Buy a computer game and you expect to pay about $50. In previous Civ versions, you paid $50 for vanilla, had a bunch of free patches, paid $40 for an expansion, had a few more patches, paid $40 for another expansion and then had a few more patches before the next version was released.
The expansions in previous versions included 6-10 new civs (including unique units and or buildings), new buildings, new units, new wonders, new maps, new scenarios, new game concepts, new techs and probably a few other things I'm forgetting.
Civ 5 has followed a different format with the DLCs. The free patches have given us some new buildings and some new national wonders. The DLCs to date (not counting Mongolia) have given us:
- 6 new civs with UU and UB (so minimum for an expansion pack)
- Many new maps (probably more than an expansion pack)
- Many new scenarios (probably more than an expansion pack)
- 3 new wonders (less than an expansion pack)
The total price for this even including sales and combo packs is higher than what you would have paid for an expansion in CIV. Notably missing from this collection are new generic units and buildings, new game concepts and new techs.
So if you bought all DLC, you would pay more than you would for an expansion pack and get less. This is why he is questioning the "happily" part. If you buy the DLC and spend all of that money, you should do it only because you need to feed your Civ addiction and have no other option. I'd happily pay $40 for an expansion in the Civ 3-4 style, but I won't happily pay for DLCs that cost me more and give me less.