I've been noticing some conversations all over the net with some describing what they see in DLCs, what content should DLCs bring to a video game and all that good stuff. And it's got me thinking; what does it take for a DLC in a game to be per-say, good? Should it bring something new to the table? Should it be considered "free" for players? When is it considered when a company uses DLC to abuse the game e.g. ripping off content from the original source of the game and make it separate or putting a price on content that was once considered as in game unlockables way back when. Personally, now that it's inevitable DLCs are here to stay, I believe for any DLC introduced to a game, it should be something that was not thought for the original content for the game but something "extra" and "new". A good example is The Witcher's 3 Hearts of Stone expansion where they've pretty much added to what is defined as an expansion to a game; add-ons that doesn't have 'direct' tie-ins to the game's original content. Something that reminds us it's the same game we're playing but with new content for us to venture in be it another story to tell, more locations to explore and so much more. The expansion doesn't feel like it was cut from the game's already complete set. What's your answer to this question?