How do you feel about DLC in games?

I stopped buying Paradox games because of them.

There are a lot of games that are heavily affected by the DLCs and there is no way for you to telling that those should simply not happen - a lot of people would hate you for that, me included. A good example of that is Crusader Kings II and all expansion DLCs that happened before the game was released (back in 2012!) and today (last expansion is from november this year, and they still have one more in mind). I still don't like how there is plenty of them and all of them together are significantly more than the base game itself, but then again, I also can't say that all of those things are irrelevant and there is not enough effort put into them.

We had DLCs since the very beginning of video games, it was called expansions back then and worked in exactly the same way, apart from being less common because you couldn't simply offer selling small stupid things, as the cost of a CD and releasing it would be simply higher than the returned profit. This is why those expansions couldn't have a small price, and by definition, had to offer something of significant value. Releasing a DLC on Steam is free of cost.

It's all about their quantity, quality, amount of content and the price. I don't mind big expansions that in significant way expand the base game by entirely new mechanics, chapters, side-stories or other content. And I'm willing to pay for them standard expansion price, which would be up to 50% of base game price for me. But I'm not fine having several of those right when the game is released, and I'm not fine blocking major game features behind a paywall, because I've already paid for a complete product.

It's also hard to distinguish when we're talking about content that should be added into the base game with a patch and when we're talking about the content that significantly expands the base game. Obviously you can easily categorize that bugs and issues are patches, and everything else is expansion, but then charging people for some new mechanic that allows you to sell e.g. your gear more efficiently with one button is expansion as well, yet releasing that as a DLC would outrage nearly everybody, even if it costed a penny.

In the end, I don't really care. DLCs are not mandatory and as long as the base game feels complete then it doesn't matter how many DLCs are there and what they add. CK2 I mentioned earlier seems like a perfect example of a game with DLC policy done right - you have a bunch of misc stuff you're not forced to buy, you have major expansions that significantly enhance/change mechanics of the game, and you have also normal patches available for everybody with every major expansion being released that not only fix bugs and issues but also add misc improvements that should be available to everybody, regardless whether that person bought a DLC or not. Making it "illegal" to work/charge for expansions would mean that games wouldn't receive any new content apart from critical bugfixes, since the dev studio would be delegated to work on a new product rather than adding content to their previous one. In some cases, I know this is what many people would like, but in the end I'd rather have fewer games with far more content rather than games produced on massive scale that are dropped the moment they're released. We already have too many games, I don't need to see Crusader Kings V with 10% of content that CK2 with all DLCs includes. Just compare Civilization V with all dlcs to Civilization VI base game only and you'll get the point.

I'm also all-in for old-style expansion system, which rarily happens nowadays, but you can see it e.g. in Witcher 3. This is even better, but then we're not really talking about DLCs anymore, so it kinda misses the point. Besides, not every game is flexible enough for this system to happen.

It depends on the DLC. If we're talking about extra content that adds new stuff, levels, some hours of gameplay, items and weapons for a fair price i think it's ok, i buy them sometimes. Otherwise cosmetic stuff or extra things that do not relate to gameplay i couldn't care less, but i don't despise people who buy them.
I think that the cost of developing a game has really increased over the years so i consider DLCs as a necessary evil to support devs (at least when they produce good stuff). I was very satisfied with Rise Of The Tomb Raider, Fallout New Vegas, Dishonored, Bioshock Infinite and Borderlands DLCs and i bought Killing Floor packs just to support Tripwire (mostly because they were regularly releasing free patches and events along with paid downloadable contents) so it really depends on the game and what kind of extra stuff we're talking about.
For bad examples of DLCs i consider those little packs like the ones sold with Hitman Absolution, Saints Row 3 or Just Cause 2, where they just put in a few items that you don't really need anyway and don't extend playtime. That or simply bad designed expansions like Far Cry 4's Durgesh Prison or Alien Isolation's extra levels for survivor mode.

i have a lot of friends who loves buy dlc, they say this is the new era so we need to accept it (i disagree with that)