Long time listener, first time posting in the CAGbag section.
Why does Shipwreck stray from making an fun/dollar comparison when he talks about DLC? I feel like I take a lot more consideration in buying a 10 hour game for $60 than, say, a game like Bad Company 2 where I know I'll get many hours of gameplay from the multiplayer aspect. I personally feel the same about DLC; the whole thing feels like a way to get some quick cash. It cannot possibly cost that much money to produce more content seeing as how they already have the engine that produced the game. (I also fear that these companies may already have made the content, then just sell it later; in fact it's very likely).
Additionally, I find it very suspect that companies try and price DLC as high as even $5. Is it because these companies feel that their games are worth MORE than $60? It's possible, but I know one thing for sure. As an expanding industry, one day, $60 a game may not cut it with an ever expanding demand for high tech games that requires millions of man hours to produce. It's not that you can make an argument that they should just 'sell more', as their consumer base is only as big as the number of people that buy the consoles. And unless consoles become cheaper, it's not likely that the consumer base can expand enough to make a good profit on what is quickly becoming a costly risk. Also I should mention, it's not clear how much of a profit these companies make per game, but something tells me the retail stores benefit from a sizeable markup from each game sold.
In short, I feel that the DLC may be a hint of things to come in terms of game pricing; either that or a death to many, many small start-ups that can't afford to produce a bad game.