If people will pay 25 dollars for a mount - then what is wrong in Blizzard supplying the mount for them. Perma whats the point in arguing with you if you refuse to accept others' points. Maybe you better stop frequenting a forum that discusses Blizzards' games? That said - I doubt Blizzard will miss your service, as it seems to be you against the many. DRM is a huge bloudy issue and if you don't believe so then rather from being a voice of the community, your the voice of an isolated minority. Removal of online authorisation is nothing? (I may have misread that not sure if you mean singular or repetitive). And guess what smart-arse, it hasn't been released yet so no-one can judge. If Blizzard make each expansion's content as great as the first, then to be honest, more power to them provided the original game is worth the price. Lots of RTS add extra campaigns, units etc.
Who decides what is acceptable for the use of the term expansion and what isn't? I could rage 'omg Diablo 2 didn't let me play assassin without buying the expansion - Blizzard suck' and it would be totally akin to your SC3 rage.
Secondly, an expansion is adding extra content to the game. Nothing but good business sense and something that will rarely affect those whom are unexploitable (is that a word?! d) since most games offer additional DLC/PC which isn't ground breaking but ticks other boxes (in this case style). In doing so, not only do they increase longevity but they exploit the elasticity of demand for those who have an exploitable one. Micro transactions in mmos have been happening for a fair while now. Click to expand.What a load of boohoo, toys out the pram stuff.