My original comment was literally 3 questions, asking if things could be considered 'special treatment'. The comment I was replying to drew the link between entitlement and special treatment.

No one needs to draw a connection between special treatment and entitlement. Entitlement is demanding special treatment. People are are "acting entitled" want "special treatment". In the context of this conversation there's no reason to treat them differently unless you're just trying to split hairs.

Meh. I don't consider PC a separate market,

I really don't know what to say. You could say that car and motorcycle sales aren't separate markets since they're both forms of transportation but you'd be wrong. There's facts and there's opinions. You could make a semantic argument that everything is part of the same great marketplace but PC game sales and console game sales are separate market segments with differing demographics.

I'm sure plenty of developers slice off content to sell as DLC.

And that's exactly what I claimed they did, that's what I said is exploitative.

I asked you to show me a game that concealed the DLC, such that a typical gamer might reasonably have thought they were getting that content in the base price.

Obviously no company is going to admit to outright fraud, which is basically what you're asking me to show you. It's also not what I claimed. The dishonest and unfair practice I was talking about is, as you said,

plenty of developers slice off content to sell as DLC

If they want to develop separate content to sell as DLC then that's different. Taking part of a finished product and deciding to upcharge for it rather than increasing the retail price, so that you can obscure the real total cost, is dishonest.