The whole DLC debate is no different from the DRM debate for any game. People often will see DLC in one of two lights, either it being something that "should" have been in the game, or something that is completely unecessary and not worth buying. Furthermore, DLC used to be "free" and something that had no $ attached to it. After companies found out that people are willing to spend a little money (and for MW2, $15) for a few downloads, this idea became the new marketing kid on the block.
I don't think anyone has a problem with the concept of DLC in and of itself. It's when the companies start charging additional fees for the DLC that it becomes a problem.
Why did it become so popular? It doesn't stop people from buying the actual game itself. Since the actual game still represents the gateway for DLC, and where lots of money is made, its a win win scenario. People buy the game. Some people will buy games if free DLC is offered. In this case this poll does not represent free DLC, probably because Civ DLC is virtually non existant. No Civ game in the past has had DLC. Warlords, Beyond the Sword, and other expansions are expansion packs. Expansions are fundamentally different generally due to size or content. However, there have been mods for Civ 4, which also further lessen the DLC want or need for CIV.
It's a little unclear who you're referring to when making a statement like 'DLC is popular'. DLC may be becoming popular amongst the publishers, but I haven't heard of much enthusiasm from customers over the possibility of DLC - generally, it's dissatisfaction, particularly in the case of pre-order DLC specific to certain retailers. But they buy the DLC anyways, because they want the content and they have no alternatives.
Looking at other games, lets say TF2 (bad example because its the best DLC example). TF2 came out as a solid game. It did not need "extra" stuff. The community could already create custom maps, so basically the game was finished on release. Yet over the last year or two countless patching and additions have been made to the game for free. New weapons, achievements, different game modes, new maps, community events, all of this is considered DLC at this point when adding new content. Civ did not have anything like this beyond patching bugs and maybe balance changes. You had to buy the expansions for new content.
TF2 is a bad example also because of the differences in the way the game is played. Civilization is designed to be able to generate new maps and allows relatively easy modification of the game mechanics, while TF2 maps must be hand-made and the client/server architecture pushes mechanics adjustments just outside of reach of the user.
In short, Civilization did not have DLC because the areas where DLC adds the most benefit were also the areas where Civilization was already strong. The expansion packs like BTS added a great deal of mechanics adjustments that could not be released piecemeal as DLC, because doing so would easily unbalance the game (see the class updates for TF2, often leaving certain classes unbalanced until more updates are released).
Which brings me back to DLC. DLC is different for every game. You need to realize this when you sell games to your market. Its no different from a bonus deal, or savings that you might find in a supermarket (see buy 1 get 1 free type deal). Supermarkets still make money. You get extra stuff, which not necessarily increases your utility (fun/enjoyment) of the product. But its an incentive to spend whereas you may not be spending.
Except that charging for DLC creates a conflict of interest. Historically, companies would try to pack as much stuff into the game as possible, leaving DLC as the things they didn't have time to finish and releasing it later when completed. Now the companies are being given incentive to cut content out of the initial release, to sell it for money afterward.
Look at the uproar over the Bioshock 2 DLC, which was already present on the disc except for a few hundred kilobytes of data to unlock it. That's the kind of behavior that most people concerned about DLC are afraid of.
DLC being required for modding doesn't make sense. No game has ever required DLC to make the game moddable, much less ask you to cough up money to make a game DLC. If the game wasn't moddable at the start (something they are saying isn't true), then perhaps this would be the case. But this is so far fetched that it isn't even worth discussing beyond this as there is no factual precedence to point to.
It's not the requirement of DLC that people are afraid of, but the effects the presence of DLC has on the mod scene. If a DLC pack adds a new civilization, what does the mod maker do? Should he create a clone of that civilization, or ban it despite positive historical flavor? If he clones it, he has to come up with new assets, unless he integrates the DLC assets, meaning the DLC is now required for the mod. And of course, you had best hope that you don't get hit by a cease and desist for creating a clone of the civilization that doesn't require the DLC.
That's the kind of problem DLC imposes. The mod scene becomes a mess of mods that require DLC and mods that reinvent the wheel because the users don't have the DLC.
Another points from Lemon: Mods need to be sanctioned on Steam. This question has already been answered by 2K in other threads. Steam will not block or prevent the publishing of mods. Of course I don't know the details, but the idea that Steam is going to block some functionality of the game says that you don't understand really why they are using Steam, and that again this point has no precedence to indicate that it can happen.
Steam may not interact with the usage of mods, but will CiV itself have controls over the usage of mods? That hasn't been answered yet.
"Handling Fees" for mods. Again, never will happen.Mods can still be distributed via direct downloads off any site, just like this one, and 2k has confirmed this. No DLC in the world has ever been pegged with Handling Fees that weren't already included in its retail cost. Why? Nobody is going to buy a DLC that has "shipping fees, handling fees" associated to a digital piece of content that has zero logistical cost. It does not make sense. These points that Lemon bring up are all stemming from the initial misinformed preconceptions.
"Handling fees" is just another name for arbitrary charges on top of what the item should cost. Why does it cost $15 for a few maps in MW2 when they're remakes of previously developed maps for a new game? It's certainly not because of the cost of production.
Mods and DLC compatibility. DLC can be no different from expansion sets in the sense that ultimately its extra add ons to the core game. Like all mods from back to 1998, they need to either be updated to revamped to work with new core software. It has not changed since then, and this is how it worked in Civ4. There is no reason to assume that Mods or Expansions will mean the death of any mod, unless the author deliberately stops working on it. In addition, mods are free. If the software company has designed DLC to be unusable with mods, that is a problem they need to fix. This has happened in the past, no different from poor patching that creates new problems while fixing some of the old ones. But, unlike the other points, this can happen to anyone, but like the other points Lemon brings up, because it can happen to anyone (poor release code), its more of a moot argument rather than something specific to Civ.
It's the idea that there will be a significant number of DLC packs that it becomes a problem. Expansion packs aren't really an issue, because they're typically limited to one or two for a single game, and they're announced a long time before they're actually released. When you could have dozens of DLC with little notification beforehand, it becomes a full-time job just keeping your mod compatible, let alone adding new features to it.
It's the same problem that we've always had, except for the part where it's worse.
Last point from Lemon: Nobody uses your mods due to compatibility issues even though its the "best mod ever". At this point you really seem to be arguing one sidedly against something that cannot be confirmed yet, but can exist in any game, making the point moot. Its like the argument, what if Civ5 shipped with TONS OF BUGS. Its not worth our money! But then someone will say it will be fixed through patching. Or better yet, who is to say its going to be shipped with a ton of bugs. Yes we can point to Civ4 having tons of things that needed fixing, but can you say that will be true for every new game released out there ever? The fact that we expect new games to not have bugs means that we generally expect no bugs, and don't assume bugs will be present in these games. Anyways, back to the point: If you waste your time creating a mod that nobody plays, its probably "not the best ever". If the mod somehow cant work because its not compatible with the game's DLC, its probably not finished yet. If DLC prevents mods from working, then that's something that needs to be patched. Let's look at Civ4. There are tons of mods that work right now. Why would it be any different? Why would DLC be any different from expansions in a code form of view? It adds something to the game. Mods choose to utilize it or not. Mods that do utilize the DLC will require the DLC. Mods that do not, don't. DLC's generally won't add large complexity additions to the game like Espionage or Religions. Leave that to expansions, which generally overhaul the game and will be incorporated into modding.
This is an extension of my previous point: frequent releases of DLC imposes additional burden on the modders to maintain compatibility. It's like having a weekly patch for the game, except that instead of fixing bugs, it adds new content that you have to be able to accommodate. Typically expansion packs and patches are infrequent enough that the mod-maker doesn't have to babysit his mod to keep it working; the introduction of DLC can easily change this.
We're told CiV is supposed to be somehow special and can work around this. Until there are more details on how mods are supposed to work, there's no telling how things will turn out.
I think Civ is lucky to still have such a modding system, if at least on paper for Civ5. Few games allow us PC players to mod it to what we want these days. You should look at this from a positive perspective rather than negative.
CiV is lucky to have a modding system that we have no details about, beyond the idea that it's supposed to be great? I wouldn't consider ourselves lucky until we've seen it in action, because it's all too easy for something to go wrong. I'm being realistic here, not pessimistic.
Oh yeah, and don't forget: There is no confirmation that DLC is available for this game yet (the deluxe order edition doesn't count fyi).
If in-game content that isn't available unless you purchase and download it from a specific retailer isn't DLC, what is it?