For point 2, my argument is that it encourages the developer to take anti-hacking measures (whether technical or legal), which I consider inappropriate for single player games. (In particular, I like to be able to hack the games I've purchased to see how the game behaves.)

I don't have any problem with DLCs as long as they are genuine, i.e not just bits of the game slices by the developers in order to extort more money.

Another problem that people dislike is the fact that developers plan them in advance. Instead of putting their all into 1 great game they make sure that there will be paid content later. It's not like they made a masterpiece with 100% of their funds and efforts and then brainstormed more to add based on success, user feedback, and their own creativity. That would make too much quality sense and not enough business sense apparently, because everyone should be happy to buy a season pass for map packs.

It is when DLC changes the business model, as microtransactions do, and it becomes about selling DLC rather than selling the game, that I have a problem. Or when DLC is only available by preordering or buying from specific retaliers, so it is not possible to buy the complete version - and if I am buying a game with DLC I will generally prefer to wait for a complete version to be available so I can play it with everything available to me.

If I am paying for entertainment, then I want entertainment value. Trying to rip me off through DLC is no fucking excuse. Just because developers have a harder time getting customers these days does not mean they have carte blanche to fuck over consumers. As consumers, we are starting to fight back. Slowly but surely the shitty devs are finally getting their just rewards. Indie devs better wake the fuck up and realise they are in for a whole new ball game and adapt to consumer demand or be fcuked over like the rest :)

DLC can be justified, just not all of it. DLC that has a good reason and a reasonable price can be justified. As can free DLC.
DLC that has no other reason to exists then to take money. This can be as in pre-order only DLC, skins with no additional basis to exist and over priced DLC with one or two minor items.
The fact that so many companies have taken this poor model on board is what causes this issue. If more companies did worth while DLC's then it would have been seen in much the same way as expansion packs, which are basically the same thing.
Yet companies have often decided to go down the path that has the highest monitory value, and with so many people desperate to buy everything for their games who can blame them.

Myself I am not keen on DLC, usually waiting for a "complete" edition of the game, or just waiting until everything is on a deep discount if I find there is going to be DLC's (there are exceptions such as SotS:TP). Although a lot of people complain about day-one DLC, I can see why it happens. For a lot of companies they have teams that finish a long time ahead of others during development and putting them to use is fine. The situation remains that the things these people work on should not be limited DLC for pre-orders only as this still dissuades customers down the line who may want a complete edition.
The same thing for me goes with Kickstarter. I hate (even when I want to back) Kickstarters which do the whole "exclusive in game content" crap. Why not just say we will create special DLC that you will get day one / when ready completely free, and all others will pay for later. Shadow Run Hong Kong did this for the game based extras, so I feel less guilty knowing others can buy the extras (except some unique in game portrates). Yet other games have entire characters, or even quest lines that only Kickstarter backers get and that annoys me.

A good DLC here on GOG is;
The Witcher 3 DLC pack. http://www.gog.com/game/the_witcher_3_wild_hunt_free_dlc_program
It is free, adds a fair amount of new and interesting activities to the base game as well as being optional.

A bad DLC here on GOG is;
Any pre-order only DLC.
So, Kyn (armour), Grand Ages (skins), Age of Wonders 3(map pack) and their ilk.

I remember when DLC meant basically "Here's an update/patch" or even - gasp! - some new things here or there and they were.... free. So I think DLC was "justified" a long time ago. But over time, like just about anything else, it got perverted in the all-consuming quest for money money money. "Hey, why make this game complete before releasing it? Hell, we can even get people to pay for it before it's a reality! Now how's that for smart? Whoo!"

I don't see why it even has to be "justified" to be honest. It's just another product, if you don't want it then don't buy it, I've yet to have ANY game hold me at gunpoint and force me to buy its DLC.

I've got nothing against any type of DLC whether it be cosmetic items, stuff packs or full blown extra quests.

The only time I'm "against" DLC is when it comes with the game and you're just paying to unlock it (disc locked DLC), that and DLC that was obviously Frankensteinend out of the base game. And frankly I don't see either of those as the "standard", in fact I wouldn't even call them particularly common.

No; I'd much rather see a physical expansion. With digital content, there comes a point where it'll be obsolete, and impossible to get it anymore. With a physical copy, you can always buy it used.

I'd say there are 2 very different sets of Paradox dlcs. Majors DLC are what was once called expansions, and add a lot of new content to the game, These are usually interesting and well worth adding to your game. And then tons of tiny dlcs, that add little, often music or visual gadgets, and are damn overpriced without adding anything to the game experience.

Now, that's their business model, and , as far as I'm concerned, I got tired of it. But if you're into Paradox games, you either accept it or quit. There is however one case on which I found they went to far : EU Rome. The base game was, as released and even as patched, piece of crap, almost unplayble. Vae Victis , the dlc, made it playable and enjoyable. I still find it unacceptable that they somehow abused their consumer base like that.

Gamers pay for worthless DLCs, so this makes developers/publishers more greedy. I hope the developers return to "expansion pack" and "standalone expansion" days.

The total content of the Witcher 3’s ‘expansion pass’ clocks in at 30 hours, and its made well after the game’s release - all basic information on the store page. It committed none of the sins mentioned from the opening post, yet the general reaction was outrage.

It’s not enough to offer great value anymore. Marketing has become just as, or possibly more important because too many people are less focused on the details of an offer than what a publisher chooses to call it. Which is why the more unscrupulous publishers simply change the name once it has become too tainted and go right on doing their nasty thing.

I would say yes indeed. DLC that adds content to the game is worthy of being paid for. Some games like Shenmue which were a bit ahead of it's time, could have charged 60 dollars for the base game and something like 20 bucks per new game (or episode if you will) as long as the game graphics engine was reused. The only problem was back then high speed internet wasn't as big as it is now to make that kind of release feasible. I would gladly pay for a game like that and a yearly pass as long as it held my interest. One can always refuse a minor or small dlc that seems ridiculous priced.

As far as costume DLC I think it's fine to charge or not charge. I wouldn't feel cheated either way about it. Two successful f2p games I know of use that as a big way to generate money. Warframe does this to an extent (the other is speed building stuff or buying items outright instead of farming them), or Team Fortress 2 which is fully free as far as I know with the user only paying for cosmetics.

Amen to that.