EEDAR: consumers have greater interest in DLC a month after game's release

That's cause people beat the game and want more content.

It would explain why the GTA DLC did as poorly as it did.

Between 1-3 months I probably still have the game. After a year with no DLC I've most likely traded it in for something new.

yup after 3 months I lose interest in the game.
I loved how Killzone 2 did the DLC it was 2 months after the game released and the 3 packs came out a month apart from each other.

Week 1 DLC is the devil though screw that.

Well, I usually don't buy DLC for many games, unless they actually hold my interest for more of the game, plus I'm more into single-player experiences, so I don't buy map packs or MP expansions a lot.

Example, I love Uncharted 2's single player. I tried the MP for a week or two, and it was pretty good, but I didn't get hooked, so I didn't buy any of the MP add-ons. I'd buy a single-player add-on though. Same for Red Dead Redemption. I love the game, and the MP is good. I got the free DLC, but I'm not so interested on the paid DLC if it's MP only.

And that's why developers are taking off some parts of the retail games, just to be sold 1 to 3 months after release, when it should be part of the retail game from the beginning.

I would disagree and say it's more to do with the fact that people are still enjoying the game they just bought and are willing to pay for DLC so they can continue playing fresh content.

When DLC is released for a game like a year later, I will have likely sold the game.

I wish this DLC craze would end. It used to be that a game that was released had to be of good quality in terms of both gameplay and content offered from the get-go to make it into the gaming 'society', though now that gaming as a large has become mainstream, we get stuff like this where many developers don't spend as much time as they would have needed to in order to make sure a game was going to please the niche crowd (at the time), then if that did well you could further their entertainment by putting together an add-on. Not this 'horse armor' or '2 new maps' dlc crap that fills system online stores. The worst case I will point out of recent is Gearbox with 'Borderlands'. The game was released and on the first day there were problems with people unable to play online together (keep in mind this game's big emphasis on online coop-play). For us PC players, we still have problems of crashes, poor performance on top-of-the-line systems, console-ization of the UI and a POV that was meant for television view. With all of that, a developer would typically had to have released patches to make sure their customers would keep faith in their company/products. This isn't the case anymore as instead Gearbox went ahead and focused their attention to DLC that not only didn't fix any bugs, but included DRM even for STEAM customers. This isn't to say all companies/developers are doing this, as Valve has shown wonderfully themselves (in the case of TF2). Sorry for the long and probably un-needed rant, but this business model seems to have been way too abused and needs someone to push the 'reset' button.

But they do not say if people want pay for DLC or get them for free.

I think I'll take this oppurtunity to complain about a few DLC packages that are irritating me.

Assassin's Creed II - You gotta pay to find out the whole story, lame.

Street Fighter IV - At least 20 bucks just for costumes. No modes, characters, nada. Just. Costumes. Wat?

Mw2 - 15 Bucks. That is all.

"is digital finally here?"

what's their idea of digital being here? a 1:1 ratio between sold retail copies and DLC?