Other than the ridiculous price their editions are
fair, while cutting content which could just as well be in the base game, in order to justify a more expensive edition, is less so. There should be some effort being put in to some extra content really not belonging into the base game to make this work for me. The way it is it's still a sound offer.
Some extras will be
semi-exclusive to backers or people placing preorders, there is always someone among their ranks sharing it. Shadowrun is a prominent example with a long list of unlock codes having been shared. As far as I know there is an official release now (also here on GOG) containing all those extras. Whether it is worth it to place a pre-order on future promise of story DLC is difficult to answer. It's always going to be a gamble. DLC can be very short or introduce changes which ultimately ruin the experience playing the base game which would make it a waste of money. Also there is never any guarantee the DLC will be released.
Not only AAA-level games are offered in three (or even more) editions, milking the customer more than actually adding some tangible value when purchasing any edition containing some extra.
A random example how this edition-business is just scummy business tactics to maximize revenue. Base game, Deluxe Bundle containing base game + extras and a DLC bundle containing the base game (even that's not the case with some publishers ...) plus any number of DLC but not the extras. One doesn't have to do the maths to see how these editions are overpriced and should not be bought in the first place. You can buy an already expensive edition and buy the DLC extra, you buy the base game and DLC, the Deluxe to also get extra content, DLC seperate or the bundle. Lots of options where you waste more money that this content is actually worth.
I wouldn't complain about this if the price for the base game is deducted if this is what's been decided on. Then you can maybe decide to just get the deluxe pack or dlc pack for some extra amount of money, or one of the higher editions available and again, for the extras and since you paid so much money already, you get %-off if you also decide the extras are worth it because you collect those. A fair way to make money, when base games are included, could involve the option to also buy this base game once more to share the code with someone else who might like to get it. There are likely many more ways to make this a great model to both get what you want, without having difficulty to decide what version you should buy and whether it is really worth it. This 'business-model' would then be rewarded with a more just rating that 1*, for the reason of this model of milking money off of customers.
My decision is that I will not pre-order and wait until it is available on a sale a year or even later from its initial relase. I do trust that this is going to be a good game, at best akin or better than S.H.O.C.K. (my personal favorite in the franchise), but don't for bugs and (poor) performance and other issues that's been present in all of the earlier games in one way or other. It's not because the editions are so expensive, the release is still a year away, but the fact that each time I bought into, or purchased a game after release when it was already available, it turned out to be a horrible experience. Take Wrath of the Rigtheous for an example or CP 2077 for another, and that's only what can be called AAA-releases. In other cases, like Plane Mechanic Simulator, that's still sold for a ridiculous price, development ceased (nothing but a scam that's still being driven hard by the publisher - worse on Steam than here), anything but waiting is a sensible measure. If they desperately need money, they should look for investors, instead of making money on pre-sales and promises, which can be broken at any time.
--
Donations:
Even though you don't seem to wish to discuss donations to
a good cause - it's better not to donate any more money at all at the moment. This is because charities have too much money now and they are unable to spend it on that cause it was donated for. Ultimately, each additional amount donated now will hurt them and will not reach the people for which it's been collected, so rather start donting food or goods instead of money.
This was also the case with the 福島第一原子力発電所事故 (The Fukushima nuclear desaster) and other even worse events, opening people's hearts and purses, having them donate millions. Eventually there is more money that can't be spend, hurting the charities - which is owed to their policies and regulations more than someone trying to missapropriate money ... Such cases do exist as well but in general most charities are honest and try to make best use of the money donated for whatever good or just cause it's been given them... 
