I wouldn’t be happy paying for a DLC that included features that should have been in the game at release
For example, a chat or friends system
That’s what patches should be for
But I can justify a spare £5 or £10 for another 10 official maps or 50 additional clothing options
I think the onus is on the publishers to package sensible content at sensible prices
Now, if only there was a sensible publisher around… 
DarkangelUK - You can drive a car with 3 wheels just look at the Reliant robin lol… anyway i agree with you on about not buying DLC, i dont and never will buy it but it’s annoying when companies do this. You buy a game and expect it to be finished 1 month later they announce DLC will be available or even worse like DA oirigins announce it at release and then have the check to expect you to pay for it.
I think the difference between DLC and add ons is the time in which it takes to release it. If DLC is being offered 1 month or near or makes no difference to release then why not just include it in the game? Surely the developers knew this content was being developed. Add ons seen in World of warcraft are usually to prolonge interest in the game and are usually released a year atfer the game itself so i think they have justification to charge for this content.
While you might be right that companies holding content back is rarer then i and others originally stated it is becomming increasingly the norm in the industry and i suspect will only continue to increase.
The fact that people are asking whether a game will have DLC before the game has been released has proven this point, a few years ago this would never have happened.
The fact that companies know they can make money out of DLC has increaed the desire to stop modding and to gain further control over there IP to stop compeition. I hate to bring it up but MW2 is the biggest case for this. surely this is not a good thing for PC gamers such as myself.
On the flip side, I also see DLC stemming from the community wanting such new content after the game has been released, and crying out for developers to release new stuff for a game they like so it can be given new life… user made stuff is good, but it’s nice to get official stuff as well. There’s a heap load of 3rd party maps for ET:QW, yet there’s still users asking for official maps. Sometimes people ask if there’s gonna be DLC because they want it, not just cos they expect it. It used to be you bought a game, played it till you were bored of it then that was it… now users have the chance to have a breath of new life put into the game.
Now I agree with you on the MW2 front, DLC should always be a choice and not a necessity, and cutting off the mod/mapping community and making the only option for new content availability to be accessed via chargeable DLC just plain sucks… but for the moment this has been the only case… for the moment…
Gee I wonder why that would be…
In all seriousness, I do think SD was still having an expansion pack up their sleeve but the sales didn’t’ merit it.
I have to agree with DarkangelUK. I think it is possible that SOME (a very small amount) of game developers are maybe developing stuff early, just for DLC but I doubt it happens a lot. You can’t really make claims that ‘most’ developers are holding back stuff just for DLC, there is no proof to support the statement. I highly doubt that they do that.
Infinity Ward had a lot of stuff from the CoD4 dlc already packed on the original PC disc. I guess it’s very hard to say whether you are supposed to get additional content for free if you already paid for the game itself. It’s seems to be a moral issue, but a personal one at that. It’s up to you to decide whether the money you spend on the game was all worth it. Other people will disagree. The only sensible thing to say is that in the past content monetized games by attracting new people to buy the original, while nowadays that doesn’t seem to be enough for most developers. Maybe it’s related to the financial crisis, but I’m afraid it will continue to be business as usual for most big publishers.
On the topic of brink, I would suspect Bethesda Softworks are already talking to SD about the potential of DLC. After all, Bethesda have proven to be major DLC fans. I think you could even say they were one of the first who jumped on the DLC bandwagon.
It’s not about the financial crisis that much, it’s because developers don’t want to spend 5yrs on a game which will be a huge success among fans, but doesn’t bring in enough money(they will sell millions, but you can get more by releasing shit every month). If they work on a game less, less people buy it and they blame it on pirates. They immediately figure out a way to steal more money from those who buy it. Once the gaming industry was all about reputation and pushing the boundaries, now it’s about earning money and delivering shit.
At least some devs realize that some people expect more from a game than some hunk of garbage-clone.
I’d rather have a DLC for money from time to time than no support at all 
And BRINK definitely has some DLC potential (maps, character customization stuff,weapons,…).
I don’t really care what kind of support SD is planning, may it be DLC for money (as long as it’s well done, not like those Fallout 3 DLCs), new maps, more character options, etc.
I just hope that there IS support at all, not like ETQW.
Yeah I know it had patches, but in my point of view extra content has to be a part of the support, particularly nowadays.
Patches are there to fix bugs, but it’s the extra content that makes a big community possible and keeps people interested over a longer period of time.
[QUOTE=YoungGuns;203098]Yeah I know it had patches, but in my point of view extra content has to be a part of the support, particularly nowadays.
Patches are there to fix bugs, but it’s the extra content that makes a big community possible and keeps people interested over a longer period of time.[/QUOTE]Team Fortress 2 had free content updates, Valve made a point to saying that for every update they sold more full copies of the game.
[quote=YoungGuns;203098]Yeah I know it had patches, but in my point of view extra content has to be a part of the support, particularly nowadays.
Patches are there to fix bugs, but it’s the extra content that makes a big community possible and keeps people interested over a longer period of time.[/quote]
There were about 2 dozen good custom maps in etqw, but nobody wanted to jump off ranked servers and play custom maps.
Just look at w:et, still surviving thanks to millions of custom made maps.
I don’t think devs should be bothered to add extra content, only fix bugs.
That’s what I meant before, extra content doesn’t only keep people playing the game, it also encourages people to buy a game even if it’s already out for some time.
extra maps are always fun, but as murka10 says, the custom maps in ET:QW were killed by ranked servers. I will never buy a game that has ranked servers again. I don’t believe they are necessary however, our first W:ET server ran stock only maps for 6 years and is still very popular, we added two more servers recently to run custom maps with one of them being a invitational match server ( anyone want to play against our server refs ?) and I’ve never seen the need for new weapons or the game killing xp save.
[QUOTE=YoungGuns;203098]Yeah I know it had patches, but in my point of view extra content has to be a part of the support, particularly nowadays.
Patches are there to fix bugs, but it’s the extra content that makes a big community possible and keeps people interested over a longer period of time.[/QUOTE]
I think it’s just a psycho-economical trick though. Unless developers genuinely haven’t work finished (like in SH).
I for one love DLC, some times after companies finish the game they still have ideas to make the game better, that’s where DLC comes in. DLC is completely optional you don’t have to buy it, and only the people who really enjoy the game will buy the DLC for it. Take GTA, Borderlands, or Halo for example, they brought very new playable experiences for the game that wasn’t there previously.
DLC for Brink could be great, It could be New Maps that have new objectives, who doesn’t want new maps?
dlc can be good stuff, but it also can be just profit.
so, im not sure if its a good thing or not.
i think its the way you, as a developer, go at it.
for example. if you do a mapping contest and choose some maps from it to release in dlc, so the maps become “official” i think its definately a good thing.
but if you go like, here are some extra abilities that you only get by buying dlc, or, heres a new, cool looking gun, which does nothing new or special but looks different, it would be a bad thing.
i think about dragon age oringins’ dlc, where you have to buy the dlc to get some new unique abilities and quest by buying it. thats just profit and a kick in the ass for every gamer.
but theres the upcoming dlc for shattered horizon for exampe (its acutally no dlc, its called something odd, a patch, with new maps and stuff, for free). and thats a good example of dlc.