enclaver: No man, my definition of finished is to release a game that has minimum bugs as possible, all core elements fully operational, include cosmetic changes that they sell sometimes in a paid game (portal), game that you can FINISH without dlc (fallout 3)

And I wanted to say that if upgrade to a game that has only more playtime of the same can't cost half of the base value. Yes 2 more skills, but in my opinion that's not such a big deal. They could have made a new character, maybe even new mode or something.

Frozenbyte is not even slightly bad as some big companies, but I hate to see that Indies are doing this too.

But, I'm glad that you have already agreed with yourself, so I will not bother you anymore.

StingingVelvet: It's just that your barometer for every purchase should be "is X worth Y money" and DLC coming out as well has no real bearing on that. Only a complete fool would say Fallout 3 did not provide enough game for the $50.

enclaver: try reading next time please. Next thing is a fact:

"You can't finish fallout 3 without dlc".

I don't want to spoil some ppl here with ending or something, but if you played the game you should know it. I never said anything about the content for 50$

StingingVelvet: Only if your definition of finished is "includes all you ever thought of putting in the game." My definition of finished is "a complete game worth the cash."

Different perspectives there, and honestly I think mine is healthier and makes more sense.

enclaver: try reading next time please. Next thing is a fact:

"You can't finish fallout 3 without dlc".

I don't want to spoil some ppl here with ending or something, but if you played the game you should know it. I never said anything about the content for 50$

StingingVelvet: Fallout 3 without the DLC has a more proper ending, like every other Fallout game (including the one that came out after it), so I completely disagree.

SimonG: Yes, I played Fallout 3 for nearly full gamescore before the first DLCs arrived. And Broken Steel was "tacked on" in every sense of the word.

StingingVelvet: Yeah. Pretty much every DLC people seem to regard as an essential part of the game that was removed feels like a tacked-on piece of made-later content. From Ashes for Mass Effect 3 is probably the first DLC that felt truly integrated in the main game to me.

SimonG: I got the feeling that some of the "DRM DLCs" (free for first time bought games) of DA:O where also at least designed during the development. Eg, the Golem DLC.

Gazoinks: I don't mind "tacked-on" DLC if it feels like actual effort was put into it. What do you define as tacked-on? For example, New Vegas' DLC had no real interaction with the main game and was pretty much isolated, but it was also brilliant. Same thing with Shivering Isles and most other expansions that add new worldspace.

SimonG: "Tacked on" doesn't mean that it is bad DLC. But it shows that the DLC was not "cut out of the game to be sold later". I can think of many great "tacked on DLCs", like the NV ones.

Coelocanth: Do you mean Shale? If so, yes it was. They were quite up front about it. It was content that was cut from the game due to some implementation and time issues, but when the game was delayed for several months in order to wait for the console release, it gave them time to finish it.