It deeply saddens me that we are here as a society, where no one values actual ownership and we're essentially a society of subscribers, renters, and borrowers. 15-years ago, people were up in arms about on disc DLC. For a bit, this practice was either kept on the hush hush by publishers or outright removed due to the backlash. Now, there are people who unironically get hyped for DLC, even when it's clearly being used in an abusive way. My faith in humanity has taken a massive hit over the past decade and all this certainly doesn't improve it.
Is there something inherently wrong with DLC? More content becoming available is generally more good than bad.
It's a subject that, from the perspective of a physical collector in particular, requires some level of nuance. Would most collectors rather have games be manufactured physically with all content on the disc itself? Yes—but patches and updates, let alone DLC, complicates that. Sometimes more up-to-date versions are released physically at a time later with these updates, but that more often doesn't happen for a variety of reasons.
All content included used to be the default. You'd go to a store, buy a game, and know that it contained 100% of the game. No cut missions, no locked costumes or characters, just the complete game you paid for. It was always a slippery slope to give businesses the right to axe content from games and charge more for it at a later time. DLC is never part of that default, out of the box experience and therefore it will never be a permanent part of it. Depending on where you purchased it, it may not always be available to you either. Most of all though, I just don't like my games cut up like that, not even a little.
But in the modern gaming landscape, DLC is pretty much synonymous with publisher greed. I don't feel like what Take Two is doing day one with GTA6 can be described any other way.
