Originally I didn't mind. In games like Oblivion, I felt as though I was getting an entire game, and then the dlc just gave me more to enjoy in an already good game. But now you're having games like Elite: Dangerous and Fallout 4, where you're not getting the complete game until you get the dlc, which is stupid but you don't hear anyone calling it out

>>321872809

DLC is bad. Expansion Packs are good

I like good DLC and dislike bad DLC

DLC is fine when its cheap cosmetic shit, level or character packs that started development after the game was released and are fairly priced, or when it's so big it's virtually an expansion pack.

Cutting up in-game content to resell it a few weeks later with a season pass is fucking ridiculous though. I think Mega Man 9 having launch day DLC for its fucking difficulty settings was the point where I lost all patience with that shit.

I love good DLC that gives me more of what I love (Witcher 3, GTA IV, Borderlands 2), but those are sadly a minority and most of DLC has a pretty bad price-to-content (not to even mention quality) ratio. Considering that fact I wouldn't give a general opinion about whether DLC is good or bad, it's completely case dependent.

>>321872809
It allows for additional, or cut content to be added to the game, which can be a good thing and help increase the lifespan of a game.

Not everything the creators want to put in the game can always fit. Sometimes you just don't have the time, money, or man power to spend on a cool idea. So you shelve it and work on what the game really needs, like tightening up the graphics on level three.

DLC allows for you to then come back to that other idea, finish it, and release it, paid for or not. Additional quests, for example, or extra outfits for characters are great ideas for DLC content. Things that are small enough to not warrant spending a lot of time on, but interesting enough that people may want it.

DLC should not replace things like Expansions, which would be like releasing a shorter game in addition to the original.

>>321872809
in most cases expansions add new things to the game that don't stop you from enjoying it even if you dont have it. DLC is mostly pay2win shit that restricts you unless you buy it, or useless cosmetics

>people thinking that expansions aren't DLC

DLC in itself isn't bad since we've had expansions for ages, but I feel the ease of use of online of services has directly degraded their quality. Instead of the devs being forced to bundle all their shit together into one disc that usually houses a bigger expansion, it's far easier to get money from retards by making them buy individually cheaper, but also smaller micro-transactions (one new weapon, one or few cosmetic changes, stat or money boost, one new character / faction / class etc.) and obviously by taking that approach they won't usually be willing to create more expensive, but larger expansions where different fundamental parts (f.ex. new game mechanics, new areas) of it are tied together and rely on each other. Nowadays it's about quantity over quality.

Before online distribution became popular it was actually more economic to focus on bigger expansions instead of smaller micro-transactions due to the costs that came with releasing new content on disk. In age of Steam, PSN, Xbox Live and whatever service Nintendo uses not so much.

>>321872809
this >>321873271
I refused to download the witcher 3 dlc, even if it was free, because you could easily see that the shit was cut just so they could tote about giving free shit.

>>321875984
>t--th-thanks consoles

>>321876685
It's a problem on all platforms, that's why I included Steam and by extension Origin, GMG, GoG or whatever your choice of store is. It's not a problem created by specific platforms, but by the popularization of online retailers.