The Fire Emblem DLC is fine. It is the definition of extraneous content that can be picked separately, is actual downloadable content, and uses non-Nintendo resources for it.
What part of this do you consider exploitative and anti-consumer?
Isn't it $3 for a character and a map? And each one is designed to sucker in longtime FE fans to buy in for their favorite character. Then if you want to play the rest of this sidequest, you buy it piecemeal.
I consider the entire DLC model anti-consumer. I've explained this several times, but it's a model that actively encourages publishers to withhold content. With DLC, it's better for a publisher to release the
minimal acceptable amount of content, because anything above that minimum could be sold for extra.
Now people like to say that DLC allows developers to develop content post-game. But you will never ever know if it was developed later or simply held back. Never. All you know is that the DLC model encourages developers to withhold content for financial gain. It's a model that greatly shifts power away from consumers and into publishers' hands.
You might say, "Freezie, this Fire Emblem sidequest would never even exist without DLC." But there's no way of knowing that. Getting to play as Luigi in Galaxy or 3D Land? The Green Stars in Galaxy 2? That era is over.
Wait until Nintendo gets used to the DLC model. Playing as Luigi will be paid DLC, and Green Stars will be sold by the dozen. Defenders will still say, "Well, you would've never gotten to play those without DLC," or "The full game with Mario is still there." And publishers know in a generation, nobody will remember that we got multiple costumes in Smash Bros. for no additional cost.