But there is a flipside to expansion packs for console games that aren't all smiley face emoticons and less than three hearts. Sure an upgraded camera for Ninja Gaiden was a great idea, but we can't forget, this was something that corrected an error in the initial game. The ability to fix games after they've hit store shelves is good in theory, but it also might spawn shoddy initial programming, especially if the developers can actually get paid for selling an "upgraded camera system," for example, through microtransactions... The extra maps in Halo 2 were also a good idea, but a month extra in the development cycle of the game could have seen those maps sold with the initial product. Why should people pay extra for something that could have, and should have, been included in the original product?

          The possibility for the developer to exploit the consumer by adding extras to a game after it has be purchased is gi-normous, mas-mongous, col-gantuan, or in simpler (existing) terms, a lot larger than one might suspect. While extra maps and extra characters would be a welcome idea to extend your favorite game's already impressive grip on your free time, it could very well be that developers will instead hold back key features, for future "microtransactions," that would otherwise be in the original game. Pushed back released dates may become a thing of the past with microtransactions, because developers would literally have the ability to sell half the game now, and the other half of the game sometime in the future. But each "half" might end up costing 75% the price of a regular full game. What's keeping developers like Valve from selling a game like Half-Life 2, and then 3 months down the road selling an "extra" weapon called the "gravity gun?" It would be a killer microtransaction that nearly everyone would get, but you would end up paying $55 for the game instead of the initial $50. What if some profit pushing nitwit from Nintendo is curious to see just how much gamers are willing to pay to catch'em all? What's an otherwise unattainable Mewtwo worth in pounds, dollars, or yen? Is this something that we, as the consumer, should simply trust game developing companies not to do?

          Now I'm not saying this is all a big conspiracy among the big three to push profits to new heights without legitimately earning it, but consider the situation. While there is a lot of talk about downloading patches, extra gameplay modes, multiplayer maps, characters, weapons, levels, and the like, there is absolutely no talk going on about setting any standards for initial game builds. Will 6 hour adventure games become the norm unless you're willing to spring for the extra super fun bonus quests? Will game testing departments be downsized with the added ability to simply sell an "optional gameplay enhancer" if fatal bugs arise with the game? Will the average number of levels in hack'n'slashers, first person shooters, and oldschool sidescrollers be much lower than we’ve traditionally seen unless you buy the extra levels at a "nominal" fee? With entire console libraries available for download on Nintendo's Wii, a section of Xbox Live literally called "the Marketplace," and with Sony actually promoting "microtransactions" as a selling point for their PS3, these are questions that must be answered.