DLC: Good for the gaming industry or bad?

DLC would be great if it was free, but I guess that will never happen anymore...

I prefer expansion pack. DLC are okay only for multiplayer games and the price should be reasonable.

DLCs = a great way to make money, whos prices may surpass even core game's value.

For the industry its a great thing. It allows them to
1.) inflate a game's price without shocking the consumer with a 100 dollar sticker price.
2.) For those devs that DONT cut out content that normally would be sold with the game, it allows dev teams to continue to work on a game or concept that might not have made it to final fruition AND get paid for it.
3.) It prolongs interest in the game/series/franchise by constantly keeping attention on the game and bringing back players that have left or finished the base game.

It is however bad, IMO, for consumers.
1.) Devs typically cut out content that should have been included to begin with for the base game and often is included on the disc. Street fighter I think, ME3, Saints Row 3, and others. Often just clothing or optional items, but more and more we are seeing devs putting forth entire chapters/stories/arcs.
2.) The cost of DLC is on the rise as publishers demand thicker margins and become more and more confident in DLC as a revenue stream. Now its rare for a game to NOT include dlc, and for DLC to be 3 dollars. We are also seeing DLC's cost surpassing the cost of the base game, while adding hardly anything to the user experience. Namely, BL2 comes to mind, or magica, and many others, where the bulk of DLC is not only expensive on a per item bases, but as a whole, far surpasses the cost of the game at release.
3.) DLC serves as a stepping stone to show just how much they can get out of the consumer. Recently DeadSpace 3 attempted a "micro transaction" like approach. This is the same step that was taken when DLC first arrived on the scene, Horse armor anyone? More and more will be monetized, and soon we might end up with ads in our games like EA tried with 2124. Granted it failed at the time, but times change and people forget these things. EA already placed ads into PAID IOS apps so its not like it hasnt been thought of...
3a) Sorta related, but if DS3 fails or any game that maybe takes a step to far fails, publishers will always have the vile pirates to blame. The boxed boogeyman spewed whenever they need someone to blame other then themselves.

Only good thing though, which is falling behind, is expansion type DLCs. Bl2's season pass type of things that actually adds post release content that adds to the story and settings. Sadly though, this is dropping in priority in favor of "map packs" or "skins".

GREAT if done correctly, but right now dlcs are getting milked and it sucks. SO in my opinion DLC(as seen in today) is a nono but expansions pack(most are good) is a yesyes

For the game industry itself, seems a great way to improve incomes from games. They boost up the price of a game of a 50-100%... Just look to the season pass...

For the gaming community, I think is the worst thing happened from a lot of time. Bring back true expansions! (there is some exceptions, like Binding of Isaac: Wrath of the Lamb, although it is more an expansion than a dlc)

If done right, DLCs are good. Otherwise they are just bad.

I think if handled correctly DLC can be a good thing... First off it has to be a post launch developed DLC, having been created after the game came out, also, if the publisher decides to go the route of charging the player for the DLC it has to be a realistic price, as I don't think people like to fork out 50 quid for 2 or three new weapons or a few new maps (inb4 COD reference). I think if it's marketed in a fair way there is nothing wrong with additional DLC as it's new content and often improves the game, but then again there's always money hungry companies who just see it as a cash cow and not to improve their product...

90% of all dlc is just a cheap cash grab. There is some decent dlc but compared to the overwhelming majority of crap meh

I like dlcs if they are free...LOL if they are pay well I usually dislike them <.<

No one likes DLC. But from what I heard with expensive AAA titles, selling copies of the game doesn't pay off, and thus DLCs become the only way for companies to get revenues from such games. Overall, I don't mind some DLCs but for everything there must be a limit. And a Season Pass.

Only Beteshda a few companies do good DLCs. DLCs should be to expand a game in a big way, not for adding a hat or clothes, it's stupid. DLCs are beign used in a wrong way and they are abusive.

I believe DLCs are really really bad, especially the new micro DLCs that are out recently, where you really just get something small for $1-$5. I believe that the old system of Expansion Packs were a lot better, where you paid another $15 but for that you received new units, and a whole new campaign, with ¬30 levels.

Imho the developer team should turn to another project after they released the game, with a few staying on for troubleshooting / bug solving, instead of making a few new models or maps. The community usually creates custom maps for good games anyway.

Also, I believe that built-in markets, where you need to pay money to get an advantage over other players (stronger unit, better armor, rare weapon) are bad for games, and I would never play with a game like that. On the other hand, for example the DotA2 market, where you can only make your units prettier... should be fine, because the players can't buy themselves up to the top of the scoreboard, and ruin the poorer players' game experience.

I think they're perfectly fine, as long as they aren't taken advantage of like most devs have done now. It's alright if the devs are still having fun making content for the game after it's done, I'll gladly buy it. I would prefer if it comes out much later, to breath new life into the game, such as the RAGE Dlc or Dishonored one.

For gaming industry is good, for consumers is bad.

Proper DLC's as were expansions back in early 2000 were good, the ones now, doubtfull. If all DLCs had the meat of Borderlands DLCs, I'd be very happy.

First post explains it all. I refuse to buy DLCs unless they are already included in the package with the main game (like GotY version or something like that). The only way DLCs can be good is if they were done the way CD Projekt Red did it, for free.

I feel like Binding of Isaac is an example of DLC done very well. In most cases it's kind of annoying to have to bother with DLC, though.

Unreservedly bad. The first response by jackofhats' is apt. I had no problem with expansion packs--if I enjoyed the base game enough, maybe I'd pay for some extra content--but the corruption of that model into DLC, while, I'm sure, increasing companies' profits, has reduced consumer value. Features and content are left out of the game so that they can be released later--or even alongside the game's release--as DLC. What this says to me is that the base game is incomplete; it's the Mona Lisa missing pieces.

I have no qualms about purchasing games that are released feature-complete and later have expansion packs or worthwhile content DLCs available later, but if looks like a cash grab, an attempt to monetize "add-in" content that clearly belonged in the game from the start and was purposely left out or removed in order to be released as DLC later, well... let's just say I won't be buying that game.

That's all bad enough, but now we see the same behavior translated to the crowd funding era with stretch goals. "Give us more money and we'll include a feature that should be in the game anyway!" This tells me that if they don't meet the funding goal they'll leave it out. It's sounds not so much like a funding issue as a bribe. They're holding features hostage unless their demands are met. There are ways to do it without sounding like money-grubbing douchebags, but unfortunately money-grubbing douchebaggery become the status quo.

In my opinion, DLC is generally bad. I'm fine with expansion packs released much later - Skyrim's DLC, for example. I understand that it takes time to create a game and then large expansions for it. However, DLC for items in the original game itself is a terrible idea. It doesn't benefit the consumer in any way.

One only needs to open Steam and check out Train Simulator 2013 to be able to decide if DLC are good or bad. Scroll down the list and look at the total sum.

bad for gamers, good for industry....but i really hate the day 1 dlc and season pass day 1...like activision, and gearbox do...really bad.

i think dlc can be good if they really add some new content to a game that you love, but i cant stand day 1 dlc for example dead space 3 with over a dozen day 1 dlc´s i know its optional stuff you dont really need it, but it gives the whole game a bad taste for me.

DLC = bad

Give us EXPANSION PACKS like the old days. Those were worth their money. 15 euro for 4 shitty maps in CoD (just an example) isn't.

Thing which annoys me the most: modtools are getting RARE because of DLC (actually because of the idiots who buy it). Just look at the awesome CoD4:MW1,BF2 mods... (anoter great example: Half Life, yet Valve still give us modtools <3).