I blame stupid kids, stupid parents and XBOX360... Harvard Business School would be a distant runner up-- why give away what you SHOULD when MOUTH BREATHERS will PAY for it. Horrible, horrible business model.
DrGonzo
PS: I don't consider Entrenchment to be DLC.
You and I obviously have a different definition of minimum. Because minimum is zero. Compared to the rest of the content of the game, DLC is OBSCENELY expensive... Like $2.50 for some horse armor... If you factored that out over an entire project-- the game would cost thousands of dollars to the end user-- they'd all go out of business, the world would be a better place-- But like everything else in america- retards pay for it.
Before I reply I'd just like to say DLC is not the end of human kind packaged at $2.50 per download and available to the masses wholesale. DLC is a new business model for content delivery that is currently being explored by most developers as a way of increasing revenue from their titles without the need to publish an entirely new retail pacakge. And as with most new technologies and business models, it's going to take a while before it's ideal.
The major drawback with DLC is that content that was once free, such as additional maps, is now priced and only available to those who want to pay extra for it. This limits what you get in the retail box to exactly that; the out of box experience. The purchase priced used to entitle you to at least some form of additional features or content delivered via update patches - now it seems that all you're entitled to is bug fixes. This is a step backwards in my opinion, as users now have to fork out additional money for what used to be considered a fan service and provided free of charge. Look at Counter-Strike: Source, which overhauled all of their character models, added additional maps and provided additional sever-side features all free of charge. However, the main point here is obviously that Counter-Strike: Source was, at it's peak, the most played online FPS of all time. It also probably helps that it was packaged with a little game called, ahem, Half-life 2. This leads up to the first major benefit of DLC; as long as there is a decent number of purchases, additional content can be provided via DLC for many more games than before as the additional content is paid for rather than provided free. Because it's paid, companies can now provide small episodic updates to their games that the fans can purchase, thus providing additional funds to the company and in part paying for the development of the DLC. In this instance, DLC is a good thing as it enables smaller developers to provide more post-release support and content than in previous years. More content for more games is a good thing, and gives the little guys in the industry a chance to enjoy greater levels of success. Some companies, like Gas Powered Games and Stardock, seem to be working on a model to provide both; supply some content via patches post launch and supply some more for the hardcore fans via DLC. This is an acceptable model in my opinion, as the casual gamers who play once in a while get the game and some additional content while the big fans of the game can get even more if they chose.
The other side of the DLC is also emerging, coloured a deep greed green. Looking at The Sims 3, for example, everything for the game - additional furniture, additional clothes, additional hair styles, etc. - is purchased online via the online store for money with the boxed game containing a relatively small amount of objects considering the online store was available at launch - this begs the question of why weren't these included in the retail box? The answer is self referencing; greed. This is the dark side of DLC in my opinion. This isn't companies providing quality content for additional cost - this is companies milking every single penny they possibly can from their franchises by making sure they provide the bare minimum of content to satisfy reviewers and fans and yet also enticing you into purchasing more. EA Games has a histroy of this kind of business model; look at SPORE for another example. This is where I draw the line. I vote with my wallet, and although EA can produce some good titles - such as Dead Space - I have taken it upon myself to not purchase anything with the EA Logo on the box until they change this behaviour. Hopefully other companies will learn, and DLC can be used to make great games even better. Yes, we have to pay for it, however if it's actually additional content and is worth the money - unlike the god-awful Horse Armour BS Bethesda tried shoveling - I think most gamers would be happy. If you're unhappy, simply don't buy it.
Edit: Quote tags messed up again.
