You are completely right about the costume packs but like you said they are completely optional and are purely cosmetic. I guess the reason I like ME2's DLC is the costume packs never claim to be anything but just cosmetic changes, while at the same time the DLC that offers real value like Lair are reasonably priced for the content. Also it should be pointed out that even the paid DLC isn't actually forced on you. ME2 retail vanilla is a complete game, there is no implication that anything has been cut from it unlike say DA:O which had a character in the party camp ready to tell you how to buy DLC *facepalm*.

The US, most of the PS3 games start at $60 or there abouts, not sure about the XBox360, but I think they're similarly priced. PC games are usually a bit less expensive.

Personally, I rarely if ever pay that as I can't normally justify it. However some games like FO:NV are such monster games in terms of time to play through and number of replays that it's actually worth it to pay quite a bit for the game.

Oh, it's definitely a lot better done than DAO, I still can't believe that they thought the ingame DLC merchant was actually a good idea, though I'm even more surprised that despite being made by the same company these mistakes are not spilled over to ME2 at all. I just worry about the costume packs because if they prove to be more profitable than the actual mission dlcs (which at their prices is possible) then it might result in pressure for them to focus more on them. That worry then transforms into ranting on forums. :D

I would like to be a fly on Bioware's wall, just to see how it's possible for them to have such a difference in approach to dlc for their own games, whether it's some sort of experiment to see which one is the more successful model, different pressures from on high due to the relative success of the game, a perceived difference in the type of customer for each game, or just a lack of realisation that the entire DA staff has been replaced by trained monkey...

Two distinct teams that's the only reason. There is very little crossover between the ME team and the DA team. Which really showed when it came to DLC. There is probably more game time in Shadowbroker than there is in Leliana's Song and Witch Hunt combined.

The thing I found exploitive was just before DA2 released they were already mentioning the first DLC for it. What! If they had DLC virtually ready to be released around the same time as the main game then why not include it? Obviously for the money.

That's exactly what he's saying. He thinks his games may be worth 60 bucks, he doesn't want the content gated at the beginning. This actually makes sense, he's arguing for being able to have massive demos, a lot of content you can access before you decide to spend money on the game. He's not saying some games aren't worth well more than 60 bucks even, in total, what he is saying is it's bad form to suck people in for 60 bucks on a questionable product (hello DA2?).

Yes, you can do this form of selling way wrong too. The iOS Smurfs game sounds like just such an idea gone wrong. But what about DDO, Wizards 101, or even Free Realms (haven't checked into this one lately)? What if you only paid 20 bucks to get New Vegas and didn't have to pay any more until you reached The Strip? I bet the game would be damned engaging at least up until then, wouldn't you?

What if you played Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood for 5 bucks, but had their stupid, always on DRM. Then they come to you and say, you liked our game, we'll just strip all this DRM crap off for you for the balance and add some fun multiplayer to boot?

Some of these are off the wall and may not work, but I don't know if you all have noticed, the industry is slowly fossilizing, we need some radical ideas floated around to keep good stuff coming out.

And if the shooter was free and I only had to buy gear for the class I wanted to play (say, 15 bucks worth of gear) then yeah, buying that gun from MS is a deal! If I decide I want to try another class, maybe I can earn that from playing (hard) or buy it for another 15 (easy).

I think it's safe to say Bethesda learned their lesson. There was nothing like that rubbish for Fallout 3/New Vegas.

I'm pretty sure it's mostly Lionhead selling horse armor type DLC these days (*cough*dog potions*cough*). Though they have definitely given away free costumes and weapons since launch.

Heh, look what company's executive is saying that...

The same company that since the last year's holidays has risen the price of PC games from $49.99 to $59.99, for AAA games like Dead Space 2 and Crysis 2. I hate the current DLC industry, while I like the idea of huge expansions (you can call them gigantic DLCs of the past, if you want).

And it's the same EA labelled games, that probably will have no way of making mods and maps, not in the first months at least: Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3. Both without editors or SDKs for the first months at least, why you ask? Because EA likes you buying DLCs for their already $60 games.

^This
Its easy to be reactionary with EA (often they deserve it). But EAsy seems to be a decent part of their company, and the approach they have to selling games an interesting and healthy avenue for the game business to explore.

I'd like to say nice things about their current project (Battlefield Play4Free), and the game economy but that damn NDA has a rusty blade to my throat.........

Yeah you're totally right. If working for companies has taught me anything it's the lack of communication that occurs between teams, or silos as this situation is often called, and that most businesses are just mickey mouse organisations that just make stuff up as they go along, so I shouldn't really overthink this when the answer is right there. :D

I dunno as I said ... the idea of DLC is not particularly anathema to me. It's acting as though they have the best interest of the customer at heart with how they currently do DLC and micro-transactions - they don't. Why? Because with the DLC model and especially the micro-transaction model, they aren't geared towards the person who will take their time, spend only what they want on what they really need. They are instead relying on people spending consistently until you've paid not $60 not $70 but $100 worth or far more on small items built up over time. Take the MS example and your combined example - why would they ever stop offering better and better gear for that class? Sure if there was one set of gear, but that's not typically how this works, they constantly introduce new stuff over time for your class that's just a tiny bit better. Take the extreme like Farmville, 90% of the profit from that game comes from 1% of the people playing it who are spending ridiculous sums of money. It's essentially equivalent to them taking advantage of an addiction at that point and like gambling institutions doing it, that's not morally right and hardly consumer-friendly.

Now most DLC is not nearly that heinous. Offering day-of-release DLC is a little tacky in my book, but not as bad as what I mentioned above. As I said in my OP, DLC that is worth it are things that do actually add to the content in a reasonable way: mini-expansion packs, mods, and the like I find perfectly acceptable to charge for - especially if they are things the devs actually took extra time to develop beyond the base game. If your demo is system is to be free to play up to a point, then you ask people in-game if they want the full version - that's also perfectly reasonable, in fact I'm with you in applauding such a way of offering games. Even the episodic release of Telltale games' Monkey Island story is (in theory, I've not played them, but in theory), a reasonable approach. However, with a lot of DLC, they're keeping the $60 price point and making you pay for extra DLC, sometimes day-of-release DLC with the $60 price point. That's also hardly consumer-friendly. It's just a way to lesson the initial impact but still charging you more than the base price of most games for material that clearly should've been included in the base game.

At $60, I'd like the full game and probably the option to generate my own content via a really nice world editor. I've paid $60 a grand total of once when buying a new game and I actually don't think I got ripped off (I was involved in the public beta, so I knew what I was in for). But I agree that for a lot of games, $60 is not worth the price point even for a full-no-trivial-DLC-release game and not offering a demo makes that worse. Now the pay once model isn't the only reasonable price model, but given what they've put out so far in the DLC and especially the micro-transaction price model, this trend is clearly not a consumer -friendly trend. I believe you're right: it could be. But it isn't, it really, really isn't.

EDIT: edited for clarity, not content and given that, still poor writing and if brevity is the soul of wit, I'm in extremely bad shape :)

Even at a hundred bucks some games with a long life may be worth it. If they're still churning out maps for that shooter or even adding game modes, yeah so you end up shelling out 80 bucks over a couple years. That's one full game + expac in the old days. If they're offering that much content for that much why feel bad? You paid no more than you would have. And maybe some of your buddies came along for a shorter ride and got out with only 15 bucks invested, yet didn't have to wait for a Platinum deal to get it that cheap. You all got to play together, at release (this is very valuable) and got your mileage out of it.

If this becomes more common the Farmville's of this model may not collapse and die, but they'll be very niche, because we won't need them.

Some people will throw down for everything, every time, you're right. They're no worse than the people pre-ordering every time right now, and shoving cash down EA and Activision/Blizzard's fat gullets for glories long past.

DLC is weird, I didn't mind expacs, if they were so-so I could always get them later for 10 bucks. DLC launches for 10 bucks and stays 10 bucks, generally. It's my gripe against digital in the first place. One of the drivers of the bargain bin was lack of physical shelf space, especially at a place like Target (not much shelving devoted to games back in the day) and EB (small stores and a lot of games). Digital distribution doesn't have that, but I think it actually hurts the longevity of the game and introducing new folks to the franchise by making sure people can't get in cheaply, on the tail end.

EDIT: I should also note, this is ideal for families. I game with my daughter, but it's hard to eat the cost of 10 dollar DLC and 2 full game prices. Something like DDO or Wizard 101 where you pay as you consume it or that backloads the cost only for the most interested work better for us.

Personally I truly hate the whole DLC concept.

The way it should be done is expansion packs such as Night of the Raven, Shivering Isles etc, whilst extra units and such should be free and non exclusive (like Total Annihilation when it was released). I'm happy to pay for genuine extra content, but most DLC just feels like exploitation.