Originally Posted by DeltaKappaEcho
No. This is most end users view of how companies see DLC and how they nickle and dime everything. But there is no fact behind your statement with the few examples of actual developer saying, "Oh, I did that on my game. Why not?" - but one bad egg doesn't spoil the whole lot of them and people need to stop looking at it like that.
Nothing in this game was "left out" per the original introduction of the game and what the user would encounter playing it. So assuming otherwise is just flat out wrong without some support to back it up.
Most companies see DLC as a way to expand the life cycle of the game. People buy it, people like it, people want more. Is DLC bad or shady? God no. Especially in a society where it is becoming more common practice to re-release the same title with minor tweaks every single year for $60. That's absurd. More so when they also are releasing paid DLC for that title on a regular (or semi-regular) basis leading to the next game. That's money-grabbing.
And I'm not talking about the one-shot 'Special Editions' or 'Game of the Years' or 'Ultimate'. I'm talking about the flat out - here's another 4 hour Campaign and new maps/kill streaks/altered weapons... btw, for $15 you can now buy 5 maps from the last game we hope you also bought.
DLC is a good thing because companies that use it correctly to expand the experience aren't misusing it. ORC didn't promise a Spec Ops Campaign would be in the game when it was released. They did promise to make one as DLC and offer the first chapter free - which they did.
Not that I am defending this game. But I do agree with your sentiment about DLC. People look at it pretty harshly but there are some developers out there who do it splendidly. Rockstar comes to mind, so does Bethesda. Capcom though really
gives it a bad name.