I have a hard time answering that so simply. Depends how developers do it would be my answer.

DLC should not withhold some important feature of a game behind a paywall. Anything intended to make the game a complete package should not be DLC. DLC should mainly be stupid extras like a pink outfit or a racecar version of Epona. Nothing I care about, but someone somewhere will pay 2 dollars for.

DLC should maybe add alternative experiences to a boss fight maybe. Like take an existing boss, change his pattern, and charge 5$ for the privelage to play it.

DLC should include more levels of something that players want more of. So if I really enjoyed the desert dungeon, maybe they can make a "desert levels 2.0"

So basically, DLC should either be cheap costumes or a mini-expansion pack.

I personally don´t care. It doesn´t seem something that will prevent you to fully appreciate or experience the game

Its existence.

-lack of informations, "additional map feature", what is that? New Hard mode, is that THE hard mode or another hard mode?
-Should have been introduced after the game was released
-I think only the Pack 2 should be a paid DLC, all the other stuffs are just little bonuses that should be free. So to me, it comes down to the question : Is the pack 2 worth 20 bucks? We'll see when we have more infos

I don't see a problem with them charging for post launch content, even with the announcement pre-launch, the game sounds feature complete (difficulty settings haven't typically been a feature of Zelda games) and no doubt you're going to get a full experience.

Hard mode is the only thing that would concern me, unless they are having to significantly alter the game post launch I don't really see why that should be behind a pay wall.

Also not selling items/content individually is not a great practice, especially as you don't know fully what you're going to be getting.

Heh... we've been talking abt the concept of dlc, yet here you go back and forth talking abt how a game couldv and shouldv been. Just pls tell me one reason why paid dlc is better than free dlc that you can get by playing the game.

Are you aware of how expensive games are to make and how some very high quality video game companies went under because they couldn't afford to continue to make games under their current operations due to how expensive their AAA content was? There are plenty of games that are worth more than $60 due to their quality and cost to make. Things that cost more to make don't all fit the same price range. Otherwise all houses, cars, and furniture should be price the same. It's simply a mentality that exists in the gaming industry, and for good reasons for the consumer as well. I do agree that there are some games that shouldn't cost $60. For example No Man's Sky should have been $40. There's some games that I'd gladly pay $80-$100 for. Stuff like Mass Effect and Metal Gear Solid definitely fit that for me in terms of quality and content.

What games do you feel are not worth $60 and more importantly why do you feel that to be the case. For example do you believe that developers/employees should suffer if the game costs are too high? Should they reduce their content and quality over all to make up for these alternatives? Should lay offs be applicable. More importantly should be people be paid for the job they do? Many games have insane crunch time with employee's working over time with no pay and let go after the game is done because there isn't enough money to keep them on. If this ever happened in education or other industries there would be strikes like crazy. Now should developers becoming unionized? I'd prefer not but there are very real issues in the game developer community. DLC is a way to compensate for this and some developers actually prepare day one DLC as a way to ensure that the pre-production team does not have to be let go. They can continue to work, get paid, and work on great games. This kind of content does not go into production until AFTER the production teams take over and the Pre-Production and concept guys are DONE with the game. Which I would roughly estimate is about 20-30% in the development process in many cases.

That being said I agree that many games do not justify it's DLC. For myself I often only buy it when I want to get it. So I get what I want, very rarely I do I get ahead of time. With Resident EVII I did because I'm a huge fan of that series and the Deluxe edition is a steal. I believe it only cost me an extra $10 if I recall correctly. It was well worth it. Definitely wait until developers outline everything you get in the season pass before you buy it. I feel that Ubisoft's season passes are very bad and most of the stuff is skippable. If you get all the essential stuff it's almost half the price of the Seasons pass in many cases. At least as far as Assassin's Creed goes that seems to be the case so I end up paying significantly less for the single player DLC as I don't care for the cosmetic items and bonus weapons.

The Wii U also shipped with 32 GB of disk space and that also had games with DLC. What's your point exactly? Unlike the PS Vita, the Nintendo Switch supports cheap SD cards for extra memory. 

And who says Breath of the Wild isn't a finished and polished game? This new story campaign only releases during the Holiday, that's more than enough time to develop a new dungeon. 

Teasing aside, the timing is the biggest issue.
Announcing it before the game even releases, even if the content isn't actually made yet, just feels fucked up given how long they've had to work on the game, and how many times it was delayed.

Announcing the DLC now is like dangling a second carrot in front of the donkey before it ever got to eat the first. (i.e. taking the piss)

In second place is how rushed some of the content actually is, the shirt for example just feels like nothing but padding, the same shit you see retailers pulling when they offer exclusive skin dlc for preordering with them, in joint second place is the high probability that since the launch window is pretty anemic, a lot of people are going to buy this thing out of literally having nothing else to play, and that will only bolster Nintendo's future plans to continue to pull this kinda thing with future games, something they have done very rarely in the past.

I dislike DLC at the best of times but DLC announced before a games even out... yeah you can fuck right off.

I really don't see how timing can be an issue when it's not relevant to anything. When it's announced doesn't change what the DLC content is, the price of it, how complete the main game is, or any of the things that matter. There's no harm at all in buying a game while DLC is already available for it.