are happy with the out of box experience will get to pay a lower amount, and those who want all the flashy extras which are worth more to them will pay a higher price for all the extras. It also benefits the developers - if there is little demand for additional content for example, they can determine that at an early stage and halt further development, as opposed to spending time on a whole expansion pack for little actual benefit. The charge for the DLC allows them to clearly evaluate just what their customers view the DLC as being worth, compared to free content which wouldn't have an easily quantifiable effect.

It's also good that it makes more money for the developers - firstly, with an online model, a greater share of revenues goes to developers rather than being lost on non-value adding areas such as retail/distribution. This means the developers can afford to spend more money on games, making more games/games of better quality. With the competition out there in the gaming market, it also means that game companies aren't going to be able to realise ridiculous profits from the DLC model, because if they make loads of money that will encourage other companies to do the same, for a lower price. This means that the prices will fall, or alternatively the quality of games/their DLC will rise, as game companies compete for our money.

I'm also not fond of game companies releasing unfinished or faulty products at retail, and then just using (free) DLC to add the rest. With a paid DLC model hopefully there would be more pressure to make sure a game is released in a finished state first.

I was done with this, as Savyg and I were done beating our dead horses, but I'll bite one last time. Plus I'm bored at work with no work flow and most everyone is on vacation. The death of retail isn't my problem with DLC.

That problem is true for paid DLC games as well. If the DLC's are planned and in a stage of public advertisement, then why weren't they just included in the game in the first place, other than to dig a few extra dollars from the community? Also, some DLC was promised (Left 4 Dead) but it's not being released seperately (as a sequel in that case).

As for brand loyalty, I'm less likely to buy a game that I know will release pointless DLC for above it's worth (Oblivion), and much more likely to buy a game that will receieve free DLC because the developers love the game (X3).

As far as who to look to, the list should go: 1. Developer (who made the game, and usually makes games of a similar caliber), 2. Publisher (who published the game, but can pull many strings, but usually produce a similar caliber of game), and then 3. IP owner, who is usually one of the former anyway. Just because it's a Star Wars game doesn't mean it's a good game if you took away the lore.

This sounds like a PR spin for DLC. DLC has huge advantages to the gaming companies, not to the players with what you've given as examples. The advantage to the players is that you get new content released faster than a large expansion could be completed. Those happy with the out of the box experience didn't save any money, they paid full price for the game, but only have part of what's available. Those that want the flashy DLC, have just spent $100 or so on a game. If it was originally released with all of the DLC in a pack for $100, no one would buy it. It's genious as far as our market system goes, but for the consumer, we're getting the short end of the stick.

For example, Fallout 3, which as Savyg said, has quality DLC released. The original game costs about $50. There are 4 DLC's released, and one more on the way I believe (Operation: Anchorage, The Pitt, Broken Steel, Point Lookout, and Mothership Zeta). Each DLC costs about $10. Now, take that $50 game and compare it to the $50 of DLC. You get much more for your money for the game. In a different comparison, take that $50 DLC, and compare it to the $30 expansion that you could have had, such as Shivering Isles for oblivion, the same developer as Fallout 3. You still get much more content and game time for your money's worth.

I'm not saying DLC is evil or bad, I'm saying that it's not worth the price it's currently being charged for. Obviously, everyone would love all free DLC. I'm not asking for that either. I'm saying that the problem is that too many people are willing to overpay for breadcrumbs. Why pay Ed Hardy prices for WalMart clothes?

This arguement is slightly flawed. The idea of it is right though. Online distribution is fine, and is where the market is going. It offers many advantages and saves a lot of money. My problem with it is that a direct download game (which costs much less) is the same price as a game I go buy at the store. We don't get the savings passed down to us. Also, even though competition should drive the prices down,  with very few exceptions, most PC games are $50, most expansions are $30, regardless of who developed, published, advertised, or whatever for them. DLC will have a basic understood set price for what is included and it will be just as standard as everything else is.

Quality will rise regardless, and there will always be bombs, just like released games and expansions.

I'm not a fan of unfinished games either, but something much worse than free updates adding in these things later is paid updates adding in these things later. With a paid DLC model, companies will now plan things that could be added in to the finished game (Spore), but are instead held to make paid DLC since they know people will buy anything.

Not all DLC is bad, or original content held over. I just believe it's not worth the current price. I bought all the DLC for Oblivion in one go for $10 (The Knights of the Nine retail disc), and the newest castle DLC was free for it's first week. That price is much more reasonable.

In conclusion, since I wrote a mini-novel, I want my money's worth of content out of DLC. I don't mind downloading it, I don't mind waiting awhile for a big quality expansion, and I don't mind getting small updates quicker as long as the prices are are reasonable and comparitively fair. I believe that many people are all over the bandwagon because it's easy to dismiss being ripped out of $50 dollars on a few quests because it's spread out over $10 payments and a few months. Who cares about $10 dollars? I spend more at McDonalds in one trip. If all of that shiny new DLC was put in a box for $50, you'd laugh at it, and keep walking. But, it's just $10 at a time, so it's no big deal.

I hate hate hate hate that I'm now paying full price for what can only be considered a "portion" of the game that was intended originally.  I know companies are holding out content from the original releases just to make us pay to get what would be considered the completed game.  If you're keeping part of the game out, deduct that portion from the original cost.

This is why DLC, or even expansion packs, can be a bad thing. Companies will abuse it - and because they make damn sure those DLC packages are mighty appealing, people will buy them.

This is getting brain damaged.

When they sell you horse armor for $2.50, and you buy horse armor for $2.50, you're a dumbass.  It's not as if they hid what you were severely overpaying for, so what's the problem?  You're either whining about your own stupidity, or whining about the mere existence of a product you aren't interested in.

Well, my post and several of the ones above it had very little to do with the Horse Armour DLC that was released by Bethesda for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. That was a piece of useless DLC. What we're talking about is companies striping down their titles on purpose or withholding certain complete features to give them something to release as DLC very, very soon after release while still charging full price for the original package. With this practice, retail packages are hurt by DLC, and in fact makes DLC quite a bad trend for the video game industry to get into.

I don't see that happen anymore.  Sure, EA has done some funky stuff with Sims 3, but there's a whole lot of content on their store that I frankly wouldn't want.  I used up my 1000 free points and don't plan to ever get more (unless something really interesting happens.)

Some of the initial DLC runs were a little silly in that direction, though.  Dead Rising comes to mind as a complete joke for DLC, heh.

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1159 has a cool dev interview with some notes on DLC

No, and no. I'm whining about a product that is being overcharged for and lapped up by the masses, which will push forward a trend that I think damages the gaming community as a whole.

 I do love DLC too. Updates are free! No hassle!

Pretty much the second one.  I understand not wanting the DLC trend to continue if you're not into it, but as DLC evolves it'll get more and more like what he wants anyway...depending on the company of course.

So basically he just hates the thought that some companies are devaluing their own product, rather than adding value.  Which is understandable.  I just happen to disagree on a lot of the DLC I've bought, obviously.  I very much like my Crackdown, Fable 2 and Fallout 3 addons...even if the ones I've played have some notable weaknesses.  (I was trying to make it to The Pitt the other day, but I kept getting distracted by shiny buildings to clear out.  Then next day I finally got there, but I'm pretty sure my mods are causing physics bugs in the game and I couldn't get it going.  Bah, why do I bother with mods?)

If the gaming community is that stupid, it's self damaging.  If the gaming community isn't that stupid, it's self cleaning.  Have either a little more faith in the free market, or a little less in humanity.  Blaming it on a product is silly.

it rolls down to money. they want yours

Gasp!  People who sell something want MONEY?  I would never have guessed.