It would go against one of GOGs best selling arguments but I hate to say that I feel the same. Some old expansions is very hard to get and if GOG started selling them I would buy. Reluctantly, hesitantly and probably swearing but buy them I would.

+1.

Yeah, I had thought about that while I was typing up the first part of the post, but it's not really fair to physical buyers. That's why I mentioned a bit after about having users read and digitally sign a consent form before being granted access. There's also the possibility of using the forum reputation as a way to slow down users from immediately jumping into buying somthing they can't use, say they need a reputation of at least 5. It slows them down enough that hopefully they get help understanding what they're doing in that time span.

This would be easier to talk about if I was a social engineer but all I have is a little psychology with my eletrical engineering major. The gist of is that people are naturally impatient and impulsive at times. To change a behavoir you need to either force a limitation or make an option more appealing. I saw a video in my class a year ago that showed an escalator right next a large stairway, and almost everyone used the escalator. They changed the behavoir by turning the staircase into a working piano, thus making it more interesting and going from a 2% usage rate to about 80%. On this website the issue is that the easy choice is always there. Have money, buy. There's not much ability to change the appeal of something else to catch their interest, so in this case it's about slowing down the process to reduce impulsive behavoir. I mentioned before about making a tutorial window for new users to get them to look at the wishlist and understand what it is before jumping into the forums to request a game. Why not something else like that? The difference is it takes a wall of text to completely explain the fact that expansion DLC does not provide an actual game and that there will be difficulties in translating a digital copy into the same folder as the actual game if they already have it. That's kinda why I think it's better to slow them down by reputation at least so they garner some understanding of the website, and it gives them almost a week to get around to reading and discovering they may not be able to use the program.

They're going to have to break that taboo now that they offer new games, unless they manage to negotiate the publishers / indie developers into releasing all their DLC for free on GOG...

Yes, but anyway I hope not to pay for any other extras. It´s better not to include them.

Maybe EA don´t want to sell both for 5,99, so there may be no "no other possible way to get them", and why is better to charge , for example 9,99 $ for a game (some of them without expansions even though they have) than charging 5,99 for the base game and 3,99 for the expansions?

I have no problem with paid DLC / expansions on GOG.

The two ones I never want to see broken are:

1 global price
DRM-free

The rest are things I'm glad they strive for and wouldn't want to see them break for the sake of one expansion / DLC as it would become the first of many. But ultimately with the inclusion of new games that's practically inevitable now.

Me neither. My only concern would be unreasonable prices, but GOG's track record all but assures me that wouldn't be a problem. I'm all for even more content for my GOG games. :)

Now that they are selling new games this will change. But I don't think that this was/is a taboo on the same level as DRM-free + 1-global price as it has been pointed out that standalone expansions are already sold separately in quite a few cases. The only game violating their 1-global price rule is The Witcher 2 and that is by court order.

I think the not selling expansions/DLC as standalone products applies only to older games where GOG wants to sell 'complete editions' even if the game never got such a package originally. For these games, I would like to see GOG strive to sell 'complete' games, but if unable to, especially due to rights issues where the rights to the expansion is held by more/different people, then they can compromise on that.

However, selling such 'complete editions' is not even possible with new games. I think The Witcher 2 is set to get an expansion or two is it not? CDPR may believe in adding DLC for free (very nice of them), but they'll probably want to sell full expansions (totally fair). I hope GOG will balk if the publisher wants to implement predatory selling practices, but DLC and exp packs are not intrinsically predatory.

I don´t think they would add it for free. ;-)

This is what GOG is to me. If they ever lose this, they lose me as a customer. However, I get the feeling they see this as their core values themselves as well, so I think we'll be fine.

Yes, I also agree. Anyway, maybe many people in the US won´t agree on the first one...

Tis better to keep it all together as one bundled product, game with its expanded content.