Except these are expansions (mindgames aside)

This was the first thing I thought when I read the OP. I thought the 4 DLCs were great. All of them were quite large with new content and interesting stories and locations. They feel like what we used to call "expansions." In my opinion, they are a great definition of what DLC should be.
Old World Blues really stood out, though. It is pretty much a new game by itself.

If anything certain DLC id call MicroExpansions LOL

Boo! Hiss!

Bade OP, bad!

You wrote untruths in an internet forum. Time out!

An expansion can be DLC, and a DLC can be expansion. One does not prevent the other.
And let's not go back to Test Drive 2's "Expansions"...

If you look at Crusader Kings II its has a lot of small asthetic dlc, but also larger game changing expansion dlc. Total War: Shogun 2 had additional clan dlc, but also two expansions as well. Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite both have stand alone episodic dlc, seperate to the main game. As has already been said, dlc is basically what an expansion pack used to be, but often broken down more, or with content you never would have got before.

Difference between 'dlc' and 'expansion' is length of gameplay and content (aside from the price difference - plenty whinge...since proper expansions are not very common - lazyass greedy devs)

Forgive me but I disagree, some dlc is probably bigger than the pre-internet expansion packs, in some cases several bits of dlc would formally have been in a single expansion pack (so a mix of asthetic and gameplay). Dlc can mean a company can put out more additional content for a game than they could do before, and in a shorter space of time.

Just an aside, consider the amount of dlc Pong, Space Invaders and Pac Man would have got if it had been possible!

You did see the comment about Test Drive 2's "Expansions", right? A "proper expansion" from the days before cd roms, costing 60% of the base price (TD2 25 pounds, each expansion 15 pounds), and the "content" they added was a few more cars (3 I think?) for one expansion and a few more stages (5?) for the other.

So no, the difference between "Expansion" and "DLC" is whether you believe the content to be worthy of the good label (expansion) or the bad label (DLC).

Yeah but that might have been more of an exception than a rule. Most of the big games back in the day that had expansions were proper expansions. Just these days maybe game companies have mudied the waters a bit
Also most 'expansions' game u extra content campaigns comparable to originals campaign...how many 'dlc' (as opposed to expansions )these days do that?.

You really want me to post (again) the list at 01:10? Let's just say "Rose tinted glasses" and "Crap that is forgotten".

Seems I have it mixed up with another, wasn't there one that basically starts with "you got better" after being turned into a radiating puddle from the original ending?

Expansions are simply called DLC these days. There are DLCs that are as large as the big box expansions of yesteryear, yet they are still simply referred to as DLC (see the Fallout New Vegas DLC for a good example) What about the extra campaigns for Magicka? "The Forgotten" DLC for AoE 2 HD? Nightmare in Northpoint for Sleeping Dogs? Albion Prelude for X3: Terran Conflict?
Finding DLC that does not fit into any of those is easy.
Also, I can easily find boxed expansions that fit under category 3 (requires you to replay existing content), and I honestly don't think it is a bad thing when they integrate the expansion/DLC directly into the game. The expansions for Morrowind for an example were pretty good, as was Night of the Raven for Gothic 2. These fill roughly the same role as the mostly excellent New Vegas DLC.

I always liked honest, well-researched and unbiased discussion

The entire Dragonborn and Heartstone DLC? There's a reel proof that it's been done long before Skyrim release! And all the Fallout 3 stuff? All there on the disc man, you just have to look!