Lot of good points, and I agree with mostly everyone here.
First, that Wired article is awsome. One of the best ones I've read. And the Yahoo article was good also, and a nice nod to a link of sources including that Wired article.
Second, about the 'double dipping' -- I don't mind it in certain cases. DLC is susposed to add content and more playtime on to a allready existing game. Mind you, a FULL and ALLREADY THERE game. Not a crippled game that the DLC is susposed to 'restore' to full (Capcom, I'm looking at you!). The problem is, greedy gaming companies and publishers don't see it that way. They see it as a way to get more money with shyrocketing gaming budgets and a limited source of income.
Mass Effect 2 is a great example. I bought the game new last month for $20. When I checked out all the DLC, I found out that all of it together -- all the extra missions and weapons and armor -- would run me about $30. I groaned at that, but in the end I paid it, cause 1) I had gotten the original game for cheap 2) I didn't HAVE to get the DLC, but it would add and enhance my gaming experience and 3) the price was now in line to a brand new game, and the Mass Effect franchise is one I'd be willing to pay top dollar for. And I was happy with the DLC -- all together, I spent about 68 hours on the game, and I can easily say the DLC added on about 10-15 hours of that.
I'm just waiting on the price of Mass Effect 3 to drop a little bit more (new copies can be had on Amazon for $42) so that when I get the DLC for the game it will again be a 'normal' priced new game, which I'm willing to pay in this case.
Skyrim I knew was a complete whole game and one I had to have launch day, so paid the $60 for it. And despite some bugs, it WAS a complete game. There's not even any DLC out for it. Madden I also plop down the $60 for each August cause I play the hell out of it and love it.
But if I hear a game is going to be crippled, or have a ton of DLC coming out for it right after launch, then I'll do what I did with Mass Effect 2 and just wait.
I'm only willing to fork down $60 for the top tier games. Everything else I'll either buy much later new, or wait a bit and buy used. Those articles make a great point -- the top tier market is alive and well, cause the $60 games are worth it. And the cheap IPhone and XBox Live arcade gmes are booming, cause $1-10 to spend on a game is nothing. But what about the mid range companies and publishers? They are dying, all of them. And it's not good for the gaming market. Why can't someone SEE that? We need more options, and another solution! I'm not sure what can be done, honestly, but something has to give. I don't want to see the mid range publishers and companies die.
Finally, I accept that when I buy a game on XBox Live Arcade and Steam that I won't be able to play it forever. That's fine. As godslabrat
said, anything in the $1-15 range is a 'service' game, where I play it, enjoy it, and don't cry if I can't play it 5 years later. But for $60, I damn WELL better be able to play that game for the next 50 years!