This week Adam takes a few minutes to chat about the recent trend of big name games getting DLC shortly after the game’s release, and how this is a good idea and could lead those sitting on the fence to finally pick this game up.

However, while Adam talks about the positives of downloadable content he doesn’t touch on the negative aspects. Thankfully I am only too happy to do just that after the video.

While I agree that downloadable content is generally good and can show that a developer is committed to the game, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are dedicated to the game. Case in point: Every video game that “pulls a Namco”, where you have to spend $5 or $10 to download a 100kb patch that unlocks game data that is already on the disc.

Many times the downloadable content doesn’t necessarily add life to the game in question. Look at PAIN, for example. Whether you launch Ginger (the nurse) or David Hasselhoff, in the end you’re still playing the exact same game as you were before you blew your money. Thankfully these downloads aren’t going to break anybody’s wallet so you don’t feel stupid for downloading them later on… which is where they get you. Nickel and diming their entire audience.

You also have instances like the one with Bethesda where only one or two versions of the game are expanded on. Call me a PlayStation fanboy if you wish (as opposed to calling me a 360 fanboy, you indecisive twats) but there really is no justification for essentially leaving an entire sect of your audience in the cold — especially when one of the downloads is going to include what many owners of Fallout 3 consider a FIX to the game.

Of course, this is only part of a bigger issue with downloadable content and no matter which side you stand on, in the end all developers are doing is punishing the gamer for owning the “wrong” console. It’s taken the issue of console exclusivity to a new, sad level.

Popularity: unranked [?]