Interesting, its copying others and I have encountered similar already.
For example, the r-link equipped renault clio I bought my wife as her runaround car will absolutely be the last renault ever that darkens our fleet when it comes for replacement in a year or so.
While it was in for dealer servicing (done just to keep warantee terms valid and the resale values up, dealers suck at caring about their workmanship normally) I was told the option was paying a significant sum for new gps maps to restore functionality after someone hit reset and put the car back to defaults with no map data etc.
I opted not to do so, and after some tinkering the clio is runing menarus firmware on its infotainment system as a alternative os instead, I can put my own maps on there, and while I was at it I turned on the software disabled rearview camera option and added the 5e camera itself just because I could, and Ive since helped other owners through reflashing and doing same to their cars the same with glee.
Is it about saving money? not really if I add up my time to research and implement the hack to get round it vs the cost of the maps themselves I'm well out of pocket, I'm not saving anything helping the other owners as I would not accept any form of payment for that, its more a sense of injustice as I felt a bit violated as a (not) valued customer having spent a large sum buying the car to start with and it felt like a poor business model by them because options are supposed to cost more because they cost more to manufacture, and the greedy bastards have already been paid for the data that it was delivered with. It just feels dishonest no matter how I try to compute it and I won't support them with my custom in future.
You are free to price and follow as you see fit of course, but these are my personal experiences and reaction to a similar pricing model.