I remember when games had cheats in and of themselves, not this "paid cheat" bullshit.

It happens to the best of us.

How exactly did you save money since DLCs are not required to complete a game, but extra stuff? RPGs like ME and DA had DLC mainly to extend the adventure, not to continue it as if it had been halted.
As for other companies doing what CDPR is doing, you might as well just buy the games CDPR is making, as there are most likely no other company who does what they do. Not even indie devs. Plus, don't tell me you really believe the Expansion Pack of an RPG like Shadowrun should have been included in the original game, because that's just plain greediness on the part of the consumer.

Please remove rose-tinted glasses. Good and bad add-on content exists from the 80s. But the bad add-ons of old have been lost to memory, since we don't like to recall them.

Yes, I too would prefer to have huge expansion packs, but depending on the game, I may prefer bite sized add-ons that are released every 2-3 months (UT Bonus Packs) than huge epic meals released every year (Civ V: G&K, Civ V: BNW).

Downloadable Content is content that is downloaded. The size of it is irrelevant. Expansion Packs are nowadays downloadable, but you seem to forget they were in physical form even a few years ago, like Dragon Age: Awakening.
As long as they are downloadable, they are considered DLC.

Strictly speaking, DLC could include things like additional languages or texture packs or even bug fixes-things that really don't expand the game as such.

That said, I really don't like DLCs. For download only games it just comes across as money grubbing. For otherwise DRM free physical games (read:console games)--it's really just the new DRM. They can't stop you from buying a used game, but they can sure as heck make sure you don't get all the content if you do.

One interesting caveat-do you think they consider that someone who's gone through the trouble of buying a physical copy of a game wants (or even can) download GB of extra data? These days you can't really buy physical PC games--you just end up renting them through Steam or Origin or whatever-so the only real reason to buy them (physical goodies aside) is so you don't have to download them. Downloadable content kinda defeats the purpose.

Edit: I doubt console games are truly DRM free-but they are yet to use the account based activation system like PC games.

Yeah, that's the Ubisoft way. How many times have they pulled a stunt like that in the past 10 years? More than enough to show that's just how they operate anyway.

I've already promised myself that I wouldn't buy anything from Ubisoft, EA, and Activision. This statement from Ubisoft just enforces my decision.

Johnathanamz didn't say anything about expansion quality. Not sure why you focused on that.

DLCs have caused a structural shift in the marketplace. It's easy to see how the changes could be called destroying the industry. The content of a DLC is only tangentially relevant to the structural market impact.

Fun fact - the first DLC (as in DownLoadable Content) is arguably for the Atari 2600 in the early 80's, where players could download content from GameLive

It's not purely a case of rose-tinted glasses. Were crap expansions published before? Yes, certainly, but not as many as now. The mere fact that an expansion pack had to be printed on physical media and distributed to brick-and-mortar stores before, meant that the bar for what could acceptably be released was set quite a bit higher than it is now in the age of digital distribution.

Tell me, if extra content had to be distributed physically, do you really think "expansions" like these would have been made? http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-10-most-insulting-things-video-games-charged-money-for/

*face palm*

why do they even say shit like this? "maybe there was like, 12 guys, but whatever." trying to vilify the people with sense, and just piss everyone off. very nice.

and can we please stop combining the term "DLC" with the term "expansion pack"?

Given that 56k modems didn't even exist until the late 1990's, I somehow doubt that ;-)

Percentage wise or number wise?

Percentage wise of course. Making a number wise comparison for two markets of widely differing sizes would be pointless.