This is funny. I remember a couple of years ago when DLC first started rollling out in earnest, people on this very site were talking about the exorbitant costs associated with AAA development costs. In that discussion, it was more or less universally agreed upon that paid DLC would be preferable to publishers jacking up the price of the base games--I assumed that meant they could announce the DLC whenever the hell they wanted. AAA games on consoles and PC still cost ~$50-60, last I checked. Is not having this DLC going to affect the core game? Doesn't look like it to me. You know what we call DLC that does affect the core game, ie you only get half the game for the initial cost? We call it "episodic content". Seriously, what's the problem? Personally, I would rather pay $50 for a game and not necessarily have all the side and sub quests associated with it; I, like a lot of core gamers these days, just don't have the time to drop 100+ hours into a game to fully "complete" it. So why would I want to pay the extra $7 (in this case) for content I'll probably never see anyway? Let those who have the time and the money offset the cost for me.