Originally Posted by r0llinlacs
Wow look at all the DLC lovers... that are probably 12 years old and never played a complete game that didn't have DLC.
There's a sucker born every minute. Probably every second nowadays. The suckers keep sucking up the DLC like no tomorrow. And the entire gaming community has to pay for it (literally).
If any situation exemplifies the reasons stupid people are hated, this is it.
yes because every game before DLC was 100% perfect, and adding options for customization of a game where the licensing of the additional content matters is a really bad thing.
So would you rather have the base game with 65 songs and no additional songs. Guess what, you can have that. I honestly think Harmonix and Divetail (the Train Simulator Devs) found a great use for DLC (Adding content to their games without having to release a new edition. If you claim its a money grab, why are they allowing the licenses from previous games to transfer for free? If they wanted to make more money why not release the core game with all new libraries (Ala RB Beatles) instead of finding a way to cater to their customers and provide a customized library.
Railing against the inclusion of DLC is short sighted. Granted there are a lot of instances of poor implementation of DLC and there are plenty of Developers who seem to abuse this, but the logic behind DLC is not inherently flawed
Just for the record, I'm 44 (not 12) I started gaming in the 70s so yes I may have played a few games that were "DLC Free" I saw the same uproar from people when Expansion packs came out. So by your logic (the game should have no additional cost beyond the initial product) we should consider the base game on their own merit. Gaming was not the Panacea you remember. So expansion packs like Lord of Destruction (Diablo II), Yuris Revenge (C&C 2) The Frozen Throne (Warcraft III) Tales of the Sword Coast (Baldur's Gate) should have never happened?