I'm actually pretty broke. I'm limited to one game every two or three paychecks. (which is about all the extra spending money I have, and will soon have to get Christmas gifts, so probably no more games for awhile either.) By game, I mean a game that's greatly reduced in price from a newly released game. I just bought Resident Evil 5 last night, it's probably the last one I'll get until after Christmas. Got it for $37 from Newegg; free shipping.
I'll probably wait until it's around 37 or less on Newegg, it's already dropped in price once since it's release on there. Though I might wait longer, if there are rumored expansions or any such thing by the time I'm ready to buy (as I like to buy that type of stuff in future "goty" type editions.) Plus I have other games on my list that were released first.
NWN and BG2 are terrible examples. You're using expansions as your key argument for paying for extra content, the problem with that is I'm not making an argument against expansions. I think expansions are great. It's only when the initial game is half finished and the expansions finish what the game should have been, or when there's DLC that you must pay for that should have been a part of the game initially. In most cases, it's DLC that should be a part of the original release, or should have been free content added in a patch down the road. Or how about when you buy an FPS with a tiny selection of maps for multiplayer, and have to buy more later to get the selection you should have had to begin with.
If the extra content isn't a big deal, why wasn't it included in the regular release?
I don't look at it the same way you do. If there's not much to the extras, then they should just be included. However, if there's a lot of content in the extras, but the initial release is a full enough game already (not unfinished), then it should be DLC or expansion, etc. It's when the content
is substantial that there is good reason for it; just so long as the initial release is a finished game.
I don't have anything against limited editions or other special editions, however. I think that it's a good marketing strategy and adds a bonus for hardcore fans. Especially when they come with physical products that are exclusive to that edition. Although I find it lame when a single game has multiple special editions... that's going a bit far (with the exception of expansion(s)+original type of editions).
You made a topic about Blizzard, but are still talking about Dragon Age and Bioware. What you're not understanding is that my statement did not directly target either. Unless you're referring to "Bioware isn't Blizzard." In that case, you quoted the wrong statement in your initial post: "I personally think more companies should take a page out of Blizzard's book." Anything else was your assumption. "Bioware isn't Blizzard" isn't demeaning Bioware, it's praising Blizzard. If that's the explanation you really wanted, then there you have it.
