terrible DLC practices

I partially disagree here.

Yes, their first party strategy games have a ton of DLC (EU4, CK2, etc), and I actually think that's a good thing. Instead of re-releasing the game every couple years for $40-60 or whatever, they release a DLC every six months to a year with new features for $10-15 (and frequent sales for 50% off). The way I look at it, I essentially get a "new" game every couple years for $10-20 instead of $40-60 or whatever they'd charge for a new release. You can also try the DLC for free if you play MP with someone who has the DLC.

This works best if you buy in early, but they do have a monthly subscription you can buy instead to get all DLC for $5/month or something, which is a great deal (compared to buying all the DLC) imo if you play a game late in the cycle.

I have bought almost every major DLC for EU4 to this point and have hundreds of hours in the game, so my average cost per hour is similar or better compared to other games (something like 5-10 hours per dollar spent). Maybe I'm unique here, but it's exactly the game I want, and having it continually freshened up with DLC year over year is better than a new release ever 2-4 years (new releases often drop functionality, which I don't want).

My main complaints/suggestions are:

• getting into a game late sucks, so there should be a better alternative to the monthly subscription - I think all DLC older than 2 years should either be free or bundled into a "catch-up" bundle priced at $20 or so (they kind of did this with the starter pack)
• new games and DLC are often very buggy at launch, and often in very obvious ways - they really need to improve their QA process

But in general, for the types of games Paradox makes, I really like long release cycles with lots of DLC. The opposite is true for games I'll likely play once (e.g. RPGs, action games, etc).