The debate over DLC has been argued many times over, with each battle ending in stalemate and both sides insulting each other. So to hopefully change this self-perpetuating cycle of online flaming, I have decided to post not as a know-it-all, but as a person with an opinion.

On paper, and from a BUSINESS perspective, DLC makes sense. Revenue is increased due to these small vignettes of extra content being released, resulting in an increased return on investment for the project. The benefits of this business model are impossible to ignore and as such it has become the industry standard to offer some type of DLC. But this model also has inherent flaws that are shouldered by the consumer.

It is no secret that DLC must be released close to release of the actual title for it to be the most successful. This creates the need for planning of the DLC well before release, and even at the project outset in extreme cases. Going back even further, when money is allotted for the project, it is the project manager's responsibility to budget the funds for all of his/her development needs. This means that the production funds for the DLC are divied up at project outset, money  that could be used to make the core game better for all.

The ultimate point that I am driving at here is that we aren't paying for extra content, rather we are paying more for the same amount of content as defined by production costs. While I understand that DLC expands the experience and is enjoyed by those that purchase it, wouldn't you rather just pay once for that content on the disk, rather than have the illusion that you are getting extra content?

Again, just an opinion.

And yes, I am an idiot.