I'm absolutely against DLC, and I don't think it's because I'm older or anything, old-fashioned, game-wise, if you will. Finish making a game, make it as complete as possible, and then move onto making another game of the franchise or a completely different game. Once a game is initially released, it should be forgotten development-wise. This HAS been the case for a long time, right?

Of course, I understand that, because of the Internet, great and new ways of milking customers have arisen. Yes, this way enities who will profit from goods can profit even more. That I get. But, to me, it is ridiculous to see customers be all for, support, CELEBRATE downloadable content. That is nothing else but cheering for being ripped off, being milked again and again for something you had already paid a hefty price for.

The only reason I could understand even considering DLC to add new levels or whatever that they initially wanted, but couldn't, is due to "time limitations", as in "the game has to be finished by the end of Q4, otherwise we can't release the game before the holidays, and so we won't make as much money as we wanted to". But even then, it's just a bad thing, bad planning in the first place.

And if they do it, game companies should NOT make it look like as if it's "extra content", rather, they should just make the additional (originally original) content available for free — for those only, that is, who have their consoles connected to the Internet. (On the other hand, if they added additional levels to, say, Super Mario Bros., there would be no question in those levels being actual extra content. I would pay for that in a heartbeat.)

We all know that Zelda games have been delayed many times before they finally released it. I don't think that the majority of people complain about the quality of the Zelda games. Why? Because they took their time, and that's the reason Zelda games are so great. And any game, for that matter, will only be good if a great development team spends a whole lot of time with it.

So is it going to be the case now, with Nintendo, too, that they will rush an otherwise incredibly promising game, yet still not worry too much, because they can now put in extra stuff later and make even more money off it? Bad, bad, bad. All of this is plain wrong. Why? Because you pay a LOT of money for a game, and now additional levels have a price now? How much does a "new level" cost? 1.99? 3.25? Come on! Where I live, Nintendo games have always been VERY pricey (we paid an equivalent of 65 GBP/75 EUR/100 USD for Banjo-Tooie when it came out), yet we'd buy Nintendo games because they were fantastic quality games. Loyalty to quality is what made me buy Nintendo games instead of household appliances. I'm still willing to pay a lot for great games, but paying MORE, in addition to a very expensive game (provided that I can still afford it) is just an overkill.

In all, DLC is nothing more than either laziness PLUS greediness, or bad planning. If it's the former, I have nothing to add; if it's the latter, then they should not make a consumer pay more for "delayed content, initial content added later".