For the first issue, I generally don't have a problem with these improved releases as long as the improvements are substantial and the price is minimal (Subsistence passes the first test but fails the second).
Really? I would think that $29.99 USD -- for the standard edition, at least -- is a fair enough price to be considered 'minimal.' Consider that Substance, when first released, was going for $39.99. When taking into account the number of substantial new features that's going to be included in Subsistence, I'd say the price is more than reasonable.
This has me wondering, maybe from now on companies will release good, maybe even excellent games, which perhaps were not quite completed as planned and perhaps not quite as good as they should be...then after sales have declined, BAMB! you suddenly have the "Limited" or "Special" edition which has all these "extras" and features which the first game should have had anyway! Why pay for a game once, when you can pay for it twice?
In Subsistence's defense, recall how the story goes; from Kojima: "Originally, for Metal Gear Solid 3 we didn't have any plans to release Subsistence. But when Kojima Productions went on a European tour after the release of Metal Gear Solid 3, there were so many voices from the European consumers that they wanted something like Integral or Substance, and therefore we decided to bring out Subsistence."
It's apparent that people *are* willing to pay for a game twice - and does go to show that there is a demand for this sort of thing. The rationalization of "double-dipping" is always a touchy subject, but you're at least given the options; if early adopters like the game enough and deem the extra content worthy, they'll buy the enhanced version, or at least find a way to play the extra stuff. If not, they certainly aren't forced into buying the new version.
And, if you're one of the 'lucky' folks who waited out this long by not playing the original, well, then you're in the best possible position, aren't you? ;)