Open Discussion: Are You Feeling The DLC Fatigue?

As many of you know, I now write for a few other sites in addition to Gamer Grrlz, one of which focuses largely on gaming news as it's released through conventions, interviews, press releases, and other sources. Daily, I find myself rewriting soul sucking press releases over and over as I resist the urge to press the business end of a pair of crafting scissors into my cuticles just to feel alive. Some days, I swear I'm reporting more on downloadable content than I am actual game releases. As a result, I'm finally starting to understand some of the DLC backlash. How much is too much?

I'll be the first to admit that sometimes downloadable content is awesome and really adds to the game without milking the players for every last cent. (Borderlands, keep on doin' what you do!) But other times it can feel downright excessive.

Street Fighter IV, for instance, created a sore spot with loyal fans. The game actually contained ON DISC the costumes it later charged via download. Meaning, the content was there, they simply decided to hold out to charge money for it later. While this is well within their rights, it angers many players who still feel aligned with the original aim of downloadable content, which was to add bonus playing hours that weren't included in the original production of the game. This has now warped to the point where downloadable content is planned well in advance of a game's initial release, solely for the purpose of generating more revenue (as opposed to simply not having the time or resources to include it with the original release but still wanting the fans to be able to enjoy it at a later date).

Suddenly, a $60 game can ultimately cost you $100 or more, all with a little $5 or $10 spent "here or there". My Fallout 3 Game Of The Year Edition has content that cost me $50, but would have cost $100 (combined with the price of the game) had I bought it at the time it was released for download. This is just one example. The general sentiment among gamers seems to be "If it's ready to go, release it on the original disc. If its not, you can always release it later." while for developers, it's "Hold back what you can, so we can charge them for it later." The "real" cost of games is hitting $75 or higher.

Now granted, as the Internet and its dearth of wise commentors love to point out, no one is "making" you buy DLC, "no one's putting a gun to your head". But when DLC can determine player advantage, as in the case of better equipment and weaponry, it can still be a tricky issue. Gaming has always leveled the playing field in many ways that reality cannot. Now, your success is determined by how much money you're willing to spend. And many gamers feel the OCD-like pressure (I blame Pokemon) to make sure they have access to everything a game has to offer. While it's not the end of the world to miss a DLC bonus or two, why should a player have to miss out on content that is sometimes already available on their physical game copy, but merely being held hostage for another $4.99? While it's well within the developer's and publisher's rights to make their content available at the price and time they choose, it still smacks of sneakiness and ingratitude to take advantage of the fans' extreme devotion. It reminds me of a coke dealer who'll sell the first 8-ball at cost, then charge four times the street value thereafter.

So what say you? Are you feeling the DLC fatigue?