This one tends to depend on who you talk to and what game you're talking about.
What about the concept taken as a whole though? We've had one single console generation of DLC availability and we'd like to know the community's verdict on it. How has the implementation of DLC gone over with you? Do you buy it? If so, how often? What drives your purchase or your disinterest? Friend or foe, we want to know.
PC gamers had nothing to get used to but for the console-only crowd quite a few changes took place with the introduction of the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. The ability to add extra content through online downloads has enriched pre-order packages, allowed for massive expansion packs, supplied more characters and other in-game items, as well as kept multiplayer experiences interesting long after release day.
On the flip side of that there have been charges by gamers of holding content back resulting in incomplete campaigns, a lack of replayability because content that used to be unlockable was now for sale, inclusion of content on the disc that payment merely unlocked, and overpriced map packs. Plus any other grievance you can likely contrive or conceive.
Maybe you like it but you have a beef with how it is implemented. Just reading Ben's Week in Review made me wonder if folks prefer their DLC to be ready soon after release while their passion for a game is still fresh or if that puts a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Maybe you'd rather have it come out after all quality is assured like Bioshock Infinite 's 'Burial At Sea' next year.
So how about it? After your first console generation experiences with DLC, what is the verdict? Maybe one particular practice got under your skin. What can stay and what must go?
Related Game(s): Bioshock Infinite