@supertom221: I believe we call those "rose-tinted glasses." I still have games for Nintendo, Sega Genesis, the original Playstation, N64 -- I assure you those games did not routinely have 25+ hours of content. There are always great games that transcend the standards, and these exist on old consoles and new alike. But I don't get how calling me rich and spoiled will prove anything. Buying 4 new games in the US costs about the same as buying a new console here too...so that's no different. If you want to whine about the quality of the game, that's fine. I don't think you can honestly call Mass Effect 3 crap though simply because you don't like it - there's a difference between an objectively bad game and a game you simply didn't like. If you're honestly expecting pieces of media to entertain you "for years to come," you have unrealistically high standards for most games.

It's amazing how many people seem to be misreading this article. All the author is saying is people ought to be mad about the substantive issue (the fact that core elements are sometimes being left out of games and charged separately as DLC) rather than the delivery method (on-disc vs. downloadable). If people only have a problem with day-one downloadable and/or on-disc locked content, the publishers will have the devs make the content at the exact same time, hold onto it for 3-4+ weeks, and then release it as DLC. Complaining about the content being on the disc and locked won't result in publishers simply unlocking the material for free -- they'll just hang onto it for later and release it as DLC further down the road. I don't see how that benefits anyone - same cost, gamers have to wait longer to get the material, publishers have to wait longer to get their money, and gamers lose the space on their hard drives.

The argument about day-one DLC and on-disc locked content is all relative. If there's this much protest about it, the devs could just as easily leave the character/storyline/whatever completely out of the game in the first place. I purchased the DLC for Mass Effect 3 and, while interesting, cannot be said to be absolutely essential to the game itself. It's more of a travesty that all games are sold for the same starting price to begin with, because some games that have obviously had a lot of time and resources poured into them (Mass Effect 3) will have cost devs a lot more to create. There's so much junk that's released for $60 that people should be more angered about. Like it or not, the devs and publishers need to make money to stay in business or else we won't be getting solid games from them. And with the strength of secondary markets (such as eBay, Gamestop pre-owned, etc.), it doesn't surprise or offend me that devs have gone more towards DLC to ensure they're actually making money on good games. Gamers have just become a little spoiled with the value they're getting -- if you play Mass Effect 3 quickly, it'll take you about 30 hours. At $60, that's about $2/hour for the entertainment. That's a good value to me, anyway.

Okay, folks, this is an _editorial_! It's only his opinion. People are entitled to their opinions. If you don't like it, don't read it. Or post some kind of constructive response as to why you disagree (e.g., I want a handheld to play when I'm out of town without access to my PC or consoles, and thus the bus ride analogy doesn't apply to all of us). But simply crying like the little fanboy whiner you are doesn't get anyone anywhere.