I stopped the BF series the moment they demanded you to install spyware (BF3) and stopped bothering the Total War series when their DLC madness started (didn't wanna buy Rome II on release because they were gonna spam DLCs and I didn't wanna pay infinite money, and after that, I basically stopped caring about it, haven't even bought it today, I just switched to other game series by now)
That being said, I agree in willingness to pay for sufficient new content and the revival they can bring. For the Wargame DLCs, I'm a bit divided. I bought them because the devs gave the first DLCs for free and because I didn't mind supporting the devs for the great game they made, and which I felt I underpaid. That being said, from a point of view of just what they add, I think they were overpriced. And what bothered me even more with the paid DLCs is how they were made extremely OP when they were released, each time to get nerfed a few times a month later. Every player knew the OP sides of the new factions when they were just announced and not even tested yet. I can't imagine that the gamedevs didn't notice this when making them and didn't notice it while testing it. It made lobbies very one-sided for a few weeks, and players that didn't have the DLCs had a lot harder time to compete, which resulted in some people just not playing until it got patched. If you need to make multiplayer DLCs OP just to sell them, then you're doing it wrong in my opinion.