Isn't it getting a little ridiculous this gen. Devs choose to omit "extra" content and sell it for more money after the consumer already paid $50-60 for the game. If the content is already planned before the game's launch, why isn't it just included in the game rather than released later?

In my opinion, DLC should be an afterthought, due to fan request for more or to spike interest in an aging game but this days it seems like its planned from the very beginning of game development. I created this topic after watching the E3 "The Last Remnant" trailer on gametrailers. The developer mentions that they're thinking of adding DLC in the future. Question is: why can't they add the content they're thinking of before the game launches?

Your thoughts?

instead of giving you the content, Developers promises to charge you it in a later date.

To me, that's no incentive at all for me to pay 60 bucks for a game.

But then again, it's different with some people, others would pay 50 millions for them. *shrugs*

It ensures you that you know that the developer will continue to support the title well into the future

I know what you mean. It kinda sucks being told at purchase that to get the full experience you'll have to throw down more later.

But at the same time like you said it helps an older title stay fresh. Stuff like adding new maps several times or RB/GH where they add a bunch of songs later is great as they probably came up with at least some of the stuff after release.

Especially with RB when there is so much DLC released consistently you know there is no way they could have put it all on the disc.  I prefer the option of being able to buy it now rather than no option at all (GH3 Wii).

For some people it is a completely different setup: they hear "DLC is coming afterwards" which means that if they are so psyched about the game, that they know that they'll get more content afterwards, which they might enjoy.

Of course it's a purely financial move by the companies to get more money out of the consumer, and that is a pity, but I've only considered additional content for very few games (diablo II, Starcraft are the only ones I can think of that have gotten my money for their expansions and such, although those are more acceptable as an additional purchase I feel)

1) increased costs of development lead to increasing the need to make more money outside of direct sales, through microtransactions, subscriptions, advertisements, etc. (if you want more expensive gaming, this is just something you'll have to live with).

2) At some point, no matter how many features you have in your game, you need to stop adding them and start working the last ones in fluidly, making sure they are balanced, working well, working efficiently, etc.

Adding cruft to games is not always a good thing; if it adds to the game, makes it more fun, etc. then I agree, it should probably be added before release (if they have time, money, etc). But for added bonuses, extra gameplay modes, etc., the added time to develop allows them to take their time and get it perfect. Additionally, aas in the case of burnout's latest DLC, huge new swaths of content can be added at no cost to the consumer, bringing people back into the game and making them more likely to purchase the sequel.

based on your train of thought there would never be any sequels. how long do you want to wait till you're able to play a game? as long as developers are thinking of new ideas no games would ever get released.

dlc is a great way to let gamers enjoy their products long after it's initial release without having to pay full price for a 1.5 version of a game that comes on a disk.

See thats where me and u disagree. I've always felt that DLC are things that should be in the game from the get-go yet they charge for it. I sometimes think that developers purposely take out things and make u pay for it later on (if u really want it).

Other then GTA4, where MS payed for exclusive rights to the DLC (making it a huge fanboy topic), when has it been hyped before a game release?

I mean, you saw it in a piece of media you went looking for, talking to a dev at a conference. Not sure that's the same thing.

I think it just depends on the developers. Don't you think that the large updates in the works to a game like Burnout Paradise are a good thing? Warhawk hasn't been bad either, you have the DLC if you want to buy them, but they've also added things in their updates that have been completely free.