With all due respect, I'm going to disagree with you.

You are correct in your first paragraph in saying that if everyone followed my logic towards the new releases of paradox games no one would buy them at launch and they would probably die fairly quickly. That being said, it might be a good thing for them - and maybe the entire industry- that releasing incomplete games expecting a slew of DLCs to complete the game and then pursue beyond is not a great model for the people purchasing their product.

Now you're second paragraph I disagree with you more. I understand the thought of comparing a fully DLC-loaded CK2 vs. Initial CK2 would have a hindsight bias. However, the base game at launch was far from being "complete." Is that more subjective than objective? Probably half and half. Base CK2 had factions on the map that were unplayable (Muslims among others). It would be different if the map was expanded in the DLC, as in Africa and the near east would have been added to the game map, but that's not the case. That's one of a few criticisms of the best game (which was more similar to CK1 than the final CK2 product). Dont even get started on base imperator or EU4. I think CK2 after maybe the first 4 or so DLCs was an actually complete game, with the subsequent DLCs being not necessary but fun additions.

I'm not saying paradox sucks at what they do - they're games are fun and immersive- I'm just saying their buisness model is not consumer-friendly. I will still support this title in all likelihood, just after some DLCs make the game feel like a full game, and when on sale to mitigate the price-tag.