About 48 years if I am correct, 8h/day - 5d/week ; )

Except that it's not really bad at all considering it's mostly overpriced costume packs no one needs. Call me when another company tries to sell their game's ending as DLC.

Technically it was fleecing but Jason had no choice; King Pelias ordered him to do it.

You made a good point.
It's not a luxury car, more alike a full spec common car(with tons of addons which adds up triple the price of the car itself)
And granted not that many people have a patience to restrain temptation when the "luxury car" can be acquired without much hassle.

To make things easier "It's a lure to the dark side".

As others said: it's not fleecing and not extortion. It's a pricing experiment and as long as there are buyers crazy enough to shell out that kind of money, there will also suppliers. Are gold coated cigars, that costs 40.000 € per piece an outrage? Maybe, but there are buyers. There are even people who buy air-guitars on ebay and who back joke projects on kickstarter and as long as there is easy money to be made from fools, there will be people doing it. And Steam catering to fools seems like a natural thing. ;-)

Was there any other example besides Divinity 2?

What's wrong with you guys? It may cost 180+ euros to get all the DLCs, but hey, they give the "Japanese Voice Option" for free!

*facepalm*

:DDDDDDDDDD

I should point out that all that option does is make it so the words don't match the characters' mouths.

Fixed that for you.

But if it was lip-synchronised it would definitely lose all the fun! :P

Well, you don't need to have them all. I actually prefer this thing. All DLCs are cosmetic with that game. If you want that specific shiny armor, you can take it, but it won't have any influence over the game play. It's basically like saying that Path of Exile it's free, but have few thousand $ of DLC, so the developers suck.

This is really not an example of an DLC that contains plot elements or game play, that's why i said that i prefer this approach. I also prefer the last Total War games, as they did something similar, and even if they included game play in their DLCs, they are not required in order to enjoy the game. There are more specific DLCs, of specific battles or troops. And i'm ok with that, as they can keep the base game price lower this way and the buyer can customize the purchase with what they really want from that game.

On the other hand, i blame things like Pillars of Eternity, for example. That's an example of a game that's pushing it's hands into your pockets. First of all, i'm fine with the base release, with 3 editions, all kind of extras, that's perfect. But the bad part it's the DLC that it's not included in any edition, and it adds game play. And the release time. They had the base game released in April 2015, and the first DLC in August 2015 and next one these months. And they provide new features to the base game, higher level cap, new zones, enhanced enemy AI.
This is the kind of DLC that you pretty much need to own in order to fully enjoy that game. Someone that owns the DLCs will have better game than you, without them. And they will probably keep doing this next year too. DLCs every few months. I honestly had big respect for this particular title, but lost it all due to these DLCs. It's clear that it was their intention right from the start. They probably had these two "additional" upgrades prepared right from when they launched the base game.
And it's truly milking, having in mind that their Kickstarted campaign was a true success gaining three times more money than they asked for. Those guys that got the $100 edition or they backed their campaign, they had to spend more for DLC 4 months after release.

Long story short. I'm fine with DLCs as long as they provide optional elements to the game, like cosmetic improvements. You shouldn't be constrained in order to buy them if you don't need them to enjoy that game. I'm not fine with plot parts being released as DLC. Not the case of the latest in your example. All DLCs are optional, they do not improve the game or the plot in any way. They just don't use an in-game store, so they put them as DLCs. It's fine.

Fleecing aside, I opened the link and the video starts playing. About 1 minute in, you see some guy doing these powerful moves that take out a whole mess of "enemy" in one fell swoop. Thing is, the "enemy" are pretty much just standing there in big clumps doing nothing but holding spears and whatnot, instead of doing pokey-stabby things that would warrant the Hero whupping some ass.

So maybe the fleecing is that the game is boring as hell?

They did, but they were released a little later than the first game was. Usually one year later or even more. I don't think that it's fair for them to release two expansions in 7-8 months after the release of the game. They are basically saying something like "well, we didn't gave your game complete, here are the additional parts for $".
And i don't find this content being "optional". In the past they were clearly named "expansion packs". And you were getting an expansions for the current game. Now they are all thrown in the same category, DLC, even if they expand the current game or they are just making it more appealing by being pure cosmetic. Now they are even selling "expansion pass". You know they will release expansions, but they ask you to pay without even knowing what they will contain. I think that the developers should be more fair in their approach.

Pillars of Eternity was on my Wishlist and i was looking forward in getting it on this sale. But when i saw the expansions, one already released, one that will be released in the future, i don't want to get involved into that. Because i expect that they will release expansions at the same rate. If that's the case, i don't see any difference in asking for an monthly fee in order to play the game and giving payed expansions every few months.

It seems that nowadays this is the business model that works but ultimately, you have the final word; Vote with your wallet! (which apparently you already do) ;)