It's just more convenient to work with this new DxO path, at least for me.
You might also consider noise reduction in DxO. Depending how noisy your image is, and what you intend to do with it, the DxO "prime" reduction process is pretty amazing. It takes a very long time to process, but I haven't seen better results with any other system. Useless for a wedding photographer, but if you've got a single image with a lot of noise, or a small group of them, it's worth the hassle.
I recently shot a set of HDR sequences for panorama stitching. After much experimentation, I determined that I got the most out of them by converting the raws, with lens correcting and denoising in DxO. Then I tried several flavors of HDR, with the NIK process (also launched from Lightroom) coming out the best with that particular set of photos.
I think a lot of the complaints about DxO white balance come down to their default camera profiles. You get an easier profile selection (or custom creation) with Adobe, and their recent default camera profiles are quite good (with my cameras at least). If you're willing to come up with better user profiles for DxO, you could probably do just about as well.
But no matter how good DxO gets, LR's DAM will always be important to me, as well as easier creative controls with LR's tonal adjustments.