I feel the same way about DLC, or most DLC I should say. It usually feels like something that should have been in the game to begin with. I almost never buy DLC because of it.

Not surprising.. Nintendo really should gimp their games more so the DLC has a meaning.. Now its like a Popsicle after dinner and desert..

I completely agree with you. I never bought any of the Fire Emblem DLCs and I don't plan to, I hate this practice and I will never support it no matter what happens. 

Something like NSLU is ok though, you are basically getting another game for 1/4 the full price, that's something I'm fine with, unfortunately very few games actually implement DLC like this...

Yeah, I'm pretty bummed about the Pikmin levels. Not only did Pikmin 2 have tons of challenge levels, but these maps are ridiculously simple. Any schmuck could whip one of these up with a map editor in about five minutes. (Also, THERE SHOULD JUST BE A FREAKING MAP EDITOR.)

Well they don't really mess with the main experience or story of the game, its completely optional. You don't miss out on anything important if you don't buy it, think of it more as an expansion pack(s).

I don't consider Luigi U a DLC. It's more of an expansion pack!

Anyway I never got too interestind in DLC. I think I never bought DLC in any game... ever. Nintendo games won't be an exception.

From what I've read and heard, most developers and writers produce far more content during the first stages of game creation than can actually be used.  A large amount is culled out naturally for the sake of factors like time constraints, technical reasons, or to tighten the narrative.  That's one reason why some DLC feels like it's a part of the original game--at one time, it was.  In the past, it would simply be discarded forever.

Of course, some DLC was obvious conceived as DLC from the start.

I think Fallout: New Vegas DLC is a good example of both and shows why both can be successful.  That game had some of the best DLC I've ever come across, to the point that the DLC was better than a lot of $60 games I've played.  Honest Hearts continues the story of a character that is mentioned often during the course of the main adventure; playing it, I got the feeling that it was something that started as part of the original game but would have side-tracked the story too much for no real reason.  Developing it as DLC allowed them to do a lot more with the fate of that character.  On the other hand, the Old World Blues DLC is a completely separate and self-contained experience.  It doesn't fit in with the rest of the game at all, which is part of what makes it so awesome.

Personally, I have nothing against DLC, only against bad DLC.  My practice is to buy what I like and to ignore what I don't.  What I really dislike is the season pass, where people are buying DLC without knowing what it is or if it's worth a damn.  Consumers ultimately hold the key to the quality of DLC being created, so it's our responsibility to tell the developers what we want.

Am I the only one who saw through Luigi U? The levels were all under 100 seconds in order to get the challenge of the shortness of the levels. However, to the experienced Mario players, they could get it all done within a matter of hours...

If Nintendo wanted... they could add Micro-transactions on Smash Bros and Mario Kart and it will still probably sell a shit ton... Thank god they are not EA

New VEgas does have some shitty DLC (Courier's Stash), but for the most part the DLC did feel more like mini-expansion packs at reasonable prices: $10 for 8-10 hours of entirely new content is a pretty good deal, even if not all four of them feel equal (Old World Blues>>>the rest). But New Vegas is more the exception than the rule. Most DLC is like the kind Rol identified: way less bang for buck than the main game, and often with content that simply feels extaneous or held back.