I HATE DLC'S + public GA [Ending ASAP]

There are fantastic DLCs that give legit content to a legit base game, like the 4 story and 2 character DLCs for BL2.
And there are ripoff DLCs where the content for the price is not really nice - Borderland 2's Headhunter DLCs and (obviously) skins.
I have no trouble buying DLCs - but I don't like to buy a game which requres DLCs to be good/playeable.

Good DLC is good, bad DLC is bad.

For those who love talking about how expansions are great and DLCs are bad, remember, expansions like this were quite common, and we also had expansions like this. Difference is that now small DLCs can have an appropriate price. Of course, there are publishers & developers that abuse DLC, but it's not really the norm.

Hmm... Depends on the DLC. There are some that are just pure money-grab by game creators, but there are also those, that truly add a lot to the base game and are worth the money. Bah, there are even free DLC :). I think first Witcher had pretty big, free DLC.

I almost ever wait for a "Goty or Complete Edition" the only DLC i remember buying separate is the Viking Conquest for M&B Warband

DLC imo is just another way from companies to steal our money. And I explain my self: An A list game will cost about 50-60$ MSRP in it's release date. This is the price of a full content game right? NO! Then you'll need to buy a season pass for around 30$ so you'll have the chance to get more content for the game you've already purchased! I mean this is crazy right? It's like going to buy a car and the merchant sells you only the wheels and the doors. Then you'll have to pay an extra for the brakes, or the seats, or even the bumper. That would be stupid right? I see it the same way as the games. They could sell the base game for fewer $$ and then charge you more, but paying a game at its full price to get a base game, NOT FAIR BRO!

Free DLC is always nice. I think my favourite types of DLC are the ones that can be treated as their own smaller games. FarCry Blood Dragon seems to be a good example of that. I think companies and the game industry as a whole can benefit from making small and more creative games with already made assets, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is a perfect example of what I mean.

I think DLC is bad when it almost feels necessary to have if you buy the game, even if it was made after the game was completed. This type of DLC tends to devalue the base game. This is especially bad when it comes to multiplayer games and the addition of new maps and guns. I don't necessarily think a company is ripping me off if they, say, make a new fighter for a fighting game, but it definitely gives me the feeling I've lost some content, even if it was made after the game was fully completed with a satisfying amount of content. That feeling is more of a personal thing though.

Then you have the microtransaction DLCs. I think they are a way for companies to nickle and dime players, but honestly, if it doesn't effect the game, I don't really care. I know I'm not going to buy it, and frankly, they are created because people buy them. Still, it's kind of weird to see them in paid games as it makes me question why the initial money paid for the game wasn't enough. I think it's a sensible model for free to play games though.

Season passes are annoying because they are essentially telling you to trust them to make good DLC (even if you haven't seen any of the DLC). They do them because they sell, but I have no clue why people buy them (unless it's from a trusted company I guess). Pre-order DLC just shouldn't exist, that literally shows that you've held back content to sell it separately. Platform exclusive DLC is great when it's related to the platform's IPs (example being Shovel Knight and I believe a Soul Caliber game did it too), but anything else that could have been on other platforms shows that you've essentially been paied to make it exclusive (Assassin's Creed has done this with the PS4).

I've never bought any DLC.

"Developers are greedy"
I think this is a huge misconception.
You are a developer making games for a big publisher like EA, Ubisoft, etc.
The executives planned the best way to maximize profit of their next game.
They give you the correspondent orders.
You fulfill them like it or not or you lose your job.

Developers are greedy?
Publishers are greedy.
Sometimes those executives don't know shit about programming and the game ends up being crap because of their plans to maximize profit.
I am not saying developers are saints. But usually, if you want to find the root of a problem, you need to look upstairs. (Executives, CEOs).

I think that developers should get a full game for a single price and add extras for free however the DLC's in Fallout New Vegas really add something so they are great. Same for Bf3/Bf4 Premium(which is too expensive) but in games like Payday 2 (which i like) it is a little too much. The first DLC's were great and i had no problem buying them. But now it is just too much without some good content.

I prefer complete packs and usually wait for it.