^ I am not familiar with the phrase and I had to resort to google to read a Wikipedia article on it :-)

Not sure why it would be a problem.

That's because you're one of those filthy mainstream gamers.

I see no problem, I'd buy DLCs here.

Good questions. Then again, if the publisher was willing to provide the base game without DRM, why wouldn't they allow that also for the DLC?

But if they don't, as you say some of the possible outcomes could be that GOG users would have to obtain the DLC elsewhere for their GOG games, or GOG would have to deviate from their DRM-free policy.

I personally see no technical problem with GOG selling the DLC separately from the base game, even if I'd personally prefer getting a GOTY version with everything included.

Depends on the age and price of the base game and the size and price of the DLC. Personally I don't have much interest in GOG selling actual micro-transaction DLC, but selling real expansions to new games under the label DLC separately, or in an optional package together with the base game and at a higher price point, dunno, maybe.

For older games though, expansion-like DLC should be included in the regular package for a "complete", "gold" or "collector's" edition, while small DLCs like funny hats or whatnot could be handled as free extras at best. And I'd be more likely to buy older games and complete packages anyway - I can wait. ;)

I don't see ANY problems here. There's multiple ways how GOG could handle DLC distribution. They could provide a separate store page or make the DLC a separate option for the main game - the store and the promo pages already recognize very fine which games you own so it should be a piece of cake for GOG to solve the technical issues of making DLC only available to owners of the main game or people who are buying both at once. You know, the GOG staff have brains, they will find a way to solve an issue as trivial as this one.

Pretty much this.

Yes, with the minor note that I personally would prefer that the system would give just a big red letter warning that you are trying to buy DLC that requires the base game, which that account doesn't have yet. But it would still let you buy the DLC without the base game.

I was thinking about the possible cases that someone had earlier bought the base game from another GOG account which he for some reason is not using anymore (I've seen some messages before how some GOG users have created a new account because they couldn't access the old account anymore for some freak occurance, like forgetting the password, and being unable to login to their email account to receive a new password...).

Just to be on the safe side, since GOG games don't really depend on the account.

One of the few things they haven't compromised on is not selling expacs separate from the game they're for. The closest thing to an exception is the standalone expansions.

I'm a bit puzzled by why people think they're going to change now, considering how much of a head ache it's going to be cleaning up the mess when people invariably try to buy without the main game.

What's more, I have no idea how they could possibly guarantee that the expac would work anyways, seeing as people buying it by itself would be doing so for a non-GOG release.

Was that also one of their great goals like "no DRM!" or "same international price!"? I don't think so. So far they simply had the luxury of being able to bundle the expansions/DLC with the main game because both were out already when GOG released them. They can't possibly do that with new releases that get additional content soon after their GOG release and I don't think that people will complain that GOG has broken another of their own rules - at least not as long as expansions for classic releases will always remain bundled with the main game.

As I said, they will have to change something if they want to continue releasing new games.

How's that even a matter? GOG is not responsible for stupid users' actions. Steam officially only accepts Steam-DLC for their releases and Steam-DLC is only supposed to work with Steam versions - and I don't see waves of morons spamming the Steam forums because of that. How has that to be different for GOG?

Yes, it was one of their things and I do remember them posting about it in the fora, I just can't recall when. The reason was that they didn't want to deal with people buying an expansion and not being able to use it. They would have to add special code to enforce it which would upset the people who own retail copies of some of these games from elsewhere and if they don't do that they would have people buying something that they can't use.

The fact that there are newer games isn't going to change the fact that they would have to deal with the headaches so that a small number of people could buy it separately for a game that they likely didn't even buy here.

I don't see any reason for GOG to accommodate that.

No, they won't have to. They might choose to, but the fact is that most people here seem to more or less like the way things are being handled. Taking a principled stance on things like this is why I'm here. I can't imagine anyway that this doesn't end badly.

Because it's Steam-DLC, in order to buy it you have to have the game from Steam. It has DRM so anybody with two brein cells to rub together knows that they can't use it with a different release. And people normally don't want to do it anyways. GOG DLC would be DRM-free and I'm not sure why anybody would assume that they can't use it with a different release.

The whole thing would be a mistake that might benefit a few people and would just cause GOG some serious headaches. It's not an accident that they haven't offered expacs separate from the main game before, even though people would probably want that as well.

Out of necessity, if they intend to sell more and more new-ish games for which DLC content is still being published.

I think the Humble Store will have to think about the same, or are they managing it somehow already? Seeing how some indie games get DLCs too.

Before this shop opened people said the same thing about DRM, retro games, global pricing and new games. They didn't have to do any of that either. They ultimately expanded into new games because they wanted to expand further, but it wasn't something which they had to do to stay in business.