Intel's profitability is mostly determined by how successfully they create value. If they can build a better chip than AMD, because they invested more money in research, then yes they can charge a higher price for it. If they do this in the long run, rather than crippling the company chasing short term profits, then they will acquire economies of scale because their leading technology position will (hopefully) hand them a leading market position.
You could argue AMD is evil for under-investing in research, or over-charging for CPUs, since AMDs CPUs are often offering you less performance at the same price. If they were you wouldn't even care that Intel was offering software upgrades because you'd only be buying AMD CPUs.
Similarly, the DLC mentality in games is partly driven by the rising cost of building games. Many games now involve a team of 100+ people working for multiple years full-time. By contrast, many popular games of the past were created by one person in 6 months.
Fortunately, due to economies of scale in the game market, you can now choose to buy new $10 games that two person built in two years through Steam / XBLA / PSN / Wii Shop, or you can choose to buy $90 games with $120 of optional expansion packs created by dozens of people over several years. You can also buy past hits that you missed (sega classics, etc.) for $1-5 a pop, a tiny fraction of what people 10-20 years ago had to pay for the exact same game.
Both gamers and CPU purchasers have never had it so good thanks to past R&D investment by companies selling amazing products at low prices. Contrast that with home buyers if you want to see financial manipulation and greed.