This is something of a dilemma that has crossed my mind since I heard the Fallout 3 Operation Anchorage DLC cost 10 bucks. When I look at that and then the fact that Valve has agreed to release two more campaigns with new weapons and enemies for free, it go me thinking, What should we pay for when it comes to patches and downloadable content? Where do we draw the line between what is entitled to us through the purchase of a game and what is extra above and beyond the game we bought?
I throw patches into the mix above because it seems that developers are relying on them more and more these days. Patches, many successive or all at once, can radically change game play of many games. A good example of this is Team Fortress 2 which has changed, and is still changing well after its release date. Because of this, the excuse that you pay for things that radically change up gameplay doesn't work so well.
So, where is the line, or is there a line, or where should the line be that defines when a gamer who (assumedly) has already payed for a game must pay more to get access to the "enhanced experience" offered by the DLC or Patches?
I throw patches into the mix above because it seems that developers are relying on them more and more these days. Patches, many successive or all at once, can radically change game play of many games. A good example of this is Team Fortress 2 which has changed, and is still changing well after its release date. Because of this, the excuse that you pay for things that radically change up gameplay doesn't work so well.
So, where is the line, or is there a line, or where should the line be that defines when a gamer who (assumedly) has already payed for a game must pay more to get access to the "enhanced experience" offered by the DLC or Patches?
