We've spoken about DLC before, numerous times, on these pages, but the topic keeps coming up, like a freaking game of whack-a-mole. Thus, I have no choice but to pump another quarter into the machine and raise my mighty hammer of words and soundly address the topic once more.

Ok before this overextended metaphor gets even worse, let me get back on track. DLC is good, we've covered that already. Give people the option to pay for an expansion to the game that they have paid for already and enjoyed, and you will make more money from the original product. If you don't feel like you will be getting your money's worth from the extra-content, then don't spend. It's that simple.

Or is it??

Let's look at some developments. Generally speaking, DLC is in the form of extra content, created after the game and made available to download, either in a paid or free form. This DLC generally adds to the game and can be played after completion of the main game. In other words, extra content. Disturbingly, there has been a trend recently to cut content from new games, (for whatever reason -- generally time or money plays a factor) and then release said content in the form of a DLC pack. Think Assassin's Creed II, which had sequences cut from it and then added later as DLC. DLC in this form is not ok, and I'll tell you why not.

Firstly, the DLC slots into the main game, and if you have finished the game by the time you play the DLC, you will have to remember the game and try and slot the DLC into your rememberances. Secondly, by cutting the DLC from the disc in the first place, it seems that Ubisoft is making you pay for a complete game, over and above the already high price you paid for the game in the first place. Without getting into the quality of the DLC (I've heard it's really bad), we can also criticise the content for coming so early.

When DLC is planned, and indeed available, from launch day, there seems to be something wrong with the distribution model. I mean we are all relatively new in the digital distribution era here, but do we really need to think of something extra to pay for as a game feature? Remember the good old days when we considered what we were getting on the disc as the primary feature of our purchase, and not what kind of extras would be available to buy after our initial sale? Let's look at Bioshock 2, or any recent game for that matter, as an example.

More and more frequently, developers will announce their intentions to create and release downloadable content well before the game's release. The only reason for this that I can see is to create hype around the game. Personally, it does nothing for me to know that I will be able to buy more maps or skins or an extra chapter or two of single player. To me, it just means a bigger gap in my trophy rating, while still having a platinum, or maybe an extra pressure to finish the game and multiplayer trophies before the patch is released which bumps the 100% figure up.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2, The Saboteur, Dragon Age: Origins, SOCOM: Fireteam Bravo 3 and Mass Effect 2, all games that shipped or intend to ship with day one DLC. In some cases, they also offered a "new game purchase" style day one DLC, where new copies include a code or voucher to gain free access to topless women, new characters, weapons or even the ability to play the game online. For second hand game buyers, or for pirates, these extra features will cost you. (Unless you live in the PAL region, where you can happily save $2.99 and pick up The Saboteur's Midnight Show DLC for free -- I can only confirm this on the PSN).

What do you guys think? Do you get wet at the sound of a developer promising day one DLC or does it turn you off your intended purchase faster than watching 2 Girls, 1 Cup? Let us know in the comments!