No, in order to fairly compare the dlc content you need to compare it with a game of similar design. An offline game can have a ton more content easier because it doesn't have to constantly be interacting with other people on a server eating up a ton of data. It is much easier to have bigger packs of content when only one person can play it at a time...

Guild Wars 2 is a free to play MMO that has Free events with more content than this expansion, I was a little bit bummed with the amount of content and lack of depth, but not nearly as bad as the TC.

No, please dont bring up online games that have cash shops. Thats a different business model. I would say borderlands is the most comparable.

Nope. Don't think you're right about any of that. Additional geometry, textures, and stories when your multiplayer code is already written don't cost you anything. They're just lines in a resource database you've already set up. But if you need an example, look to borderlands I and II, multiplayer games that offered much more in their DLC. This $20 major expansion opened up two rooms and a hallway, obsoleted the best part of the basic game (VoG) and replaced it with something shorter. I don't know how any of this is defensible at really, ANY price-point, but not particularly at 1/3rd the cost of a new triple-A title. One would be better off not buying the next 3 DLCs and then purchasing a new game.

Yeah... but the difference is with skyrim you have the entire team focuses on the single player game just in different teams focused on different sections. In a multiplayer online game you have multiple teams working on different procjects that don't ever interact with any other aspect of the game but still have to take up space. ie: the crucible and crucible gametypes damage raitos etc. In a game like skyrim, every single person is working on something that effects the story of the single player game, because thats all it is. I would love to go into numbers of how big the companies are and how many people per team etc, but I am at work and have a meeting for the next few hours so that isn't somethign I can do this second.

I still think you are wrong about how this works and somehow BL2 manages. If they can't afford to have a content team produce content, additional geometry and more missions than these three lackluster ones, again, what is the point of spending $20 on this. For 1/3rd the price of the base game, I'd expect another planet to open up and 1/3rd as much of everything that was in the original game - pvp included, if not more because all that groundwork is already laid and they've largely switched to support freeing up resources for additional development (which is probably all on Destiny 2 instead of Destiny 1 expansions). This was 1/3rd the cost of the original game IN ITS ENTIRETY. Other games, single player games, and Borderlands, managed to produce amounts of content where that price actually makes sense. Instead Bungie released a mediocre, expensive DLC a mere *3* months after releasing an unfinished (well, at least short and repetitive), mediocre game and promising to flesh it out over time. They also obsoleted good parts of the base game (VoG), created a timed lock out for players that don't buy the DLC (dailies and weeklies) and added two new currency types that require arbitrary amounts of additional grinding. What part of this is screaming "good value" to you? To me its screaming "We're lazy and don't want to devote any more resources to expanding this game than we have to to secure a funding stream so we'll put player advancement delays in and hope nobody notices." "the crucible and crucible gametypes damage raitos[sic] etc." ... is already done and paid for, part of their maintenance costs - their choice not to have a subscription so already factored into the price of the vanilla game. Adding a new map doesn't change any of that. If you are saying they diluted their teams to the point that they can't produce an engaging story-line because they added a PvP map, I'll say "well, that still doesn't mean its worth $20" Do you honestly think this expansion is $20 of good? Their business model and ability to staff teams and devote too many resources to crucible balancing tricks really isn't my problem. I can't help but feel you are bending over backwards to defend and make excuses for what is a really, really, really poor example of DLC. Either the design of this game is such that it tries to be all things to all people and fails all of them, or they can't sell anything that I can point to that is worth the money at this price point. I won't be buying future editions if this is what all the expansions look like and Bungie will have to figure out what to do to stay competitive with games that can offer me value. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/12/the-dark-below-dlc-highlights-the-worst-parts-of-destiny/

I think theres actually 4 missions in the DLC ;) Other than that I actually hmmm... understand your point of view. Maybe Im defending it because: - bottom line is, I like the new raid etc. - 20 bucks is still peanut money (for me) - I dont like borderlands In other words I kind of agree with at least some points you have made but still, its not a lot of problem for me.