I am one of the biggest haters of charging for DLC there is.  Most of the times everything DLC has could have been included in the original game.  DLC is just a way for developers/publishers to earn more money by leaving things out of games.  I know some of you out there enjoy DLC but to me it is a scam (especially when companies start talking about DLC before the actual game is even released).  By paying for DLC you are supporting the idea that video game companies can just release unfinished versions of their game.  While some DLC can be justified by content and price, most offer little value for their price.

Lets go back a few years to what used to be popular (mainly with PC games).  Expansions....  Yes, I can grasp expansions because at least you get way more than the usual DLC offering.  Lets take one game for example:  Civilization...  I played Civ3 for a very long time (mainly because I was playing user made scenarios that were more in depth than what the actual developer could release for their scenarios).  Each expansion for Civ3 came with new resources, units, civs, scenarios, etc..  Fast forward to Civ5 (I recently picked up for $20).  The DLC content they offer for Civ5 is a joke.  They offer 1 civ and 1 scenario for $5 a pop with each Civ having 1 or 2 unique units/buildings.  They also offer maps for different parts of the world for $3 which is a joke because you probably could download those maps for free from civfanatics (or a better one or an actual scenario using that map).   Anyways, it seems that DLC can't even match expansions for price and value.

Nintendo has been the saving grace of the video game industry in the recent generation.  At least I know I can buy a Nintendo game and not worry about having this character or that character left out just to be included in a DLC later.  How would you like to buy Mario Kart and then only have 10 characters available.  Instead of unlocking new characters by actually playing the game you have to buy each character for 3 dollars each.  This is what the game industry has turned into in my eyes.  Screw DLC and the "elite" paid services for CoD.

Nintendo should focus on including level editors in their games.  They included one for Brawl (while it might not have been a game changer it was a nice feature).  I am sure a few people made Brawl stages just as good or better than ones provided by Nintendo.  A level editor for NSMB or Kart would be amazing.  Nintendo should let the users create new content for their games for free.  Level editors were pretty much the first DLC and they were free.

I wouldn't mind if Nintendo offered free DLC at all.  Game such as Animal Crossing could benefit a lot with free DLC (such as new clothes, furniture, etc).  I just don't want to see Nintendo holding content from the game to purposely release as DLC later.  They should include all the characters they want in the finished game and leave it at that.  Let a few be hidden/unlockable and that is enough for me. 

Just out of curiosity, how much did those expansions cost??? There not really that different from DLCs, There is some content that is truly BS. Capcom fighters, paying for costumes??? Bioshock 2 was a rip (except for the last DLC). But to put them all in the same category is pretty ignorant. Some games really do add to the experience (not much) some are just cool little things that are just optional and dont hurt if you if you dont get it. Yep Ninty does not need to go this route and i doubt they will, but lets not front, one or two of there games could benefit with DLC, hell not even just a plain old patch, Other M did it. and Smash Bros. Brawl needs a patch worst than a nicotine addict

There's no doubt that DLC has been abused to press extra cash out of games where it wasn't justified, but that doesn't mean DLC is bad.

Games like Burnout Paradise and LittleBigPlanet show how DLC is done right, and there's no reason why Nintendo couldn't create extra content for a game after it has been released.

@oniyide 

I am pretty sure each Civ3 expansion was 40 bucks when it was released.  First expansion (Play the World) included 8 races with their new units, ability to play Civ3 online (first Civ3 couldn't), and 4 new game modes.  The second expansion (Conquests) included 7 races with their new units, new religions, new disasters, techs, wonders, also with a few custom scenarios that included in those scenarios (85 new technologies, 50 new units, 60 new buildings and wonders, 30 new resources, more than 8 new governments, these are just for the scenarios not regular game).

So basically for about 80 more dollars (if you bought them right when they came out) you got 15 new civs with their units, new disasters, tech, wonders, more game modes, ability to play online, new religions, custom made scenarios with unique units, buildings, wonders, tech, etc..

Now with Civ5 if you buy each race at 5 dollars a pop.  80/5 =16 races with unique units and 16 scenarios

So basically by splitting the DLC to just one race a time they don't have to worry about including new resources, techs, wonders, governments, etc.  They can just include that later for more. 

i hate it because what gurantee do I haveI can download it again 10years from now when I have a son andtry to educate him about outated HD gfx games lol.

There is lots of DLC that is fairly priced out there. What shouldn't exsist is Day 1 DLC and overpriced Hats for your characters etc.

 Some games are fine and give you what you want for your money with the DLC and sometimes its free, Why would you not want Nintendo to give you extra stuff for free 6 months after a game is out??

 I belive things like new skins should always be free as they are something which are easy to make and dont change the experiance at all. Extra stages, new characters etc are worth paying for but I do find them normally overpriced, but its also content that would of likely never been in the final game anyway. You think these companys would of delayed the game 3-4 months to give you the extra content you never would of known exsisted. I never used to like DLC but I realised I dont have to buy it and I dont have to buy games that take the piss with rip of DLC ect.

@sethnintendo  i hear ya man and that does suck. But if i can be frank that just seems like a problem with that specific game. What is really the difference between DLC & Expanisions??? One is bigger and you get alot more stuff but you pay alot more, the other is smaller but is cheaper, depending on what it is. It sounds as if your pissed because the Civ dudes are looking for a way to nickel and dime people. Which is screwed up, just dont buy it

Yea, I can basically agree with everything you said and a few others previously.  If done right, DLC can be a decent value and add decent experience to the game.  I just see Capcom charging for costumes, MK talking about DLC fighters before the game is even released, 15 dollars for 4 multiplayer maps for CoD, etc....  I tend to focus on the negativity of DLC because whenever I see companies abusing DLC it pisses me off.

Things like extra stages would be a rip off for games like Smash.  Especially after Nintendo allowed users to create their own stages in Brawl.  What would be nice is if their would be more games that included level editors.  Mario Kart would pure bliss with addition of level editor.  Instead of allowing the user to create better experience for themselves we have gotten to the point of having the company create something that is probably mediocre compared to what general consumer can create and charging them for it.  I will go back to Civ3 one more time.  For Conquests they included about 8 or so scenarios with unique techs, buildings, races, etc... While those scenarios are pretty good for the most part I can go on civfanatics site and download 20 scenarios that the creator put more time and effort into which are far superior than the ones included in the expansion. 

Level editors used to give the user the ability to create and prolong the game experience.  Now it seems that level editors/scenario editors are almost a thing of the past (except for a few games like Civ, LBP, and a few others).  I am sure CoD players could create better maps than what Treyarch can make.  However, that game's engine has so many problems that there would be a lot of glitches, bugs, etc (hell they can't even get their own maps to work right).  Level editors were the original DLC and were free.

I believe DLC is great. Its done more good then bad. Day 1 dlc is just a way for the developers to get people to buy the game early insentive. Also, DLC just further adds to the game for a usual fair price. The latest expansion of Call of Duty for example adds 4 maps and a Zombie map for 15$ and thats a steal. In Killzone 3, 2 maps for 5 dollars is also not bad. However i think you are missing the best part of all, not having to buy the  DLC in the first place. You don't need DLC and anything extra is just that, an extra. 

DLC's are awesome and I'm gladly supporting it.

And I love the myth that developers took out so much content to sell it later as DLC. You're just getting it all wrong with your conspiracy theories. In reality you would get the full Mario Kart roster plus 10 extra characters (DLC).

And even if Capcom already has extra outfits on the disc that need to be payed for. What gives you the idea that Capcom would have included them on the disc if there was no possibility for DLCs (also known as the previous generations) ? They would have never created them in the first place.