I think sometimes patches are necessary, being a PC gamer I am used to them.

DLCs are a mixed bag. I agree that some of the content that makes the game different since it basically allows for a completely different experience should be paid download (e.g.Valkyria Chronicles, GTA, Burnout Paradise etc.).

I call BS on some of the others e.g. costumes, 180Kb downloads thqt unlock stuff already on the disc.

In general if it seems that the developers have worked to create stuff after the game was shipped and sold seems ok to me. New maps I think generally fall into the category of "I would pay for them xtra."

Just imagine paying $5 per class update for Team Fortress 2 (9 classes total). Let us also put any new maps as seperate DLC at $3 per map which includes the game modes for the specific maps that use them.

So top that off with buying the game from Steam at either $20 for TF2 specifically or $30 for The Orange Box or $20 to buy the Xbox 360 version of The Orange Box. Heck, lets also consider those who bought it when it was at a higher price.

...No thanks

I agree as well. this is why nintendo games (from inhouse and some exeptions like retro) have virtualy NO bugs. So far i encouterd no flaw yet on games like Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime or Twilight Princess. I could care less for DLC since i almost never dl it, with the exception of Mega Man 9. This is why the people at MS were getting chewed out for charging on almost every piece of DLC (i dont think they do that anymore, correct if im wrong). Patches are annoying most of the time. if its for PC then thats an exception since they're made for them.

If I buy a game and like it, why not? I have bought a few - I have 'Bring down the sky' DLC for Mass Effect, Lost & the Damned, two of the three FO3 expansions, Shivering Isles and a heap of cars for Test Drive Unlimited. As I clearly stated, if I like the game and want extra content, I'll buy it. I love having the option to download it. In the end, some folks can afford it. Some can't. I can and will pay, if I have to. However, if I can get the content free on the PS3, I won't pay for it on the 360.

In the end, it's about options. I enjoy DLCs wholeheartedly.

i think patches and DLC are fine. Patches are a god send and are usually very necessary when a game is online and usually they fix small glitches and weapon balance.

If you dont like paying for it then dont. They dont make u buy them (usually) yes im looking at you halo 3

If we had DLC 10 years ago then we might have gotten the scrapped level from Ocarina of Time.

I agree with you TS %100. Game companies are ripping us off left and right this gen. The sad part is that games that need the $$$$ from DLC dont have the consumer base to sell DLC to make enough money to make a game profitable. Games with an assload of users(Killzone, Halo, Gears) are rolling in the cash from sales and DLC. They in turn will take that money and release more unfinished games with ripoff DLC.

You have no idea how f'n pissed off I feel that 1 month from release date Gears got a map pack, which was obviously done before the game was finished.

Plus, MS has made DLCs a sought-after piece of software. What if the tables were turned - and the PS3 had exclusive content? MS pushed DLC - or getting exclusive episodes and the like - and got more sales, more $$$ and an experience you can't get immediately (sometimes) on a PC or the PS3. Since fewer and fewer companies are inking console exclusives, MS has turned something that was meh into a moneymaker. And it provides yet another advantage to win over gamers still on the HD gaming console fence.

It's not about the content.

It's about the fact that it was withheld from the original game/purchase.  Do you not understand or do you not want to understand?

Why do you assume that it would have been in there without the DLC? I think that is the big mistake in assumption. It's not like Valkryria Chronicles would've had those extra story missions if there was no possibility of DLC. They wouldn't have delayed the game to add them in, they would have released the game, and we would never have seen the missions from the empire's side. A chunk of the story would've been ommitted for budget reason.

Wind Waker was missing alot of content because it had to be released at some point, even Ocarina of Time had at least one dungeon cut so that they game could actually come out. Parts of the story from Final Fantasy VII also didn't make it. . If there was DLC back then, we would probably have gotten to play those things. Things get cut for time and budget reasons. These things that would not be in the game actually have a chance to be released now. And yes, you have to pay for the stuff that got cut for budget reasons. That is not insane or unreasonable. You don't have to buy the directors cut stuff.

And speaking of directors cut, back in the PSX days "directors cut" games weren't uncommon. Instead of DLC, you got Resident Evil and then six months later "Resident Evil Directors Cut" with the content that was originally left out to make the schedule. Is buying the game over again preferable in some way?

Do some companies take advantage? Absolutely. But to assume that all our games now would've just shipped with all the DLC you find on the PSN is ignorant. Those are the things that normally got cut from games, not included in them for free.