The question is not whether it's absolutely affordable, but whether it's relatively good value compared to what's offered by the competition. Rockstar, for instance, is selling GTA: San Andreas for $4; 20% what this DLC costs. Mass Effect 3 gave away DLC of this scope, not once but three times. If you wanted to spend $20 on a multiplayer team shooter RPG, you'd probably get better value from Mass Effect 3 than you would The Dark Below.

Not that I inherently disagree, but let's be real. Mass Effect/EA gave away DLC to save face after the shitstorm that the ending brought. Not because they're nice.

You're thinking of the single player DLC, specifically the "make the ending suck less" expansion*. I'm talking about the multiplayer DLC, all of which was (and was planned to be) free. The aim of the multiplayer game was to give people who'd finished the game a reason not to take it forthwith to GameStop, and thus drive first-party sales. Charging for the DLC would defeat this purpose. If you've not played Mass Effect's multiplayer, I recommend you do. It's very much like Destiny, albeit on smaller maps. Oh, and you get Mass Effect 3 with it. * something Destiny could do with.

No, I'm talking about all the DLC. Do you have any proof that it was intended to be free from the get-go? Because when the first part launched on 360, it cost $10, leading people to believe that it wasn't going to be free initially.

http://blog.bioware.com/2012/04/06/mass-effect-3-resurgence-pack/ There was never any kind of compatibility pack, because the multiplayer expansions were all intended to be free updates.