upselling should also be avoided when the additional content could give an advantage in multiplayer. Battlefield is a repeat offender but at least if your competent it doesn't detract from the carnage significantly.

its going to be a continuing problem because these kinds of setups are going to lure potential investors.

How are you going to sell your game?

$30 on steam.

What about extra/addons/expansion/dlc?

Our research has shown that level headed customers don't like this, we will make a faithful sequel.

That will get you the response, "Well, all the other studios are doing it so we will invest our money there were we are more likely to get a bigger return".

Unfortunately level headed customers are in the minority these days.

What about extra/addons/expansion/dlc?

I wouldn't put "expansions" (even downloadable ones) in the same category as extra/addon/dlc.

Technically, "expansions" are DLC, but I think what annoys many gamers is how piecemeal the DLC is, compared to say, major expansions of years past (which, having to ship on CDs and be sold in retail stores, were significant additions of content), like ye old Age of Empires expansions (e.g. Rise of Rome).

Take Dark Souls DLC for example - players don't complain about that, because it is literally an expansion of the world, content, and gameplay. Not just a few items that a single dev spent two hours on and is charging five bucks for, and not something that feels like it should've been in the game originally.

I often see, "Would you like GameX's soundtrack with GameX?"

And I think, "The soundtrack is already in the game, and they just made the music in-accessible so I have to rebuy the same music twice."

Yup, removing sound tests is such a dirty tactic.

I often see, "Would you like GameX's soundtrack with GameX?"
 
And I think, "The soundtrack is already in the game, and they just made the music in-accessible so I have to rebuy the same music twice."

Yup, removing sound tests is such a dirty tactic.

Not saying that it's good practice, but this is "pretty normal".

Has been that way with movies for... for... forever? You buy the VHS tape, DVD, BluRay, whatever... and you would like to have the music. Well, you gotta spend extra money on the soundtrack because they've made sure sou aren't getting a complete, no-noise-add piece of music to listen to. In some way, it's kinda justifiable, too.

What isn't justifiable is that you pay extra money for the soundtrack, only to discover that the soundtrack does not contain the most interesting music piece. Been that way with Rainman, Mission Impossible 2, and 28 days later. There's probably more examples, but those are the ones I immediately remember.

In MI2 there was a rights lawsuit over the "My grandma told our grandma" freeclimbing scene song, but that seemed to be no hindrance to include it (with a different singer) on the Rainman soundtrack. Which, on the other hand doesn't contain Raymond's theme (other than as a 20 second passage in "Leaving Wallbroke"), grrrr....
What's the hindrance to obtain East Hastings, I wouldn't be able to tell... full f#a#inf album is meanwhile on Amazon Prime for free...

So, to review, we've gone from being able to play game discs on CD players, having dedicated listening modes built into consoles, and having sound tests to gambling on a publishers/composers releasing a standalone soundtracks. In the event that such a soundtrack is released, it might even cost more than the game. Moreover, unlike many mainstream albums, it might not be possible to buy individual tracks.

There are certainly ethical ways to monetize music separately. Some game composers include remixes in the standalone soundtrack not found in the game. The music industry frequently publishes songs on YouTube, relying on ad revenue. I think they can even make money if someone else's video includes their music, so that could add up. Maybe the game industry is trying to imitate the wrong industry.

If customers are willing to repurchase their games for later platforms, it's reasonable to infer that some of these same customers are unwilling to pay out extra for a standalone soundtrack. Finally, a company would be foolish to believe that customers don't realize when they are losing functionality. The annals of gaming are lined with comments posted by gamers who have been burned.

I'm definitely with you about how some tracks are mysteriously missing from soundtracks.

Creating extra remixes costs the composer time, and probably isn't going to make the developers any money, so isn't likely to be relevant.

Ad revenue from videos on YouTube is worthless. Unless you're seeing literally millions of views it's pocket change. Google abuse their monopoly position here.

I have no problem with soundtracks being sold separately - but again, this may not be giving the devs any cash, just the composer.

Creating extra remixes costs the composer time, and probably isn't going to make the developers any money, so isn't likely to be relevant.

The specific reason I mentioned this is because some composers choose to go this route. Jake Kaufman is one example that comes to mind (And, no, I am NOT referring to his covers of other games' tunes.).

If composers are independent contractors, it is likely they will have gaps between projects. Those gaps could be the opportune time to compose remixes. It needn't really even be remixes. Sometimes composers/publishers will release tracks not used in games as part of standalone soundtracks, suggesting that the tracks are already created, so there would be minimal time investment.

Ad revenue from videos on YouTube is worthless. Unless you're seeing literally millions of views it's pocket change.

If one is relying on a small number of videos, that's probably true (Wasn't it $6 per 1,000 views?), but a skilled composer should not have to rely on a small number of videos. In addition to ad revenue, YouTube has a donation feature integrated into their site.