(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); DLC's are made to add in parts of a game unobtainable without downloading after release. Maps are fine, because it's not something that really affects everyone. But when someone in Afghan shoots me(after DLC) with a skorpion and I'm sitting there with the shitty gUMP45 that I have, I will most likely rage quit.

DLC's IMO is made for maps. Not for perks; and not for guns. You shouldn't have to pay $15 to get 3 guns and 3 perks. That should be out of the package, and made free, sperately.

Opinions?
EDIT: You guys completely misunderstood me. First off, my info came from a thread in this very section, just look around. Secondly, it doesn't matter what ****ing gun I'm talking about. I say UMP and everyone freaks out. **** guys, that's not the point. The point is someone PAID to get a new gun, when it should of been in the game already..

If you have an UMP, and a guy kills you with a Skorpion, you fail.
And why wouldn't you like new weapons put into a game, technically its free, cause most DLC's are 15$ anyways.

HAHHAHAH good thing is that on the playstation store i have $50

where did u get this info from about having new guns in the DLC?

Robert Bowlings twitter I think ??
Not too sure.

im pretty sure than the ump is muuuuucchhh better than the skorpion

Ump is easily in top 2 SMG's

Its only $15. And anyway, I don't see why you would get any more mad than you normally would if somebody killed you. If you gonna complain about a gun, complain about noobtubes.

NO ONE has confirmed new guns.
I agree, new guns/killstreaks should NOT be added. I will buy the DLC, but, I dont want an unfair advantage

yeah but that whole perk stuff would be awesome, I know it could be unfair but if the balanced it somehow it could work out. Tho flashback maps would be nice