But if we stick to the real world with real people in it - we have to consider what an expansion actually means - and how it's changing.
.
.
.
Can you let me have my opinion or do you have an argument with some merit to change it?
Well, you made my point for me, so that's my argument.
The point is the word has changed meaning. It used to mean an entirely new addition to a game such as a new landmass for (Action-)RPGs (a la NOTR or DiabloI/II) or a new playable "race" in strategy games (in the Settlers 3 : Amazons or Age of Empires I/II).
Now an expansion can be as little as a new soundtrack.
You do not need to like it and keep shut (I have never said that), I'm just trying to explain that your point (see quote below) is basically not applicable anymore :
While gaming could be considered a luxury, I don't consider milking your audience by piecemeal offerings sugarcoated as expansions to be a right that I care to defend.
Bold by me.
Of course, again, you can have your opinion and I don't mind that. I'm just saying that basically, times have changed.
You can try and fight it (and you might succeed), and that's fine.
What I do nowadays is basically only buy games on sale after a big bunch of expansions/DLC is already available.
I anyway do not have as much time to game as I used to.
One more thing, I am not trying to convince you that what Paradox is doing is fine per se, but rather to convince you that your view on expansions is basically
outdated (not wrong), which might be why you think that they are "sugarcoating" things as "expansions", which you believe to be much grander in scale than just some portraits.
Did this make sense ? Or am I just rambling ?