I've always felt that dlc should be strictly for extra content. There's no reason I should have to fork over $60 for a game, then another $10 to play it online, then another $15 for more maps (the likes of which everyone else online will be playing on making them essential to get good matches lined up) and then another $10 for the full weapon assortment or what have you. If I can't fully enjoy a game from my initial $60 then it's not worth buying. All the extra content and expansion packs and such are supposed to give you more of a good thing, not make it a good thing. I have no doubt that Skyrim is going to offer me a huge and fun gaming experience for my $60. I also have no doubt that MW3 is going to be a short but sweet game that will require at least an additional $30 in dlc to get the full experience. That's half the cost of a new game! I do agree with the practise of charging a few bucks to unlock features in a used copy of a game though. Developers do need to make money and if you're going to skimp on a used copy to save a few bucks, certain features shouldn''t be readily available out of the box. At least for online modes that require servers and maintenance to keep them running smoothly. The problem is developers trying to do that to everybody regardless of whether your copy is new or used. The only way we as gamers can really let the developer know that we won't stand for it is to not pay for the extra content that should've come with the game outta the box.