It depends. I don't really mind paying for something that would be considered an "expansion," but when they start trying to get me to pay for extra maps or costumes, well that's where I draw the line.

Capcom has been especially heinous with its SF4 down loadable content.

When you compare to PC games that get tons of new maps (many with pro quality) every week for free, then yes, console owners get massively screwed often.

Now what Capcom did with RE5........that's just low =l

DLC like Map Packs every 3-4 months, Car packs for racers, New Expansions for RPG's, or game levels. I have no problem paying $5-$10 for that. It takes time to design this stuff. If I really like the game I will snap them up ASAP. The thing that pisses me off are having to pay for new clothing in SFIV. Seriously Capcom? (This coming from someone who has liked everything they have done this gen). The other one that pissed me off is the pricing to DL the Darth Vader character for Soul Cal IV. There is no way in hell I am paying that much for one character. Unlike a lot of people, I don't expect to get free expansions all the time, but there is a line that should be drawn

This thread made me go check the price of SC4's DLC stuff.

I just bought the old school armor pack for $1.50 and damn, they look awesome, but I still feel slightly ripped off =/

i never payed for DLC and hardly plan to do so.

unless its lbp or kz2.

yes because of the crap DLC such as Horse Armor and Ace Combat planes. the thing is that the term now is even used for good old expansion packs or even patches (the second one associated with the FREE word). there's also the perception thing. for example, the three FO3 "DLCs" would probably constitute an expansion pack years ago and I guess it would be alright. today we have websites reviewing "pieces" of games and from what I see there are some that packed together would be well-received, but alone aren't worth the price.

and the worse of them IMO, the ones that you already know are coming even before the game is out. and I'm not talking about companies that say that will support game X with paid content, but the ones that let you know what you will NOT be getting when the game is out, but later when you pay for it.

Depends of the DLC and the condition you are playing the original game. If the game was free then they can charge as much for DLC stuff as they want. If however the game cost a descent penny then there is a limitation to what should be DLC and what should just be in the game.

Witholding half of the clothing content is unaccaptable. Adding an entire story is fine. Launching with crappy horses and then having people pay for good ones, not fine. New songs because of licesning, time and original storage space is fine.

Theres a fine line between ripoff and fine, some companies are indeed abusing the concept.