Part of the problem with this debate, and it's been said before, is that people fail to realise that the physical or digital means of distribution of a game are not the one and same thing as the game itself. You are paying to play the game. The disc (or downloaded files etc.) are the means through which you access that game.
Day-1 DLC which appears on disc (or is downloaded with the game etc. again) is not any different in principle than Day-1 DLC (or any DLC, really) which you would have to download independently, except it's more convenient because if you purchase it, it's already there and you don't have to download a huge file separately.
Either way, the company sells you the main game, and offers bonus content for a separate, smaller fee if you want to add to the experience of that game. You pay for the experience of paying that game. You're not paying for files or DVDs. That disc isn't worth 60$; it's the game itself which is given that price by the publisher. It's allowed to charge separately for additive content if it wants, and you shouldn't just get that content for free just because it's on the disc. That content doesn't have to be part of the price you pay for the main game if the publisher decides so. So long as the publisher is not lying to you about what you're getting, it's not inherently doing anything wrong.
Now, you're perfectly allowed to disagree with these buisness practices. I'm not a big fan of them either, for that matter. Criticize them all you want; there's nothing wrong with that.
As I see it, the main way in which gamers tend to act unbearably entitled is in the way they act as though the bonus content is *owed* to them, because they're buying the game. Every time a game launches with day-1 DLC, a bunch of people raise a shitstorm of whining over it, claiming that the publisher is witholding what is rightfully theirs (regardless of the words used, this is almost invariably what is implied). There's a difference between complaining about a buisness model and acting as though the company *owes* you anything other than the game you paid for. Again, you don't pay for a disc. You pay for a game, which is distributed through a disc.
The biggest problem with this, as other people have pointed out, is that so many of these gamers go and buy the games that use these "scandalous" buisness practices anyway. They whine and whine and whine about it, but support the company and the product that allegedly disrespects them because no matter how bothered they are by the way the publisher treats them, they can't live without their videogame.
You don't like the DLC deal? That's fine. Let your discontent be known. Hell, use the wonderful communication tool known as the internet to reach out to others who feel the same, convince those who are on the fence, and send mass letters to the publishers and let them know directly that you disaprove of their methods and that you refuse to buy their products until they change. And then STICK TO THAT. Don't buy the game. Agree to it as a community. If it works, then great. You'll have used your power as a consumer to sway the publisher. If it doesn't, then you either stick to your guns and don't buy the publisher's games anymore (or only the ones that dont't use the buisness model) Or you accept that that's how they're going to sell their products and live with it.
These are video games; they're not basic necessities. If you needed AAA video games to live, then practices like these could be really problematic. But you don't. They're luxury items, which you are privileged to play. Hell, you can get a ton of great videogames for free or cheap today. The fact that people are acting as though their basic human rights are being violated by these game publishers (barely an exaggeration in some cases) is why gamers are being called entitled.
Not to mention the gross allegations, in some cases, that the people who make the game make no effort whatsoever, don't put in love in their work anymore, etc. How insulting is that?
