I find that in video games that the first playthrough to be the most special one for me. You learn so much about the game and generally enjoy your time going through the hoops while improving your skill level. I don't like replaying games as much because it feels like going through beaten ground. I prefer instead to go on new adventures where I learn something new. Of course this can get muddied a bit where you consider games where the whole point is to replay them. It's a different issue there, but I resolve it by considering different replays as the same playthrough until I've sufficiently squeezed enough content out of the game to satisfy me.
IMO, DLCs should be the last content patch the developers add to a game before focusing their efforts to a new game. Way too many devs treat games like live service titles which is why steam charts are so popular on /v/. Back during the PS2 days, this wasn't an issue. You accepted games as they were, even with bugs, without having had even the option to mod them on consoles. This allowed for a very special type of experience as you were just playing 1 version and so could enjoy it as it presented itself to you, warts and all. Now however, developers take like 100 patches to a single game before moving on. While I can appreciate the effort that goes into them, and the necessary bug fixes that come in many of them, I still think it's far too much. Devs should just pour out 5 patches MAX for base game (not considering DLC) with only further patches (free of course) coming alongside paid content that exists to provide expansions to the game. But even then, it would be preferable to push those new ideas towards a new game. So, 1 DLC like the old hunters or artorias of the abyss that can only fit contextually within the base game and not the sequel would fit best here. Sekiro 2 can't have a Lady Tomoe scenario for instance as it would not fit within its new journey to the west setting. It would only make sense for the first game to have had type of scenario take place.
Games are made for a consumerist mindset since the beginning, but even so, artists and passionate developers were able to make it into a art form somehow combining greed with a genuinely good time and something memorable. Today, companies are all in on the greed aspect while not having any of the old talent and passion that was there before. Redditors and imbeciles will tell you it's because of the executives, but this is FALSE. 100% BS. For I tell you, let those with an ear to hear listen, the same greedy execs that are here now were there before in the past. Only difference is; developer teams have become brown, filled with unqualified people, and those who don't have any passion for the hobby itself. They may claim they have passion, talent, or actually white (lol) yet this is not true. They are merely camouflaging themselves and are using it a mere pump and dump scheme. It thus cannot be fixed with a gaming market crash like so many hope, for the infection is much deeper than that. Only with a societal and global collapse of everything can the market actually change. For now, good games will have to be like hidden gems tucked away in a cave waiting for some lucky explorer to stumble across them.
Expedition 33 is astroturfed btw. I can't explain exactly why, but my gut instinct tells me it is. I know I wouldn't even like playing it just by watching the trailers. No point in pirating it.