Now I know that this will probably be pretty unpopular topic, but I have been wondering. Most people hate DLCs and for a very good reason. To name just a few very solid reasons to hate DLCs :

Day 1 DLCs
DLCs that was already present on the disc but you have to pay for it to unlock it
DLCs that is absolutely unfairly priced compared to content (I am looking your way Dynasty Warriors)
DLCs that adds features/things that should already be present in the game

But if we look past the rotten eggs I have listen above, can they have redeeming features? For example DLCs in Binding of Isaac. They are fairly well priced (for original BoI 2 euros for DLC that adds tons of content) and for the BoI: Rebirth it's right now 6,66 euros (heh) and seems to add even more.

I guess my point being is. If the DLCs actually adds new content that brings something new to the game, and/or is at least reasonably priced, isn't there a well justified place for them?

As far as the costume DLCs go I never had a problem with them personally. They add nothing of substance of the game and if people want to give developers few extra dollars so their character can wear a skimpy bikini or nice new armor or nothing at all, why not?

I think you've answered your own question. If the DLC offers enough content for the dough to be considered an expansion pack, fair enough.

On the other hand, item drops and booster microtransactions are completely unacceptable as DLC - in fact, any DLC that skews the difficulty of a game is unacceptable, especially in a multiplayer title. Also, costumes are a troublesome thing with kids, because it's generally only kids that place value in them, and it's difficult to try to explain to them why paying for costumes is wasted money.

I am still dissipointed that Rockstar will not make any single player story/campaign DLC for GTA 5 because of their sole focus on GTA Online.

I said how I see it and how it makes sense to me. But yeah I absolutely agree with you there, for example what the new Devil May Cry 4 remake has done. In-game boosts and in-game currency paid for with money is just awful as an DLC.

In f2p multiplayer games I suppose it can be justified with "well the game is f2p and the developers have to make money somehow". But we get on a very thin line when the game is p2w and when it's not.

And as far as single-player games goes I suppose it can be justified with "I bought the game and if I want to just boost through it easily". But I just see that as wasted money and ruined game. For me to enjoy a game I need a challenge and the beautiful feeling of victory when I overpower that challenge.

And with kids you mean the kids that get hand on your Credit Card, or kids that want all costumes just because it's possible to get them all? I suppose it's the most profitable thing to them, but yeah it's really terrible that we won't see Ballad of Gay Tony equivalent for GTA V. I would mostly wish Rockstar would at least be more lenient with the mods, but I get that they have to be vigilant due to GTA online

I guess it depends on who is doing the justifying and who they're justifying it to. One could say that the mere existence and availability of DLC is indicative that at some point someone justified doing it. Why they justified it and under what conditions may not be known but they've at least justified it for some goal or purpose that they at least know internally at the company developing it. The ultimate justification behind the majority of DLC is "to make more money incrementally" and increase ROI on a given asset.

But in terms making DLC and making it available to the customers and justifying it to them I'd have to think whether any justification is ultimately necessary to begin with? It's not a precondition or anything, they can just do it like they just do already and people can either buy it or not. Their justification can simply be "because we feel like it" for example. Another factor is that even if some game company were to even attempt to justify DLC to their customers, just thinking of it in those terms alone would seem to suggest and even admit that it is going to be perceived by people as a negative period, and that justification is necessary. But, no matter what amazing justification someone could come up with, some might go for it and agree it is legit, and there will always be people who oppose it no matter what justification is being offered. People strongly opposed CDPR putting out DLC for The Witcher 3 for example even though it was completely free all along. There will always be people like that who justify their opposition to it with various assumptions about a company's intentions or other emotional factors too.

So in the end, I don't think anyone needs to justify anything really, they can ultimately develop a game and release it with or without DLC however they deem necessary or desirable for their own purpose, and gamers will either buy it and make it profitable or avoid it or even boycott it and make it less profitable or even a loss. I would say that since DLC has become a common staple of modern gaming whether it is free or of cost though that the gaming community as a whole has accepted DLC with open arms and so companies have embraced it with no intent to ever stop putting it out there.

In the end, justification might be wanted but it isn't necessary for it to continue to be something game developers use to increase profits from their games.

Having said all of that, I am generally not a fan of DLC either. I appreciate the free DLC from CDPR for The Witcher 3, and wherever possible I wait for 1-5 years or more and try to buy the GOTY or "Extreme" or whatever editions of the games I buy which include all of the DLC and expansions rather than buy a game and then get nickel and dimed to death by DLC. I do however like the oldschool style "expansion packs" that were popular in the 90s, such as "Broodwar" for Starcraft, which basically doubled the entire game in terms of gameplay, and found that the pricing on those was a great deal for what you ultimately got. What passes for DLC these days though is arguably a huge ripoff more often than not it seems - a huge cash grab. They may not have to justify doing it, but it doesn't mean I'm going to open my wallet to buy into it either.

So I completely agree with all of the points you raised about already-present, unfairly-priced, adds things that should be there already. If they're free DLC then it really doesn't matter and it's just a division of distribution and making certain things optional, but if it costs money then it sure stinks of "ripoff" IMHO, especially for cosmetic items and other things of pure aesthetic value, but also of things that really give the owner an advantage in multiplayer thereby causing everyone else to feel they need to go buy it too in order to level the playing field.

So I say - do not seek justification, seek other games that provide greater overall value for the money spent.

I *think* I am OK with DLC, provided that:
1. The game and its DLC are DRM-free.
2. The DLC can be disabled.
3. The developers don't use DLC as an excuse to make cheating/modding without it harder. (In particular, for the DLC to work, it has to include something you can't easily hack into the game without it.)

If the DLC has as much content as the old expansion packs,then yes.
I reject Day 1,Map Packs(looking at you COD),cut content(hello there Capcom) or skin packs(Minecraft).

They have said this? Damn. I was kind of hoping for a story-based expansion with the three existing characters.

I am very anti-DLC b/c I feel it's always stuff that came from the cutting room floor. I don't want to pay $30USD for garbage. However, if, and only if, the DLC brings something to the table worth it's money, I'd have no problem with it. As a way to kinda get you back into a game you already love.

The best example I think is Oblivion's Shivering Isles. This DLC was amazing and brought you a whole new world, new and VERY interesting characters and many hours of fun and exploration. Now if DLCs were like this, I'd have no problem with them, this dlc totally brought me back into the game for another billion hours. It served its purpose well.

However, a DLC like Hearthfire can kiss my ass. Gather fifteen million pieces of garbage for a house when I have a perfectly fine one in Markarth. And Solitude. And Whiterun.

Indeed. FO:NV has both good and bad DLC available. The expac ones were fabulous, the GRA and the day one stuff was pretty lame.

What about free DLCs that add only minor things to the game? (Like, for example, The Witcher 3's free DLC.)

Dude,Lonesome Road and Old World Blues were the best of the DLC,Honest Hearts tells such an amazing story.
Dead Money was pretty meh for me,but still good.

Most people are idiots that don't have 2 clues about how game development is done.

1. Which has been worked on for several months already, and finished just in time for the release of the game. You don't just leave people doing nothing at work once work on the main game is done.
2. Which does not matter at all, because the disc is just a physical distribution system and has been used so that users don't have to download all of the content of the DLC.
3. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
4. Who says that it SHOULD be present in the game?

If it’s free DLC, I call it "a patch".

A good example of this (even if not representative of "adding only minor things") is patch 1.42 for Icewind Dale + Heart of Winter, a.k.a. "Tales of the Luremaster".
Another would be most of the patches for Warcraft 3, adding new maps with each version.

How could anyone be against an extension of the game, granted it’s provided at no cost for anyone who bought the game?

There's way too much cut content out there including all of what you listed. It has got to a point where a lot of games are actually quite poor on release because of this. It's getting ridiculous when these publishers are actually harming their own sales with their money grubbing ways.

That said, DLC is also the new term for expansion pack and there are a good few of those still as Witcher 3 demonstrates. Expansion packs are always a good thing.

There are also plenty of DLC that only serve to augment the main game at a price that's reasonable given what's offered. But this can be a tricky balancing act as such things may have been included in the base game or added freely in a patch before now. So defining exactly where the line is crossed is pretty much entirely subjective.

It's a tricky grey area, but one that's resolved by the base game feeling like it's good enough value as it is. If that's the case then I reckon more people will buy DLC for that than for a title that's crying out for more content.