I suspect that this is probably right on the money. The idea is probably to get the DLC out in time to capture the early adopters because once those people "finish" your game, they probably won't be going back to it. Unless you've announced a specific plan of expansion content just after or prior to the release of your main game, it's harder to make your money back on something that you produce post-release. Personally, I find it hard to go back to a game to play an expansion if I've spend 100+ hours on a base game if I don't have that content waiting for me when I finish. I think the way many games probably work these days is that the dev starts working on season pass content before the initial release and continues working on it post-release.
I do think this goes back to bah's point about value for money. I doubt anyone would seriously question the quality and quantity of content that was contained in the Witcher 3 or StarCraft II expansions. Yes, you can argue that a DLC and an expansion are not really different things, but I think qualitatively at least it's easy to tell the difference between the two. No one would call a costume pack or horse armor an expansion pack and not expect to be laughed out of the industry. Similarly, I don't think you could pass off paid content that consists of one or two single-player missions or quests as an expansion.
That's why I am still of the opinion that CD Projekt RED was true to its word regarding DLC for The Witcher. They released a bunch of relatively-straighforward DLCs alongside the main game for free, but the Blood and Wine and Hearts of Stone expansion packs contained significant additional material (20-50 hours' worth); I just don't see the argument that charging for this content was reneging on their promise in some way. If you don't like The Witcher 3, that's one thing and you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but I believe--as a fan of the Witcher games--that most of the people who do like it are glad to have the opportunity to play these continuations of what, if CD Projekt RED's statements on the subject are to be believed, will be their last Witcher game featuring Geralt.
Games like GTA4 (i.e. go see The Lost and The Damned and also Ballad add-ons) and Skyrim (i.e. go see Dragonborn and Dawnguard) w/ their labeled "DLC's" really extended things on what a DLC was and actually should be. More or less, they released what we called in the old days "expansions" (bigger sized content-rushes - but they were often used the same engine & added more content + features to the game) - but basically labeled them as "DLC's". Before those games, most DLC's were small and episodic type of sized things (i.e. could be 30 minutes to maybe 3-5 hours or so; or might even be items/weapons/armor).
CDPR said, "We're going to have no paid DLC's", but then released "expansions." And they didn't call it a "Season Pass", they went and called it a "Expansion Pass." More or less, they're the same - thanks to GTA4 & Skyrim showing everybody how to do DLC's. That was CDP with all their marketing bullcrap. As much as I love CDP for releasing great games and doing Free Enhanced Edition overhaul/patches (i.e. see how they did W1 and W2), even I have to call "bullcrap" on the way they labeled and marketed their DLC/Expansion nonsense for W3. They really should've been more explicit on what they see as differences of DLC's and Expansions, when given their interviews before popping out the "Expansion Pass" plan.
Regardless, W3 is great and has tons of content in all of their packages - so, most gamers should at some point get both the W3 game and Expansions/DLC's/Extra Content/Whatever They Want To Call Them - even if they decide to buy them on sale and much cheaper.
EDIT:
It's not nonsense to me. I respect that you hold a different viewpoint on the matter, but I really think there are differences that are readily discernible between a DLC pack and an expansion pack.
Well, actually the idiot in question was a spokesman for CD Projekt RED. Whether you think he lied or misled people with his comments depends on how you view the expansion content.
I'm definitely intrigued by Cyberpunk 2077 but am still trying to figure out whether I want to invest a significant amount of time in GWENT or not.
DLC = "DownLoadable Content." Basically, these days - any extra content can be considered DLC; since we're in a world where it's very easy to get more content via the Internet to download it straight to our computers. Steam (and other digital stores that are lagging behind, like Origin, UPlay, Battle.Net, etc) took over PC gaming and pretty much, you likely have good Internet access if you want to keep your games up-to-date w/ patches, DLC's, Season Passes, or whatever. Hell, you can even download base-games or full-blown complete editions here.
An expansion is, more or less, a DLC these days. GTA4 and Skyrim set the bar and standard here, redefining what DLC could be and should be. They basically released "expansions" and labeled them as "DLC's."
EDIT 2:
Oh, and it should also be mentioned that CDProjekt RED gave away both the Enhanced Edition for Witcher 1 and the Enhanced Edition for Witcher 2 free to owners of the original game (the latter of which added an additional 4 hours of gameplay and a bunch of other new things that cost them quite a bit of money to make). Can't think of many companies that will do that.
I remember when Black Isle released Trials of the Luremaster as a free "DLC" (before the term was really coined and made famous) for Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter expansion b/c many gamers complained HoW was too damn short as an expansion pack, in their opinion.
CDP ain't the only ones to have pulled such a stunt, to add more content to a game as a patch/free-DLC/or whatever the hell they want to call it.
that is) as reported via vg247 (who?), apparently. 
