So how many more years we would have to wait for CK2 and EU4 to be finished? Not even mentioning HOI4 and Stellaris. If they didn't release games until they were "finished" by your definition, we'd still only had CK1, EU3, HOI3 and no version of Stellaris.
Then, what we are having here, is a problem with Paradox, not us, or the definition of a game. The 1.0 versions are always, without a single exception, barebones, whilst the later ones, on each game you mention(except EU3 and CK), akin to a "kitchensink" mod. We would need to wait for years, for what now ammounts to a AAA studio to realease a finished game. (Paradox has: big advertising, its own "Cons" akin to E3, buys off smaller studios, has a qvasi-monopoly on certain types of games..etc). Considering the current budget of Paradox, enough for buying off smaller game studios, I would expect them to be able to do such thing.
There is always: demos, open-acess-beta for interacting with the public and get feedback, or just the option to use the money to hire a bigger team and bring in more experienced programmers.
Paradox Interactive can afford to and should scrap the current DLC policy:
-as whosthebestcop said: it turns off new users to have to pay so much for a either a complete experience, or for very basic DLC's or "flavour packs", which only ass a button or two, or at most an other number to increase (EU4: Innovativeness). It cost 200+ euroes, forcing someone to have to be completely reliant on "discounts"(in large numbers this hurts Paradox, since less users come, but when they do, the profit margin is tiny on an already small new userbase)
-it has been running for 5+ years. After the first two years, Paradox started creating events, buying off other compagnies and I assume buying off Youtubers, maybe even reviewers.-> We are NOT dealing with a company experiencing a shortage of funds, not at all. Any cash shortage seems non-existant, on the contrary, advertisement, PR and event organising seems to have received a boost. This had been done with 5+ years of such DLC policy, which looks akin to "DLC milking" after so long
-the quality and scope of the DLCs has either declined, or decayed into a constant remake of the same games, with poor quality control:
1: Shallow DLCs: the DLC model encouraged for the release of a near constant stream of DLCs, for purelly financial gain, without taking into account their substance and the experience offered to the customer, compared to what they pay, example: CK2: Sunset Invasion: to add challenge in after the player spiralled out of control, one must go to non-historical fantasy lenghts in a game marketed as a historical simulator. Monks and Mystics: The research in the period is quite poor, whilst most of it being events (custom events and buttons can be made through mods, see AGOT), furthermore the effects and descriptions are simply off, too similar to rolling a dice(in reality, breast milk does not cure cancer, sniffing puss from lepers does not make you feel better).
EU4: Rule Britannia: adding two "buff options": naval doctrine and innovativeness, some events, and a new religion. Except the UI, most...can be done by mods for free.
Golden Century: false marketing: marketed as a DLC about Spain, half was about pirates, a few events about Spain and a government reform tool, that should have been in the BASE GAME (the government function in 1.0 and later, relied on clicking a button to change government, similar to EU3)
2: DLC for their own sake: the current DLC model encouraged the development of DLCs, not to expand the game, but to make changes, for their own sake without taking into account their effect: Stellaris: elimination of the 3 types of FTL requiring gateways to avoid "chokepoint warfare", changing the population system without taking into account performance issues, 150-200 years into the game.
DLC examples: Sunset invasion, Monks and Mystics, Way of Life, Rule Britannia, Mare Nostrum, Ancient Relics(lootbox system basically, some stories are not SCI-FI, at all), ...etc.
-most important point: the DLC model, althought for some it was affordable, this is no longer the case: what was a WIP game, with DLCs comming bi by bit, now is one big chunk costing over 200 euroes/dollars in many cases, Dlcs costing several times as much as the barebones base game.
As YOU, said that you could not wait, so it is unfair for you to tell others to wait and gather money, or wait for discounts, to but games that are overpriced because of DLCs which [IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHT]: NEVER CHANGE IN PRICE OUTSIDE DISCOUNT SEASONS. NONE OF THE DLCS, HAS BEEN INCLUDED OVER TIME IN THE BASE GAME, OR SLOWLY DROPPED IN PRICE TO 1$, ONCE THE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS OF PARADOX WOULD HAVE BEEN SOLVED.
All in all, the current DLC policy is hurting the quality of the games Paradox makes, the quantity of their overall sales, their image. At the same time, it is taking too much money, for too little content from its users, whilst turning down newer player and making some older ones feeling ripped off. It is a system made by a company who does not need more money, but to spend it more wisely as it is currently a AAA one
To make a point on how some modders must feel about the DLC policy and constant mod breakign updates: this is also a WIP post, edits to some of my main points might come later, and therefore, so will anyone replying to this post, have to edit their own answers