I feel a massive disturbance in the Force, as though Susan Arendt's paycheck suddenly started getting paid by EA. (Caution: this is a joke.)
It's all very well to point out that there is a certain level of control given to gamers as to whether or not they purchase the game - and indeed, some will take advantage of that control by not purchasing.
However, I would wager that statistically, the great steaming majority of consumers do not read gaming media, and thus have no awareness about DLC or the strong possibility that, say, a Bioware game will have an extra feature that you need to install on top of the game if you buy it new. They may then buy a second-hand copy and realise later, much to their dismay, that buying the new copy would have given them much better equipment.
In short, then, this article's failing is that it takes the standpoint of someone who does read a lot of gaming media, and forgets that the great population of gamers fails to keep up with said news. Which brings me to Slycne's point rather tidily:
Slycne said:
Sure I'll bite. It's not exploitative. Is the price point too high, definitely, but a smart consumer shouldn't pay out for it. Not informing someone beforehand that they have to pay extra money to unlock multiplayer would be exploitative.
Actually, they're usually not informed until they open the container. So...
yes, it is exploitative.
The exploitation here is not that people have to pay more in a transaction they don't have to have, but that this part about paying more for the total possible content of a game is either written in the fine print or isn't even there, meaning: buyer beware. There is no doubt who benefits more greatly from said exchange - clue: it's not the gamer.
Gaming is a business, and it's not a "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory" to believe that business has never been fair, especially regarding multinational bullies like EA, who do things like design the Download Manager that crashes other games. Understanding and criticising the less ethical actions of such companies is called consumer conscience, and it's time that people stopped mocking it, however innocent the reason.
If people want to protest by not buying the game and criticise the company behind this decision, good for them. It's not up to this magazine or any other writer to label them "whiners" or anything else. Such activism keeps industry figures honest and challenges their authority, meaning that it benefits everyone inside and outside of it. If you are criticising people for actions of noble intent, then it is you who is the whiner.