I become infuriated when what I have what I think is the complete and definitive version of a game and I am surprised by new "DLC" being released for it. This has happened to me twice now with Shadowrun Returns and Eador, Masters of the Broken World. I can't think of a way to avoid this in the future unless I rule out just all indie/newly released games or blacklist developers/publishers that put out "DLC" for their games. I'm starting this thread to keep an up to date list of developers/publishers that release content on GOG in pieces rather than as a complete edition.

My list so far:
Haemimont Games / Kalypso Media Digital - Omerta: City of Gangsters
Kerberos Productions / Kerberos - Sword of the Stars: The Pit
Harebrained Schemes / Harebrained Schemes - Shadowrun Returns
Klei Entertainment / Klei Entertainment - Don't Starve
Red Barrels / Red Barrels - Outlast
Positech Games / Positech Games - Democracy 3
Daedalic Entertainment / Daedalic Entertainment - Blackgaurds
QCF Designs / QCF Designs - Desktop Dungeons

I am giving Piranha Bytes / Deep Silver something of a pass because Risen 2: Dark Waters is available as a gold edition and was from the game's debut on GOG.

Shadowrun Returns has no DLC as far as I'm aware.

Dragonfall is an adon (as in the old days). New storyline, as long as the maingame, with even better writing
and party member interaction:)

I agree though, dlc's are a rip off. Always to expensive for what little they add... and day one dlc's are a slap in the face of us cistomers.

You do realize Shadowrun Returns has an expansion, not just some mere DLC, and that an expansion is not stripped out content, is content that they worked on after the original game was finished, do you? Truthfully, people who complain about DLC should have this thing in their mentality: "I don't have to buy it if I don't want to."
Do I like DLC? No. It stops me from buying a game at launch many times and I have to wait for a Ultra/Ultimate/Complete/Gold/Fetus/Lasagna/Mariachi/Whatever Edition to be released, but do I have to buy the DLC if I don't like it? Heck, I don't have to buy the DLC even if I like it. The thing is, I agree, there are some devs who used to cut content, but the practice of DLC has evolved since its beginnings. Now it's simple to justify DLC. You plan a game. You complete that game in the deadline that you're given and the budget you have. That game is supposed to make you some profit in x number of sales. What do you do after that? You get some more funding, and you start creating more content for that game. Why is that content not included int he original game? Because the original game has been completed and it has received a green light for production. What happens when you include that DLC in the game? You need more sales to get in profit, hence why there exists day 1 DLC. Day 1 DLC exists to encourage people to buy games on release at full price so the publisher can get into profit. The more people buy the game, the better for the publisher, but because of that day 1 DLC being included, the publisher needs Y more games sold to strike into profit. It's true, some devs cut small bits of content for DLC, but they are too small in number. Capcom used to be like this. And I think EA and Ubisoft might have attempted something like this at some point, but the numbers of devs who intentionally strip content is next to none. Only publishers can strip that content. So you have to blame publishers if that content is truly stripped. But you also need evidence of this. Mere words won't justify anything. Plus, games like Mass Effect 2 & 3 obviously had DLC that was worked on after the game was even released. They were too big to be mere cuts. And expansions are in no way cut content.

Personally I would never buy anything from Kalypso Media Digital ever again, they have released some of the most dodgy games around. One I brought last year, was so bugged steam flat out removed it from their store and gave anyone that brought it store credit.

My point is, I bought Shadowrun Returns before I knew there would be an addon. Now that there is an addon I don't have, and won't buy, I have no interest in trying the base game. I didn't know there was going to be additional content released after I bought the game, and had I known, I would never have bought it.

Looked at a Paradox title lately? Ain't pretty. It's funny how they still sell "Europa Universalis III Complete", which is in no way complete. For their more recent titles, I get the impression they've entirely given up on the concept of bundling DLC. Quite pathetic, actually :(

You should. Dragonfall doesn't take anything from the base game, since it's a completely different campaign, and the new features such as "save anywhere" have been patched into the base game. The basic game's campaign is complete. Really, try it :)

I understand what you say (I'm a Crusader Kings 2 player, and the DLC landslide for this game is crazy. And expensive), I now try to wait for the "complete edition" of games and DLCs have become a repellant for day-one purchases. But full expansions, sequels-with-the-same-engine and new campaigns have been here for a long time, and labelling them "DLC" is a little harsh. Would you blacklist Baldur's gate because of the "Tales of the Sword Coast" expansion (which was worse than Dragonfall in that regard, since it added content to the base game's campaign)?

Buy games year after release. Thats what i do usually with AAA titles and such.

Unless the developer or publisher give official word on the possibility of DLC or not, there is no way or knowing. But here's my question. Why have you bought the game you have no interest in? You just have no interest in the base game. Why did you buy it? Because of the expansion? HUH? Where the logic in that? As far as the expansion go, it's a different game that is attached to your existing one, similarly to symbiosis. So its not like you lost anything from the original game.

It's not that I had no interest in it. It looked worthwhile when I got it (and it may well be.) My anger at the release of "DLC" made me lose interest.

What I'd really like is a warning: "Developer plans to release DLC for this title." That way I could make an informed choice whether to buy or not.

I'll say it again. An expansion is not just some mere DLC. It's a whole new game.

I suppose it goes without saying, EA and Atari for RTC Mobile and Dungeon Keeper?

It has been widely known that there will be an additional campaign coming out for Shadowrun. If what you say is what you want, do your bloody research. Besides, vast majority of publishers have no way of knowing whether or not they're going to release expansions and DLC in advance, they tend to be reliant on success of the base title.

Nonetheless, if that's your issue, why on earth don't you wait a year or two before buying a title in some form of Gold edition? Expansions were getting released since pretty much forever, why would you expect developers to stop now? God damnit people, don't write stuff like that when you're completely clueless when it comes to coding and game design. Seriously, that... Just makes you look like an idiot, I'm sorry for being blunt here.

Well, while I agree on day-1 DLC as being a real shame. DLC working as olden days expansions are fine (the fact that they share the same terminology is annoying but ...I consider it ok).
Your Dev/Publisher list is quite the good idea, but I have no idea what games are referred o sometimes (not really an issue, just my 2 cents). Was CoH2 mentionned, I remember the arm-long dlc list on release date ?