[logicalmonster]

I get where you're coming from. I suspect that a lot of peoples' aversion to all DLC stems from really greedy phone games, where the trend has been to try and monetize either extremely basic functionality or the ability to play more often through gems/coins/diamonds/stars/etc. Good DLC like XCOM 2's War of the Chosen basically transformed and improved the experience of the entire game and can be very much worth it.

For many kinds of games with a level of complexity beyond a shoot-em-up, I feel like these kinds of games would be very difficult to make without a lengthier iterative process that probably requires an additional revenue stream.

As the example given, Paradox makes grand strategy games with intricate war/politics/economics and other game systems that are all interrelated. Ideally, a company has a lot of data and community feedback on the tiniest minute details to figure out what elements work and what elements don't and eventually refine the systems into the best possible version.

That said, I'm not saying it's impossible to avoid adding DLC and still fund quality long-term development. A different good game Project Zomboid has been in Steam early access for a decade and is in a very good state and still getting big new features: but those occasional indie gems are the exception, not the rule. With most of Paradox's games, you basically know that it'll be supported and improved for years specifically because of their business model.