Original-Gamer.com: "Video games and DLC go hand-in-hand in the modern gaming. The question is, is this some evil new trend to make money? Or does it get its idea from a more heinous, diabolical source?"
The artist behind Fallout 4’s Deathclaw reveals just how bad things got back when Bethesda took over the series
CGM Writes: Phantom Fury feels like stepping back in time to the late 90s in an explosion of pixilated carnage that only occasionally stumbles due to its unwavering reliance on old-school sensibilities.
It's about time we talk about the flamethrower and how it should be made better in Helldivers 2, starting with the ability to destroy bug holes.
DLC is acceptable in many cases, the exception for me is when a company announce DLC for a game before its even been released.
They may as well be saying:
'We could have bundled this with the game on release, we've already done the work and its even on the disc ready for you to play. However, rather than allow you to unlock these extras in a conventional manor like completing the game, we've decided it makes more sense to make you pay an extra $20-$30 becuase that fact of the matter is...we are a bunch of greedy f*ckers.
P.S. We'll let you have the bugs we've left in the game for free'
Greedy devs love dlc. It should be banned unless proven to b worth the money. Otherwise, get lost.
Suckers is generally the answer to that question. Asides from from a few D/Ls, DLC has generally been designed for suckers.
"Suckers is generally the answer to that question"
That was my 1st guess.
DLC is designed to make money and keep people from trading in games while keeping the game relevant for as long as possible. If you can keep people interested for long enough by the time they are done with the game news of the next one is out and you have an almost guaranteed sale.