DLC is a controversial topic in video games, although it certainly sells. So, what is it exactly that makes DLC something good as opposed to predatory?
While gamers usually take notice of the mainline missions, these 5 side quests deserve more widespread attention for how entertaining they are.
Undead are the peace makers.
The first time I felt like a game got DLC right was Borderlands 1. $10 for hours of content.
Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2 & 3, Borderlands 1 & 2, GTA IV - those are my gold standards of DLC.
Something they couldn’t even give us in GTAV or RDR2
I honestly thought we’d get some Alien type of DLC for one of them at least
GF365: "Here are the best zombie games for Xbox One. Many of these post-apocalyptic zombie games are also available on other platforms. Plus, you can play any of these games on Xbox Series X and S via backward compatibility."
I would say offering sufficient new content for the price it's offered at makes it good, as does augmenting an already complete game. Overcharging for a very minute amount of content or charging for content that would otherwise be part of the main experience makes it bad.
It should be self sustainable, the price should be set to cover the costs and make a profit of the DLC itself, not overpriced to cover the cost of making the main game itself.