to me its not black and white. I think DLC is a much better route than the old, traditional, expansion packs. This simply because it used to be if I bought an expansion pack for a game, I update my server, and sit and hope I wasn't the only one who bought it. More often then not, most people would ignore them. At least with DLC, you get all that stuff to use in the vanilla game, so its a better value. Though that only impacts items in games and not maps and such. But the current pricing is just ridiculous, Call of Duty Black Ops DLC is $15 a pop for 4-5 maps, and that is just not worth it to me. Especially when the community has been begging for mod tools to make their own maps since release. I also agree that timing is important, I feel ripped off if I buy a game that includes free content with preorder, or if I see DLC out a week after the release of a new title. It just makes me think they could have included it in the game but chose not to in the hopes of making more money. I see DLC as a way of making older games fresh, adding new content, levels, maps, quests, what ever the game needs to stay interesting. But I don't want to pay a loyalty tax. Don't tell me that I should buy a $60 game, then pay another $60 over the course of a few months just to get the stuff you could have put in the game to start with. I also understand this mantra about getting content to the people quickly. I know some developers would rather release a bare bones game and then offer a mix of free content patches and paid DLC post release, so that they dont need to spend a decade making their game. They can release on a tight schedule, and then mold their game into their full vision. Sadly, this doesn't always work out this way. So for me, DLC and expansion will always be case by case. Some games benefit more than others, and sometimes I'll buy it because I want it, other times I wont be able to justify it to myself, sometimes I won't buy it because it's just not interesting enough, and sometimes I just wont buy out of protest.