the title of this thread should be:
'shit we already figured out'

Or Greedy honorbuddy wants your money.

Then you do what people did for games since we first started having expansion packs: You either buy it new, or you wait until the game is dead before you buy it. It isn't like we get DLC for games that haven't had an update in two years :p.
When DA:O and ME2 get their GOTYE/whatever versions, chances are that most of the DLC will be included. Until then, you just need to either keep buying more stuff, or play an "incomplete" game.
I mean, did you hate expansion packs too? Same basic principle :p
And what problems are 360 owners having with MS's DLC? I don't follow the 360, but I thought that system was actually pretty good (and it gives you a lot of free DLC every time they screw up :p).

Clearly contradicting German laws, though, so if they try to implement this here this will go to our courts. In Germany, you have all rights to use software (and yes, you can decompile it for your personal use or modify it or whatever - as long as it's only for yourself) when you buy it. So if they try to implement it here, they will get immense problems.

Isn't this about the 4th thread we have had on this topic now?
DLC is always optional, you don't need t to enjoy the game. If you want to save a few quid by buying the game second hand then you really shouldn't care about what extra stuff you are missing out on. You can't expect to buy the game from Gamestop and not EA then expect the same level of support.
If you buy a game from EA or first-hand then you support EA and encourage them to make more games. If you buy the game from Gamestop you support Gamestop and invest nothing into the gaming industry.

I don't see an issue here. You DO have all the rights when you buy it.
This can end in two ways:
1* Germany bans second-hand software, because the person selling it won't (and can't) sell you all the rights to the software he should.
2* EA stops selling DLC for Germany.
As you can see - "they" won't get into problems. It's not their obligation to sell you anything.

Broke EA wants your money. :P

As far as it affects me, EA's new love of DLC just means that I'll be waiting a bit longer before playing some of the games they publish (e.g. Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2). Whenever any game comes out there's always the knowledge that one can buy it now for ~$50, or wait a while and get it significantly cheaper. Knowing that some kind of GOTY edition is almost certainly going to be released that rolls all the DLC into a single, neat package just makes the waiting option a much more attractive value proposition. Plus I don't exactly have any shortage of games to play as it is.

Its usually done a shitload earlier than most people think. Referring to the attached image of the project development phases, it'd be pretty rare for a development studio to make major changes such as adding locations/quests/characters after the design phase. The implementation phase is just making what was planned.
A good developer will forcibly lock down the requirements before the implementation stage and ruthlessly stick to it no matter how many awesome ideas are generated in the meantime. This prevents scope creep which slowly expands the project until it's twice its original size and has to still keep within the original budget & timeframe leading to a shitty end product that tries to do too much and fails it all or doesn't deliver what was promised. Discipline is the key to project success.
As an example of the opposite, look at the development of duke nukem forever. That is a textbook/horror story example of a project gone crazy with enthusiasm and scope... well I was going to say scope creep but the sheer amount of movement was such that if you could call that creep, you could call the blitzkrieg "german creep".
In a well managed project, any good ideas thought up after the requirements were locked down could be stored away and developed in parallel when the people are available to work on it. With the delay caused by the platform owner approval process (at least as far as consoles go) and for duplication and distribution, its entirely possible for these extra addons to be ready at the same time that the main game is released.
All that said, paying to unlock content thats already on the full priced disc is "teh ghey" and should be punishable by a molten glass enema

I honestly can't believe that you would think that your comment and mine are even remotely related. How the hell did you misinterpret my comment so badly? Furthermore, how do you think it's fair for EA not to make money off the sale of a game that THEY made?
And if you think EA should just have to deal with people making money off a game they produced without them getting a dime, then maybe you just have to deal with day 0 DLC that comes with the game. I have played both ME2 and DA:O without any of the DLC and I had a full, complete experience. If it wasn't for that one guy in DA:O, I wouldn't have even known there was DLC. That's how unnecessary to the game it was.

I like their Project Ten Dollars. It's a win for them, and has no ethical concerns. Plus, as someone who always buys new games, more stuff for me!

The guy advertising DLC IN THE BLOODY GAME was unforgivable and pretty much what got gamers backs up about the whole idea. The fact remains though functionally there is very little difference between the second-hand game the standard retail game and the super mega meal version. The core game in all versions is identical it's just the extras that are different or non-existant.
The amusing thing is the people who complain the loudest are the ones buying the second-hand game and thus paying nothing to EA for the game. Very few people seem to complain about buying the standard version yet they know by saving a few bucks they get less goodies.

You mean like how the original producers of products don't make money off of resales in every other fucking industry? Nobody has a right to make money off of what they produce; they only have the right to try to sell what they produce, the rest is in the hands of the customers. This isn't to say that sellers can't attempt to attach contractual terms or other measures to the product to restrict what can be done with the product, provided such terms are clearly disclosed upfront and explicitly agreed to by the buyer prior to the sale. Of course, what many people seem to miss is that such terms or measures aren't external to the product being sold, they are part of what is being sold, and will naturally affect what people are willing to pay for the product. Ultimately the only way to make money off of your product is by offering people good value for their money, and introducing technical restrictions on how much of the product people can resell does just the opposite.

When did I mention rights in my post? That's right, never. Rights are arbitrary machinations and the opinion on what "rights" people have vary from person to person. There are no natural rights. I'm talking about what should be.
I haven't seen one company that allows users to sell DLC. Maybe some do; to be honest, I don't pay much attention to DLC. Most don't. EA is giving out DLC for free to people who purchase the game new. It does not allow the transfer of that DLC. People who buy games used do not need to buy the DLC. I got DA:O used. I didn't buy the DLC. I had a complete experience. If I chose to expand that experience, I could buy the DLC. I honestly don't see what is wrong with this. I'm the one "getting screwed" by this transaction. It doesn't matter to me. EA should make money off of used sales.