@dev-raid1: Really guys, you do the only thing that could possibly get you the sort of coverage that might change take-two's mind? I mean how else could they get what they want? By writing polite, individual letters to Take-Two? I have no stake in this, but bashing them for taking the only kind of action that devs and publishers EVER NOTICE seems silly.

@KotomineKirei: Most aren't sold at their original prices. Skyrim SE is sold for 40 bucks.

And again, I just don't see many people being hurt by forgetting to buy a DLC for a 5 year old game before the SE released. I mean, you'd have to be the kind of person that still wants to play Skyrim 5 years on and never got around to playing one or another expansions for it. That's a small number of people. And at any rate, that doesn't seem like "milking."

@RS13: tl;dr: Still don't see what there is to complain about.

@KotomineKirei: And it was stupid to criticize other publishers for doing that. Re-releasing improved versions of games for consoles that are not backwards compatible is customer friendly. Sure, it's also an easy way to make a quick buck, but I hold the apparently radical idea that there's nothing inherently wrong with that. This isn't exploitative DLC practices (well, unless you're COD) or misleading advertising. It's releasing a polished version of a well-received game to those who don't want to haul their old console out to play it again or who missed it the first time.

And as for the SE on PC: you had nearly five years to buy all the DLC and advance warning that if you didn't complete your DLC collection you wouldn't get the game for free. Skyrim and it's DLC were constantly on sale on steam and if you wanted to mod the game you basically had to have all the DLC anyway. Maybe you could scrape by without Hearthfires but then you had to shell out a whopping 5 dollars for the upgraded version--unless you got it on sale. (Which even if not a huge upgrade visually is significantly stabler than the original version and worth it for that reason alone.) It's just hard to imagine someone who bought Skyrim, didn't buy the story-dlc and is now upset that they can't play the polished up version 5 years later.

@Dav_id83: People act like Bethesda's done something egregious here. All they've done is re-released Skyrim with new graphics for the new consoles--like dozens of devs did with their games--and then bring it to the Switch. So, now you can play Skyrim on the go with buying a gaming laptop. And speaking of gaming on PC, they gave the Special Edition to those who owned Oldrim on PC for nada. What's their to complain about?

@Mogan: It's still bullsh*t given that it robs you of revenge in DH1. Either they're cannonizing a storyline I don't like as much or they're retconning away the one of the biggest moments of DH1. Either sucks.

@wanderz: Exactly.

@wanderz: "it's not paid mods.. it's basically additional and completely free DLC, if you don't like it don't get it." It's definitely not free. I'm actually optimistic about this, but Bethesda will have to follow through on it's promise to make sure everything works together.

@SerOlmy: **** cannon storylines. If your storyline branches, your sequel should accommodate that, and to this point DH2 *had*.

@Maize84: hopefully they'll sell a tinfoil hat so you and your character can match.