After submitting the above post I saw what radha posted, and saw the age old DLC argument.
In some ways I agree with what people argue, and how it's an incentive to just release a 90% done game and offer the 10% for more money. Does it happen probably. The new Fallout 3 map could've been in the game originally. Or maybe it wasn't and developed later, but I think we all figure it could've been there all along.
However I see two things wrong with this. Do you think its entirely possible, especially with the cost of games, for them to just axe that shit anyway and it never sees light of day at all. Companies don't wan't to be paying for more content (whatever the price point is) and especially delaying a title because someone wants to add stuff to it. Extra maps and things probably wouldn't have come to light without the incentive for the companies (not the programmers designers, who most likely make a flat salary anyway, i.e. they don't inhibit costs from doing half-assed work) to sell a little bit more after the release through DLC.
2ndly, How does one confer that this really hasn't been done in the past. I think EA Sports and Capcom Milk their customers like Elephant sized cows. My god. Street Fighter alone has definatly purposly gimped the current title so that Super Street Fighter II XX Triple silver version can come out 2 months later with a brand new price tag on it.
I actually think more often than not DLC saves us from biend brutally besieged by remakes and unnecissary sequels rather than causes a precident for incomplete games.
"Let justice be done though the heavens fall." - Jim Garrison
"Ask not your horse, if ye should ride into battle" - myself
