Free MEd Course cost

I've watched a number of courses without doing the associated readings

To me, it is also poor—maybe even less than smart—marketing. If I am looking to purchase a course and see "Requirements" totaling several hundred dollars—in addition to the cost of the course itself—I may pass.

I could not agree more. I think the term "suggested reading" or "supplemental reading" would be much better (although I do concede that it should be required reading, because the course isn't technically a completed course without reading the content that the course developers included in the curriculum - its just an issue of terminology, not content), and would reduce some hesitation that may exist with a potential mobile ad consumers.

Then, they should not be labeled "Requirements". I understand the different between "Suggested Reading" and "See Also" in the MEd Courses, but the terminology in the course description is misleading and incorrect. Those resources are not "Requirements".

I would like the "suggested readings" and "see also" listed on the product page with the accompanying asterisk for not owned resources. I would like them divided like this in the plan details of the courses.

It would be helpful to see also the number of times they are referenced in the course.

All of this data seems available in the documents on the faithlife group page.

I've watched a number of courses without doing the associated readings

Then, they should not be labeled "Requirements". I understand the different between "Suggested Reading" and "See Also" in the MEd Courses, but the terminology in the course description is misleading and incorrect. Those resources are not "Requirements".

I've taken a number of postsecondary courses over the years without doing some or all of the Required Reading, typically not to any meaningful detriment to my learning (or final mark). At the same time, plenty of the Required Reading that I have in fact done contributed very little to my learning and even less to my final mark. Some Required Reading is worth doing, some isn't, and the percentage of each varies dramatically by course. I have never had any particular reason to expect different from MEd, especially when one doesn't have to do assignments, which is almost the only reason why Required Reading is ever actually required to succeed in any course whatsoever.

I would find it a source of frustration if I found that the package didn't also include the resources I needed to actually use the course.

Great question... and I don't know the answer. Hopefully we can find out! 

Let's say I buy Standard Gold in part because that base package includes Mobile Ed: CM328 Preaching the Psalms, and Standard Silver does not.  I would find it a source of frustration if I found that the package didn't also include the resources I needed to actually use the course.  Basically, I'm trying to understand how meaningful it is that the courses are included in the base packages.  If the required reference materials are included too, then it's arguably very meaningful.  If they aren't, and you have to buy additional resources to get full use out of the courses, then they don't do nearly as much to improve the attractiveness of the base packages.

I checked the course, and Gold includes most, but not all of the extra reading. Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis: Interpreting the Psalms, by the author of the course, is the most notable absentee. Anointed Expository Preaching is another, as are several Wiersbe volumes.

To be honest, I often skip the extra reading in MobileEd courses anyway. If a few readings are missing, you're not going to notice too much.