I wasn't speaking of only Day One and On Disk DLC, I don't support the practice but they're far less egregious than loot boxes and pay to win mechanics. I'm not sure how your argument actually proved that game content isn't broken up with those practices though, could you please clarify or elaborate for me? I actually think there's a lot of good DLC, that's not what I have a problem with at all because it absolutely can add longevity to a game and more. There's good examples and bad examples. It is a personal choice, if we stop feeding the system, they'll change their tactics. But as long as there are people willing to spend extra money for an advantage or because they have low impulse control (i.e. gambling addicts), then the games will be made around that system that profits most.
Did you read the link I posted? The game isnt broken up, because its finished and then released. While the game is in its latest stages of development, new content, that is not part of the core game, is in it's initial stages of the development process.
Put it this way. This is a very rudimentary analogy. One guy is drawing the levels for Doom IX. He finishes. Then another guy is putting the code together and making the levels in the game engine. He finishes. Then another guy is playtesting the levels with the characters/weapons, etc. He finishes. Now another guy is doing the bug testing and quashing out the quirks. He finishes. Now another guy is getting the game ready for release. He's done. Game released.
Now, when when the guy is playtesting the levels. What do you do with the guy that designed the levels, and the guy that does bug testing? They have nothing to do. The guy in the middle of the process is busy, but both guys at the beginning and end of the process are currently not working on anything.
More than that, when the levels were being designed, what are you doing with the guy that does the bug testing? And the guy that readies the game for release? They have nothing to do. The only guy doing anything is the guy in the earliest initial stages of development. All the other guys have nothing to do.
This is why DLC gets released in a close window with the core game. Once the game finishes, theres even a time window between the game being finished and being released. So you have all these different people doing all these different jobs that take place at vastly different times during a games development. If theyre constantly working all the departments, then theres going to be content released on a somewhat regular schedule. Otherwise you have entire departments do nothing for stretches of time.
Those production costs aren't entirely necessary though. As I said earlier, that budget causes them to take less risks which makes for inferior games and slower growth. The development becomes too spread out with the largest teams and it can have a negative impact on what a game turns out to be. Plus a lot of money actually goes to advertisement and not the game itself. So yes, they are spending more than ever, but that doesn't mean that money is being used like it was in the past.
Well, it depends on what you mean by necessary. Some games become enormously popular without them (Minecraft). Others have all the backing behind them and flop. But then others have all the backing and become phenomenal games and cultural milestones (Skyrim, Witcher 3). I dont think you can just say that the budgets and advertising arent necessary.
As of now theres indie games, AAA games and everything in between. Not every game is gonna be great, but not every game ever was.