It seems you will be able to get Mario Golf for less than 40 bucks, though. If you get the game for 30 you could almost get two of the dlc packs for the original 40 and you could get the pass for about 45. In America at least

agreed with you and the OP.

I disagree.

The idea that developers should put everything into a game possible before its release ignores the reality of budgeting and resource management.

Let's put it this way. Scenario A. You have a publisher who has 500 employees and 5 million dollars at their disposal. 100 employees are assigned to work on a fighting game with a budget of 2.5 million dollars. They put out the game with no DLC. For the next three months, 25 employees work on DLC bringing 5 new fighters to the game using up 200,000 dollars in the process.

Scenario B. You have a publisher who has 500 employees. 100 are assigned to work on a game with a budget of 2.5 million. Once the game is in its final phases, a team of 25 employees join the project and spend 200,000 dollars to create DLC bringing 5 new fighters to the game. The game is released with the Day One DLC.

What's the difference? Nothing. Furthermore, no developer is required to pour 100% of their available resources into a game. To expect that would be absolutely insane. It's up to developers to decide how to budget their time and resources.

I have no problem with developers devoting a certain amount of resources to DLC, day one, or any other day. The question is whether or not the game has enough content to begin with.

Take Skyrim for instance. Not a huge Skyrim fan, but you definitely can't complain that the game lacks content. If that game had Day One DLC, would anyone have taken issue?

On the other hand, you have a game like Marvel vs Capcom 3. It was a fun game no doubt, but it was barebones. A good deal of characters, but almost no meaningful single player mode compared to its peers. Having a game that was missing a large component that launched with day one DLC... not cool.



TL:DR version- If a game launches at a fair price for the amount of content that it offers, I could care less if it has day one DLC, on disc DLC, or DLC of any kind. However, if a game does not launch with a sufficient amount of content for its price, then DLC is bad.

Would you guys rather it be day 2 DLC?

Most games go gold about a month before release. There is no way DLC is created, and ready for release between that short amount of time. Considering that the game itself took up to around 2 years to create itself....... I call BS.

well said. Much better put than I ever could.

I have no issue with any kind of DLC, though I've probably bought 5 dlc's max and I have over 300 games on my download list. It's not for me, but it's great for anyone who wants more after they're done with a game.

I disagree. I'm sure there's an example where it's not bad somewhere.
I just haven't thought of or seen an example of that, yet.

Agreed 100%, companies like EA and their terrible DLC policies are obnoxious.

I hate DLC in general.

I may be in the minority but I do not have a problem with day one DLC( and no I am not saying that because it is Nintendo doing it, I am also think that when Capcom does it)

Reason why I don't have anything against day one DLC
1.- A lot of people say that it should be included in the game, if it is ready, but why? You don't expect bacon to be included in your burger just because it is also ready to be served. DLC has its own budget and it cost them money separately from the budget of a game to create it.Now I am not saying all day 1 DLC is good, but also not all day 1 DLC is bad. It just depends on how much effort it is going to it. Bad and overpriced DLC is bad and overpriced DLC no matter what day it comes out.
2.- A simple "fix" would be waiting a month and then releasing it even though it was ready on day 1. If something has such a trivial fix, is it there really something wrong with it?