Strategy Informer  

I have to be honest, it sounds more like a "Buy expansion seperately, pay 33% more!" deal ^^

But really, anyone can get the pack so that's not so bad.

Actually, I'm kinda content about this.
I'm sure I'll love the game, and when I love a game, it isn't really that hard to invest more money in it.

Oh yeah, I'm sure this is good value really. Their DLC packs like Knoxx's armory and the zombie island were both really nice.

So once more it's pay-as-you-go. As long as gamers are happy with these not so micro transactions then they will persist until the next scheme can be devised to wring every last cent out of gamers.

Yes, we can be really unhappy about all games (developers, perhaps) and their money wringing methods. Or we can be content with games that actually give back their value. Borderlands 2 is going to be one of those games, I'm sure. Is it really that hard to pay 50 bucks (on Steam), play the game for a couple of months, and then give 10 more for a DLC pack that upgrades your game to give you even more fun? You can grab that DLC whenever you want (or are financially able to). And who says you even need to buy it? Nothing was cut from the vanilla game.
I agree with you, Hero, when it comes down to some developers that make us pay for multiplayer maps or gun skins and sh*t like that. But here? No.

You could argue the same of Bethesda, and here I would agree with you. In principle, that is in general, I am opposed to DLC's but am realistic enough to know that once the cash-grab begins there's no stopping it.

Well, it's all about adapting to the trends, isn't it?
The only thing that really matters to me is that I get a lot of good gaming for my investment. And if it's great, I'm really willing to give some more of my monies.
That was what happened with the first Borderlands and what will happen here.

Here I veer off topic a little Gale (which I do often:p) in that I counsel videogame addicts.
Aside from the obvious issues that go with any addiction, videogame DLC's are like "just one more shot" for the addicted, or OCD gamer (and there's a bit of the latter in all of us, not just in gaming).
We/they simply must have the "complete package" and Publishers know this (they have psychologists on staff, believe it or don't). Take "Warhammer 40K Space Marine" or "Dawn of War II" for bad examples - loads of absolutely non-essential DLC, but the "completist" feels that he/she must have it all ("Creative Assembly take advantage of this too).

So instead of calling the expansions by 2K and Bethesda DLC we should perhaps call them what they are: Expansion Packs, in the truest sense of the word these days.

Think of the DLC as an expansion pack for 30 bucks, with the option to buy a single part of that expansion seperately. That's pretty much what it is. It's still DLC in the meaning of that acronym is all.

I see your point, Hero, but it's never been like that with me.
I buy additional content when I can, and when I'm certain I'll like it.

aye dawnguard for skyrim feels more like an expansion then a DLC it really add a lot of new content opposed to the DLCs of other games which adds like lil parts like an armor set or gun im still in favor of expansions i don't need a nead looking armor to replay a game i need something new sins of a solar empire works with actual standalone expansion over DLCs and that game is also quite good

i maybe be addicted to gaming but even so i only get DLC on a game i played over 100 hours and still would play more in that way i know i liek the game and i think its worth the support for...