Well, you don't need to have them all. I actually prefer this thing. All DLCs are cosmetic with that game. If you want that specific shiny armor, you can take it, but it won't have any influence over the game play. It's basically like saying that Path of Exile it's free, but have few thousand $ of DLC, so the developers suck.

This is really not an example of an DLC that contains plot elements or game play, that's why i said that i prefer this approach. I also prefer the last Total War games, as they did something similar, and even if they included game play in their DLCs, they are not required in order to enjoy the game. There are more specific DLCs, of specific battles or troops. And i'm ok with that, as they can keep the base game price lower this way and the buyer can customize the purchase with what they really want from that game.

On the other hand, i blame things like Pillars of Eternity, for example. That's an example of a game that's pushing it's hands into your pockets. First of all, i'm fine with the base release, with 3 editions, all kind of extras, that's perfect. But the bad part it's the DLC that it's not included in any edition, and it adds game play. And the release time. They had the base game released in April 2015, and the first DLC in August 2015 and next one these months. And they provide new features to the base game, higher level cap, new zones, enhanced enemy AI.
This is the kind of DLC that you pretty much need to own in order to fully enjoy that game. Someone that owns the DLCs will have better game than you, without them. And they will probably keep doing this next year too. DLCs every few months. I honestly had big respect for this particular title, but lost it all due to these DLCs. It's clear that it was their intention right from the start. They probably had these two "additional" upgrades prepared right from when they launched the base game.
And it's truly milking, having in mind that their Kickstarted campaign was a true success gaining three times more money than they asked for. Those guys that got the $100 edition or they backed their campaign, they had to spend more for DLC 4 months after release.

Long story short. I'm fine with DLCs as long as they provide optional elements to the game, like cosmetic improvements. You shouldn't be constrained in order to buy them if you don't need them to enjoy that game. I'm not fine with plot parts being released as DLC. Not the case of the latest in your example. All DLCs are optional, they do not improve the game or the plot in any way. They just don't use an in-game store, so they put them as DLCs. It's fine.