It depends on pricing, content, gameplay and storyline.

For example the DLCs for Asura's Wrath and Alien Isolation should have been included in the main game because to me they are crucial to the main storyline.

If the DLC contains gameplay that is quite different from the main game, perhaps it only features driving or some kind of horde-mode, then I'd say it justifies a DLC. Especially if it features gameplay that the majority of gamers would not be interested in.

Examples of good DLCs for me would include those from GTA 4; they were separate stories and had a good amount of content for the pricing. Generally if a DLC approaches the level of content of an expansion, its a good DLC.

Some (the big ones that are like addons from the past) yes, others like sprite packs for insane prices Paradox are just an annoyance because selling them extra surely has only one notable effect, that is to severely limiting their distribution.

I never bought a single DLC from Paradox, only DLC packs because they basically divided their content into too many small pieces.

A really bad example of how not to do DLC is actually Witcher 3 with 16 (or was it more) mini pieces of content that just belong into the base game or into an expansion and should never ever be called DLC. It's all just more effort than what it's worth.

DLC can be easily justified in cases where game is too ambitious for the the studio to get it out in one get go, especially if the budget of the game is getting out of hand, but they can get the game to stores with lower costs and use the profits to create the extra stuff they wanted to do later on. Cutting the stuff that is not vital to core game, but could enhance it, is the smartest way to manage the budget and it's easy to see from the sales later on if it's even smart to start do those enhancements.

Sure, but then it is traditionally called addon or expansion, not DLC. DLC is the reserved keyword for a very tiny addition.

So I have nothing against big DLCs if we could also stop calling them DLC at the same time. DLC basically is too generic a name and burnt by the past excesses. Better not to use the word DLC ever again.

I think there are times when DLC can definitely be justified. Sometimes, the DLC is actually better than the original game! Just look at Shadowrun: Dragonfall, which was originally released as DLC for Shadowrun Returns and is supposedly significantly better than Shadowrun Returns

expansion can be justified sometimes, but dlcs are nothing but money grabbing scam

New Hitman and its DLC schedule :

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-09-29-heres-what-you-get-if-you-pay-full-price-for-the-new-hitman?utm_source=eurogamer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=net-daily

Seriously?

Yes. When they were called expansion packs.

On a more serious note, I'll tell you which kind of DLCs are unacceptable for me:

- Day one DLCs.
- Map/skin/character/item packs.
- Things like "easy fatality pack" in Mortal Kombat X.

About the second thing, item packs in South Park: The Stick of Truth are pretty lame. The equipment found in them was only useful for the tutorial segment and maybe half an hour later, they grow obsolete pretty fast.