ymeaga - One should note the anti-DLC comments are only coming from PS3 owners...
Maybe the way I look at it is a little different:
What if the DLC would have never made it to market had MS not stepped in and secured it for their console? As we've seen as of late, multi-plat is the only way to go, as securing an entire game would cost just too much.
Yet despite that, DLC remains a very affordable option for developers. DLC costs about 1/10th of the standalone game - even for a comparable set of time that can be afforded to the gamer with the DLC. So why would it *not* be in Microsoft's interest to pay the developers to make more of a good game?
Microsoft isn't looking 'hey, how can we screw Sony fans over', which is the way some of the anti-DLC Sonyfan comments are, but MS is more thinking along the lines of 'how can we secure a better experience for our fans'.
May I remind you that Sony could (and does) do the same thing for the year-old ports. I know some are arguing 'b-b-ut they're needed to stay competitive!' and I say 'no, no they're not'. They aren't needed. A year-old port could just be churned out as a budget port (say, $30-40) like many games last gen were. Resident Evil 4 was that way for the PS2.
In the end, Sony could do what MS is doing, and funding unique content for a given big game. MS, I doubt, is preventing content that's already being made to themselves - rather incentivizing the developer to make it in the first place, and for the 360.
And again, why not? If paying for DLC costs 1/10th of securing an exclusive, changes are, you'll get more for your money in the end.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
