Does DLC Make Games Too Long?

Note that I don't always feel that way. Plenty of games get boring/repetitive long before. And the inverse is also true, I've also played some sequential games in one piece (such as the Baldur's Gate Mod that combines all the games)

Exactly the same happened to me, finished it a couple of days ago and I think it went on too long. Even more so because after doing the DLC stuff as soon as I was able, the last third was steamrolled by the op gear and being overleveled.

In RPGs and loot based progression, I think that what BG2 did (adding throne of bhaal after main game) is the way to go. You have a proper ending, can stop if you want and resume on the next bit of the game and your level/gear is adjusted to the new content.

It happened with me while playing witcher 3 dlc. I did almost everything in vanilla that I felt exhausted to continue. The best thing I started doing after that experience is taking a week or two long break after completing the main game before jumping into dlc story packs.

Yes they add 30 min to 2 hours shitty game experience but dude you should skip those DELUXE SHIT PACK OR GOLDEN DILDO EDITIONS because all of the DLC's are shit and boring!

In general, I agree.
I can name a number of games where DLC were unnecessary. Batman: Arkham series, Dishonored, Kingdoms of Amalur come to mind, even Skyrim to some extent.

I disagree about PoE though. I think the game isn't really long as it is and White March was a nice addition that was well written and didn't feel out of place. In PoE 2: Deadfire though, the DLC are easily skippable, as they don't add anything of value to the game that was already too long and felt dragged out without any additional content.

Had the exact same feeling playing through AC: Origins. By the time I completed the main story and all the original side quests, I was so tired with the game but still wanted to 100% the DLC for the achievements. I skipped pretty much all of the dialogue and cutscenes in the DLC and rushed through everything, not even looting containers anymore (except when necessary).

Depends on the game and depends on the approach the developer has towards DLCs. I think generally fewer, but bigger DLCs are good. I am not a fan of religating 1 or 2 side quests or weapons as extra content and than selling it as DLC.

I like to play games full version meaning at least for me game + dlc. If i play games with dlc in it, i tend to finish it but if i buy dlc separately i need to like it really much to play that dlc or else i find it too boring to continue. I don't really drop games that much but releasing a dlc months after takes away the fun for me if i bought it early. Main reason for me that i have too much games to play.

It probably works better when you get to play the dlc as they're released, and not try to chug everything at once. Also, if the game is already really big, like The Witcher 3 or AC Origins, then it might be more of a problem than in other games. I say might because, for me, it really wasn't a problem in The Witcher 3. I finished the main story and happily moved to the dlc, and completed that as well. Besides, if the game gets tiresome before the end, it doesn't really matter if it's a long game or not. This happened to me in Deus Ex: Human Revolution Director's Cut. By the time I was about midway through the boat mission, I just started feeling the game was dragging on and on. After finishing it and doing some research, I discovered that boat mission wasn't part of the main game once it came out. It was a dlc that they stitched into the story in the re-release.

I'll never understand why DLC are so popular, most people don't even finish the base game.

AAA's are already too long,the phoned in DLC's that add nothing of substance is just icing on the cake.

You forgot a "both" answer.

If it's a game I like, I can never get enough and want more DLC (Borderlands 2 and AC Odyssey are good examples for me). If it's a game I'm not as into (Warhammer Chaosbane, for example), then I usually only care to finish the base game.

As someone who generally doesn't play very long games (mostly nothing over 35hrs), DLC can be nice, but can sometimes give me the feeling that the game wasn't complete without it. Super Lucky's Tale, Little Nightmares, and Q.U.B.E. 2 are recent examples of games I've played where the DLC actually makes me feel like I didn't buy a full game in the first place.

So, I'm more against DLC being a separate component to the main game especially when the DLC outshines the main game.
For larger games, I usually just get overwhelmed by the huge scale and give up on the game long before finishing it.
I also dislike it when companies decide that paid DLC needs achievements, to really piss off 100% acheivement hunters like myself...

For me, DLC are like a breath of fresh air. They always add something new/cool. It can be weapons, armors, expanded story or beautiful locations.
Also White March is insanely long (probably one of the longest dlc I've ever played). But i don't really agree that it makes the game longer. For me the only thing that counts is if I really enjoy them or not. White March IMHO is far better than the base game. I really liked the first missions where you need to fight horde of ogres as soon as you begin the dlc. Also The abbey of the fallen moon was really insteresting to explore. The last fight with double dragons on the hardest difficulty + solo was an amazing experience for me. I really like hardcore runs, where you are limited to one save and if you die it's over or you just can save a few times. Dunno why, but doing these gives a me pleasure after beating the game. Like Akuma in Evil Within, Grounded in TLOU, Hardcore in Resident Evil, and this in Pillars of Eternity.

WIth that being said I really like if the dlc is expanding the story, adds something new, not repeats the same thing.
Examples of a good dlc are: Frozen Wilds of HZD, Witcher 3 dlc, Any dlc of Soulsborne series, Left Behind of Last of Us, White March ofc, dlc of Bioshock series, dlc of Dragon Age series (imho even dlc of Inquisition are far better than the base game).
Examples of a bad dlc are: Any trash that Ubisoft makes, I had bought the season pass for Watch Dogs 2, completed the game and I don't even remember which mission was from a "DLC". Adding a one new mission, which you can beat in 1 hour (and selling it for 40$) is a shitty practice.

It depends on the game, I think; ideally, a game should have a vision of exactly what it wants to be and how long it is best to spend on that specific experience, so DLC would be a good way to wear out that welcome. I feel this way about most post-game content, too; if it wasn't worth existing in the main game, why should I care about it after the evil big-bad has been slain and the world has been saved? Then, you have incredibly notable exceptions like the extra area in Final Fantasy 5 Advance, where you're taking on a much more ancient, but long-dormant evil, so it was a less immediate threat, and the actual content was very engaging and unique. How much they want to rake your wallet over the coals for it aside, I think DLC and post-game content are basically the same thing, and equally unnecessary. Of course, I think that DLC as a concept is flawed, because it means that you are buying an incomplete game. Ideally, it could've been used to prevent things like Capcom selling 5 different versions of Street Fighter 2 with slight tweaks and enhancements, but the entire industry has proven that that's not what they're going to use it to do.

tl;dr If your game is really good, but you have more ideas for it, that's why sequels are a thing.

same with me...
as long the main game finished about 16+ hour, 1 or 2 DLC is fine. or when the game were just that good, more dlc is better
but like you said, game like borderland or poe, both main game take so many times, it gets boring just to play the main game not to mention dlc

but there's also exception, that is gameplay
right now i prefer some FPS or ARPG
FPS since it's not that long to finish and even with some DLC. of course if its too long then it does get boring (like wolfenstein 2, borderlands)
ARPG is my best of both world, not to mention the game can be played whenever. when i had the time, i can play for hours, if not 30 minutes is enough and i can continue whenever.... who cares about story, just steamroll the map and you'll get it done

I don't think making something too long has ever been my problem with DLC. I mean, I have a bunch of other problems with them like payment-gating achievements, sometimes feeling completely unnecessarily tacked on to the base game just so there's something there to extract extra money from the customers and occasionally being MEGA shady (XCOM 2, why is your obnoxious-loading-times fix locked behind an expansion that's as expensive as the base game!?)...
But length? Not really. I'm pretty tolerant to games being long as long as I don't dislike the whole experience. ^_^'

For me I think it's the mindset more than anything. I tend to like when DLC can be played as part of the main game, rather than doing it after you've already reached an ending so it flows together and feels less tacked on/long. With Dishonored I loved the main game and it became a new favourite, but by the time I'd beaten the story I felt closure and mentally needed a break from the game (and I'd bought the DLC a few months after beating the game so wasn't in the mood of getting back into it after being so invested for a couple months).

Whereas DLC like from Don't Starve which change how to play the base game are easier to get into and enjoy personally, since it's basically more of the same of a game I love. So there is no need to get into the flow of the story, can just pick up and play.

I recently got burnt out during the Borderlands 2 DLC but I think that's more because I played all day and then binged Tiny Tina the next, which was fun and a seriously awesome setting but loooong.

I don't think there's a universal rule there. I mean, even in a game I'm playing right now, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, there's a DLC done wrong (it's literally more of the same), and it is a bore indeed. On the other hand, in the second DLC we are thrown into a bunch of completely new settings, and as a result the game becomes almost as fun as it was in the beginning 150 something hours ago.

Depends, I personally enjoy the gameplay of Borderlands, so I crave for more DLCs actually (especially quality ones like Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep)

For games that I'm not that interested in, I probably won't play the DLC at all :p

Same here! I had had similar experiences several times, and have since learned to only install the base game if I can, play that completely, then take a break before contemplating any DLC's. I'll generally continue with a DLC if I was really impressed by the base game. (Of course, there are exceptions -- some notable ones are for games where almost all the reviewers say to play the game with the DLC because it adds basic functionality that was missing from the base game.)

For what it's worth, I had also rushed through White March 1 & 2; I felt they were okay DLC, slightly above average, and I probably would have never played them had my friend not convinced me to via repetition & then just bought the DLC's for me.

I feel the same way. The base game is usually more than enough, and instead of overpriced DLC I prefer to just start another game.

To me, there are 2 issues with DLCs:
1) they may make the game too long indeed, particularly when the DLC has nothing to do with the "main quest" and feels more like an artificial addition
2) DLCs that are released after I've played the game feel like "wtf, I'm not resuming this game now"

Plus also, there's the cost issue, where many games cost way more in DLCs than in base game...

All-in-all, it depends on the game and context. When I play a game long after it's released, when all DLCs are here already and said DLCs fit nicely into it (and there's a way to buy them without paying a fortune, like a GOTY edition), it's all good

Expansions are mostly nice, but I do get tired of games that stretch out same-ish bits too much. I especially don't like games that add tons of fetch quests barely disguised as content as DLC just to make a bit more money.

Diablo 2's Lord of Destruction expansion for example is a great example of how to add so much to a game (not only in the extra 'level') that it really was worth it.

Borderlands 2 and PayDay 2 on the other hand added so many DLC which did little to nothing new that it was just adding piling up busy work.