The problem with all these schemes, is that they fail on one single point:
Price.
The publishers are so enormously greedy, they kill any good idea by pushing the price too high. DLC is an excellent example. I haven't paid for ANY DLC yet so far because it's easily three to ten times more expensive than it should be compared to what you pay for a full game.
This idea of his will be just like that:
- you'll get a toned down version for a regular retail price of £25-30.
- the "additions" will cost £5 a pop if not more
- the end price for the game will end up being £40+ and will get you the same as a normal retail game would get you.
So the question then is: would you pay for a game that has been crippled and requires more money to get the full experience? No, I wouldn't. And thus the problem is not solved.
If they decreased the price to £10 and kept the additions at a normal level, they'd find that many people get the £10 version and none of the additions and then they'll complain about a lack of income.
Either way, it's a poor system showing the lack of understanding of the market. People don't like to buy bits and bobs over time. It's like buying a car and only getting the very basics - no windscreen wipers, no airco, no radio, etc. - and then having to pay on top of the price to get the extras but them costing twice as much as they would originally have cost. It's insane. Only the retard fat cats at the top of these publishing companies could think it's a good idea.

Meh. I usually just wait for the inevitable 'Game of the Year' edition when they put together all the DLCs in one package with the main game.

Or as it used to be known in the 90s: "The game"

Sir, you win one internets for that post :-D

Agreed. And the move towards DLC will just see that obstacle become all the more immovable.

I actually miss the expansion pack model. Theoretically DLC is just an expansion pack dissolved into small bits, but I like the idea of buying a complete pack with everything more.
Example: I'd buy an expansion pack for Just Cause 2 with new story missions and places to visit, besides the already released DLC. But I find it hard to buy the small bits separated.
I remember buying the 40 car megapack for Test Drive Unlimited. It was DLC, but at least it was a big juicy one.
DLC generally translates as small efforts in hope of big returns. I don't like that much, but overall it's better to have them released to us than not.

Keep prices obscenely high, vary the price and availability around the globe, ignore the fact that digital distribution greatly reduces cost, sell partial games with DRM'd DLC, add increasingly intrusive DRM, raise the volume on the piracy rant to justify more of the same . . . sounds like a great business model to me . . . =)

The price is the main problem as others have said. If Codamasters want to follow this route then fine but at least make the total price reasonable. Personally I haven't had a problem with BioWare's current model. Yes Shale and Zaeed were removed from DA:O and ME2 respectively but they were added back in free as long as you bought the game. That's no skin off my nose in the slightest. As for the DLC they have been largely reasonable with their pricing between $5-$7 and not regionally priced so Leliana's Song only cost me €4 which I considered good value for money.
Then of course you have the opposite end of the spectrum with companies like Activision that want to charge €14 for a map pack. Yeah you know what they can do with that 'offer'. If Codemasters want to remove content from the game and then charge extra for it then I will be dropping them off my shopping list.

The disheartening aspect of DLC as it stands now is that most DLC is produced by a big player in the market for one of their big titles, and most are abusing the DLC concept, delivering shallow content for prices of $10 and above.
While it is always a case of whether the market will pay for it or not, I believe the market will get saturated much faster, and hence yield less overall revenue, if we move more and more towards higher prices and requirements to pay for content that used to be released as free. In reality, the major publishers are digging their own DLC grave if they continue along that path, up until now they've been saved by a few blockbuster titles and the fact that the DLC concept is realively fresh in the market. Everybody needs to try at least once before they realize they've been fucked.
The prices need to be lowered to encourage volume. Or conversely, the total content value of a DLC needs to be increased. Right now gamers are getting screwed in both holes.

Open season, more like.
It's like they're rare oddities and trinkets quietly imported from the bizarre and frankly surreal cultures of the west. Sold only to the most eccentric and wealthy members of Japanese society.
But anyway, it's plainly obvious why DLC would be less of an issue for you than it would be in western markets were game prices can crash to half the RRP before it's even released. When you look at DLC by comparison, hell, even bloody horse armour costs as much as it ever did.

Um, right. So what exactly counts as a 'complete experience,' how much is it going to cost me, and what happens to my 'complete experience' when the DLC is no longer available?
There's a difference between content that expands the game and content that completes it. Expansion is extra. Completion is vital.
Purchasing the right to purchase doesn't sound appealing to me. If he's going to outright state "If you pay us $50, you get the crappy unfinished version that we don't care if you pirate," my incentive to buy the game is diminished, not improved. Even if the buy-in price is lowered, it still creates a hassle for the consumer where there doesn't need to be one. I don't want to keep track of yet another account and password for everyone who's published a game that I own.
It's debatable whether this is any better for the consumer than online activation. Personally, I think I'd rather take the latter.

I agree entirely. I don't like the DLC model and I don't appreciate publishers assuming everyone will steal if given the chance. People have been copying games ever since games came out for the PC, it's nothing new and will not be stopped.
I do not approve of it, but I do not feel I should be treated like a criminal because some ahole in Southern California likes to DL free games. I am already weary of Bioware and their new business model, but at least they include some DLC for free with new copies of the game.
Any dev or publisher who willingly strips the game and forces you to pay for the complete game is not worth my time or money. I will not be buying any more codemasters games, and if BW keeps up and starts stripping their games even more, I will bite the bullet and vote against them with my wallet, too.
BW used to be a great company but is becoming a "quick-buck" company these days. ME2 was more tps than rpg, and DA:O was not worthy of saying it had been in development for as long as it had prior to release. Awakenings is disappointing as well, since it doesn't really add anything new to the table besides a mini game of fortifying your keep, which you can experience in ME2 through ship upgrades.
I worry for PC gaming, not because of people like you and me, but because of the unwashed masses who buy map packs for $15 a pop and pay $60 or more for brand new games (and I'm talking about millions of people here). This isn't directed at those of you who have no choice but to pay $70 or more for a new game. This is directed at those millions who pay extra for less.
Who in their right mind would pay $60 for a pc game that is 4-6 hours long in single player, has no dedicated servers for online matchmaking, and does nothing to ban cheaters and hackers? Apparantly millions of people.
Sorry but it pisses me off that people are driving these businesses to even shadier practices because they see it works on certain titles. Ubisoft tried to release crap games for $60 for a while and after their games selling poorly their newest titles are selling for the standard $50 again. Not that I'd ever buy another Ubi game, but still...
If you guys really want to do something productive, you should come up with a way to get Bobby Kotick and people like the CEO of CM to resign and give up their fat pensions they undoubtedly will get.
The problem with this industry is that it's led by businessmen. Yes, that's right. Business and entertainment do not actually mix all that well. For every Bobby Kotick you have a GOG, who are honestly trying to compete and yes perhaps some of the games are cheaper elsewhere, but they did the gruntwork in getting them compatible with XP, Vista, etc.
I just wish I could punch some of these publishers and devs in the testicles repeatedly until they cough up blood.

While it's always nice hearing some game company higher up saying that DRM are bad I always take that with a huge grain of salt, there is always a catch, most of the time it's just a way to say "DRM are evil... except our own" (Yes Gabe and "Stardock's guy I forgot the name" I am talking about you) not to mention those who say that DRM is bad one day but forget about it and start using them the next. (Like Bethesda)
And here I must admit it made me kind of smile "DRM is counterproductive... but selling lot's of DLC with tons of DRM in them is ok"... well that makes sense :) ... they probably hope peoples wont notice them that way.,..

Excellent point. An example of DRM circles is Borderlands, which shipped with (I believe) a disc check, then went to securom, then added in deactivation tools, then took out securom in the last DLC.