Updated thread title, since people don't seem to understand what I was intending to discuss.

Everything has gone up in price.  Specifically, the development in digital entertainment...  I mean, look at the movies, and games, etc.  Much more expensive today.  However, for the most part, game prices haven't moved all that  much...  So, is DLC rather on or off the disc all that bad? (if it's content they want to charge you for, they're charging you for it, regardless of where it is stored and storing it on the disc has more advantages than DLing it.)

Some people aren't willing to pay for a 90 dollar game.  We know everything costs more.  So, apart from the bad, shoddy DLC that everyone and their mother knows is absolutely terrible, is DLC as a whole really all that bad?

Should studios release the definitive editions of games with everything intended for DLC at a premium price at day one to off-set the higher and higher costs of development?

You know what is bad? Day 1/On-Disc DLC.

Think about it, you fork over $60 for a brand new game, and despite paying the full price, you still have to pay extra money just to have complete access to the game, even though the content is already complete.

Its okay as long as it doesnt look and feels like its put away from launch. Sony does DLC right for example. They only put it in place if the game is highly criticly acclaimed and sells well like with the last of us, bloodborne or even gravity rush, all dlc after the game was done and set in stone before. Bloodborne gets dlc now because it was successfull, knack doesnt got any.

With third party publishers, they live from that like with witcher 3 just renaming it expansion packs or the redicolous 40$ season pass or what ever it was for batman.

Nothing is wrong with DLC that is released well into the games life to extend the life of the game ie expansions. But fucking Goro on disk day one!?! There was a cheatxfor this shit back in the day A,C, up, B, up, B, A, down motherfuckers

Ka-pi96 said: On the disc DLC is absolutely disgusting. You're paying for the disc and everything on it should be included for that price. Off the disc DLC depends on how it is done. If it's day 1, then it's terrible. If it's for something that should have been in the game in the first place, terrible. Stupidly expensive, terrible. However if it is a decent amount of content, the price is reasonable and it is clearly something that was made in addition to the original game (and NOT as a part of the game that was ripped out to be sold separately) then it's a brilliant idea, more please

It would be the same content rather it's on the disc, or your disk.  I'd rather have it on the disc and not wasting space.  It's not like it's tangible anyway.  It's digital.  When you buy the game disc, you have certain rights to the content on that disc.  You do not own anything on the disc.  It's just a digital licence.  Looking into it any more than what it actually is, only leads to upset, and a need for bigger hard disk drives.

Then again.  It doesn't matter when it was done.  Day one, or not.  Remember, this discussion is about DLC offsetting the prices of high development to keep the base game at a reasonable cost.  Not how DLC should, or should not be handled, unless it's related to the main subject.

You can have a different team work on DLC at the same time the game is in development.  So, it could still be day one DLC.  Or should we get everything with all copies of the game being 80-100 dollars.  Even for those who don't want the extra content, or would like to continue paying for cheaper games?

There is nothing inherently wrong with DLC.

Even the "but it's on the disc" argument doesn't hold much water. I especially dislike the mind-set some people have that they are entitled to anything the developer creates before the game ships. That makes no sense to me.

Personally, as I've said before, I have no problem letting others buy all the horse armor they want. That channels more money to the developers without the price of the game itself going up. I'm more than happy to let those with plenty of disposable income subsidize gaming for me.

Furthermore, I can ignore DLC I have no interest in and buy the DLC that I think is worth the price. All it takes is a little research. I've enjoyed pretty much all the DLC I've purchased.

I kinda view Amiibo content annoying. I don't want to buy the amiibo, but I may be interested in purchasing the content that comes with it. But it looks like there making trading cards that are hopefully cheaper. I hope they just let us buy the content on eShop as well.

If the only way they're making money is by charging for DLC, then it must obviously be a so called, "free-to-play game."   DLC itself has to go through planning phases, and tests, etc.  What you're doing is wishing the death of the entire industry, if you think that DLC for any game that has it is an afterthought.  It's planned up on the drawing board with the rest of the intended full game.  Even if you don't see it for six months.

There are ways DLC is good and bad. Ill do a pros and cons list

The Bad
1. Content potentially cut from the game. If the DLC is announced before release or day of release or something along those lines, gamers get mad as they don't feel they are getting all the content at release.

2. The extra cost. Gametes don't wanna pay for extra content if its not a solid experience that gives more content that's not supposed to be part of the main game.

3. Locking content on disc for stable DLC. The moral of it is unethical and gamers won't support it.

While on the other side...

The Good
1,gamers get more of a game to enjoy at a later date (non release window)

2. Devs get more money to support studio.

3. Gamers enjoy the game longer while waiting for a sequel

Does not compute. Books don't have AAA level gaming budgets.  DLC no matter where it's stored, is intangible.