DLC helps pay for extra content. If you think the original product doesn't have enough, don't buy it. As a consumer, you simply do not have enough insight into the production to say what has been chopped from the original product, and what has been produced as content to stand on its own.

There's DLC done right, and DLC done wrong. Vote with your wallet, buy what you want. Nothing else is going to matter.

If you find DLC to be overpriced or a ripoff in anyway don't buy it. This little movement you're trying to start seems to be more about begging for free stuff than it does fighting for anyones rights.

I'm not sure it's quite as simple as just saying 'don't like it, don't buy it'.  Oh, on the one hand it clearly is, on the other hand, if the trend goes to the extreme where everything is driven by this model then what?  Don't buy it?  Means don't play, well, anything I guess.  Hell it's a fine initiative if only to maybe make some developers reconsider their business model for various games.

Yeah, you send a message when you don't buy something.  But you send a louder message when you don't buy it and you let everyone know why you're not buying it.  Otherwise the marketers are not going to think 'hmm, there's no market for DLC' they are going to think 'hmm there's no market for *this* game, so we won't make anymore of *this* kind of game'.

That said, I don't buy games anymore really, at least not until they've been out for a year or more, and I can know straight off what I'm getting, not what I'm potentially getting (*cough*EWoM*cough*).  That is an extreme position perhaps, and if everyone adopted it... well, yeah, things would be pretty crappy for the developers I guess

I'm not fed up with paying for DLC. 

Anyway, there are like 100 caveats for my statement and the one in the OP.  Gamers don't mind paying for DLC if its giving you new content for a game that you enjoy.  For example, let's say Mass effect 2 gets released 3 months ago - BOOM - here's a brand new mission that tells you more of the mass effect story.  You read some reviews and it sounds good and gives you 4 more hours of gamplay.  You like the ME story, you pay.  Or you just hold off and wait for a game of the year edition that has it all.  We all, obviously hate "DLC" that provides a 10k unlock file that give you access to something that's on the disk you own. That's crap, imo... and I figure we all just might be on the same page here.

Anyway, I'm sure we are all in agreement - if we are getting gouged, then we don't like.  If I'm getting something that was created after the game was released and I want more content, then cool.  I'll read a review and buy if I'm into it.  And if I'm a patient gamer, then I could care less about DLC.  Odds are it will be included in the game of the year edition I'll be buying in 6-8 months.  Side note - patient games love DLC. 

Remember when sending an e-mail involved using a phone modem that cost 25c to connect to the internet.

Oh wait... there's so many things these days that are incredibly cheap or free that we take them for granted, and then we start expecting everything to be free.

Think of the lifestyle of people who are without such riches to have a home, a car, a computer... what kind of greedy people are we becoming to complain about the luxuries we have in our perfect lives?

Time for another beer (that I paid for)

PS.. ZZZZZAAAAAAAP

I feel like dlc is bullshit.  I dont buy games with it.

Fighting for free dlc... i feel the best way is to simply not buy the games of companies that do this.

I havent brought starcraft 2 for similar reasons.  Announcing that your going to have (multiple!) expansion packs before the origional game is even out... up to removing units from the game so they can be added in later feels like DLC to me as well.

I've been buying the DLC for Napoleon:Total War.  It's cheap, like $3.50.  It gets me just a little more replayability value out of the game.  My last DLC got the game off the shelf and me playing it for like 3 more days.

It depends on what DLC you're talking about. I haven't looked at Starcraft II for that reason (and the fact that it doesn't seem to offer much over the first).

Then there is Fallout 3. It alone is a great game with all the story, sidequests and action I could ever hope for. Played it with no DLC and was totally happy. Then when the DLCs started coming out, I did my research and waited for all three to come out closer to the price of 2 individually. I saved money and got to see all the extra content (practically a whole game in itself) at once. I was completely satisfied.

Then there is Sins of a Solar Empire. What? We need DLC just to get starbases and a thoroughly developed diplomacy system? Well, that seems unfair at first, but then they release each for ten bucks. Even cheaper with Trinity, just like Fallout 3. And we get a discount on Rebellion for already having Trinity? Hmm, not a bad deal. And what's this? It's designed to be modded, so I can get with a mod team and the lot of us can make it into anything we want? Even add ships? And mods are free? On top of not having Big Brother watch us *coughsteamcough*, I'm pretty happy.

So I guess it depends what you offer and for how much. I have an RPG planned out (though will probably never happen) where you get a whole game for the price of a normal game. And I was estimating the cost of a new 'plate' being half as much (a plate being an adjacent area to the original map and being of equal size and a whole new storyline). I think if something like that existed and people could interact in an MMO environment, many would choose such a purchase.

But it does come down to that, doesn't it? You can choose. For example, I rarely play anymore. Instead, I refurbished a rifle and got it in better working order than average. Now I'm going to go buy 20 rounds of DLC for it and pop some holes in a paper target.

yeah, those thieves who want to play games for free are definitely not likable.

As someone who bought CivV on realease day and who is looking to get Shogun 2 someday, I wonder why I should ever bother buying games full price when they come out when I can instead wait, oh say a year, for the (game of the year/gold) edition prepackaged with DLC at a lower price.

For multiplayer-centric games I despise DLC that add new maps and game modes as it only results in splitting the community. Good DLC is stuff that only affects the aesthetics of the game. League of Legends does an excellent job in that regard: selling skins that look cool, yet does not affect gameplay.

For single player games, all is fair.

? Starcraft 2 doesn't have DLC.

One post above, forget number, stated that "without greed, there would be no games."  The point the writer was making, i think, is that without the profit motive, people would not work so hard to make 'good' games.  The market just informs the companies about what games should be 'made.'

Now, please consider that a few people, who have the 'tools' have made games even when the ultra-profit motive is not fully operating.  I suspect that Froggy puts in more work, effort, etc., into SD games than a person purely motivated by  cash profits would do. 

So, the greed / profit statement is true to a point.  But it is not an absolute.  Also, consider, please, that some games have been made with no profit (cash) motive.  Dwarf Fortress comes to mind. So, too, do many mods for many games.  Consider Nehrim, a total redesign of TES4 (and better than vanilla TES4 IMHO).  These are works of a non-profit nature - labors of love, as they said in the old days.  So, the greed statement is probably more true than not - but it is not always true. Neither must it be.

Now, consider a world where all the 'wealth' created by our robots, and automation freed us from the need to be indentured to corporations.  How many more labors of love along these lines might be made?  Imagine several open source gaming engines that continually get improved by the community - and the games created using these engines?  Greed predominates in the current markets because of the economic system chosen by those with power and wealth.  But greed/profit is not always and only the absolute reason for games being designed currently.