While much of what that video stated is true, he's speaking from a very biased standpoint and it's ruining his points. The video's creator doesn't know all that much about the bureaucratic side of the gaming industry, and how they are business ventures, rather than works of art. A blanket statement like (loose quoting here) "developers being pulled to work on DLC before the game's release rather than working on the main game is just as bad as cutting content" sounds asinine. When a particular, individual employee's role is finished in the main game, but the main game is not yet finished, yet the game's finanical plan includes DLC, of [u]course[/u] that employee should be moved to a stage of DLC development. In addition to that, ambitions like putting seven playable areas in the game will be cut down as deadlines near so that the game can ship; having a load of the work for new playable areas not yet finished is normal. They are not obligated to release every single bit of content that's ever been made in development, finished or not. And this isn't even including the rising costs of game software development and the business model created to keep home consoles alive. There is a massive overhead for AAA games on current-gen consoles, yet the appeal of cheaper, smaller mobile games and apps present an easier, safer money maker by comparison. Publishers cannot charge more than $60 for their title's base price; that would be suicide. Few would buy it because consumers have been conditioned to expect a $60 price tag. This is why Destiny, with its $500million budget, sells for the same price as the yearly iteration of Madden, a game notorious for making as few changes as possible from year to year. This is why DLC is part of the gameplan for all major AAA releases: they keep the introductory price low to gain as many users as possible, then release other content down the line to make up for further costs not covered in that initial price and turn a profit. This is the same way free-to-play works, only less extreme. If we, as a consumer base, want to stop having DLC cut from the vanilla game only to be released later, yet still expect top quality and bigger, better games to be released progressively, then we [b]have[/b] to pay more than $60 for the complete game. That's just economics. Personally, I prefer the current DLC method since, if I don't like a game, I've only spent a partial price and don't have to buy any DLC that accompanies it. Regardless, if the game publishers are going to actually [i]listen[/i] to our complaints, they need to be stated in a language they understand. Blanket statements made on a moral high ground with no sense of expenditures or the risks and rewards of an entertainment industry will never be considered by anyone who actually matters in these decisions. Furthermore, simply not buying DLC as a sort of "statement" will only tell those same people that that specific game was a bad business move, then they'll just pour money into another venture. Rather than change industry trends, it could potentially [i]kill the console industry[/i] and see a large scale deviation toward mobile markets, low cost apps and low quality development instead. The intentions of people like this video's creator and this thread's creator are pure, but unfortunately uneducated and misguided. We need more gamers at the top and fewer on Youtube channels and anonymous forums.