Which is why I have never made that assumption.  It's ironic that in calling me ignorant over an assumption that you're the one making an assumption.  

Unless you work for the company yourself, chances are that you'll never know if DLC on a game was withheld to become DLC or is genuinely content made available only after release.  Even in the latter you have to wonder whether or not they should have waited to release the game until all the content was finished. 

That last part is why I don't like so-called "director's cut" games.  At worst, it's gouging the real fans of the game by making them rebuy it.  At best, it's shoddy development as you're releasing the complete product you should have released in the first place.  At least games like Gran Turismo are honest about it when they tell you more or less upfront that the Prologue is a small sample of the full game.

I think in such cases we need to separate good DLC from bad DLC.

Good DLC is stuff that ads another things to game which weren't integral part of it. Good example here is VC Selvaria Missions, Burnout Paradise DLC, Lost&Damned DLC

Then there is pathologic DLC which is specially cut out portion of game important for main story : best example Prince of Persia epilogue. Or DLC adding things that in the past were unlockables in game (SF IV alternative costumes, special weapons and armors etc)

So when You said

"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?"

Or

"So, rather than pay $60 for the full game and all its content, you would rather pay $90+ for the game and large portion of its content as DLC?"

You didn't actually mean that the content would've been part of the game for free if there wasn't a possibility of DLC? You didn't mean that it was removed so it could be charged for later?

Look, I just wrote a whole post saying that short of being in the game company, gamers have no way of knowing what DLC is good and bad (except microtransactions which are always evil) so what part of that confused you?

So far your first post misinterpreted me as saying "all our games now would've just shipped with all the DLC you find on the PSN" which I sure as hell never said and now you're blantantly misinterpreting me again?  Seriously vagabond, what is your problem here?  Exactly how many times do I need to clarify this before you can quote a post of mine without reading something into it that isn't there?

1)  Content available at the game's release but purposefully excluded just to charge buyers more later as DLC is bad.

2)  Games being rushed out the door before being finished resulting in content that would have been in the game becoming DLC is bad.

3)  Games that force you to pay additional money to unlock content that already exists in the game media you purchased is bad.

Is this clear enough for you?

Words: Here's the deal - you are the consumer. You have a choice. No one is forcing you to buy the content. No one is forcing you to buy the game. So, what's the problem? You like the game - you hear about additional DLC - you can either buy it or pass. It's that simple. MS could have decided to hold back the 360 to work out the kinks - end RROD - and add an HD-DVD player in every 360. Hindsight is 20/20 - and for me, I like DLC, even if I never, ever plan to buy the content. It's about a choice - and I love having a choice. Shoot, it's my money and I don't have to buy DLC if I don't want to.