I agree. Though, isn't symbiosis - that you mentioned - basically about selfish (beneficial) intents from both parties?

Too much selfishness creates what you said, selflessness only benefits the other party. There's a healthy limit to it in this case.

Expansions all the way. Fallout is a story first, shooter second. As are all good RPGs. You can't get a developed story in a DLC. You just can't. Operation Anchorage and mothership zeta were pretty much pure DLCs and, no offense to the Beth people who made them, I didn't think they were very interesting. More shooting wasn't something I needed DLC for, I could just wander into the desert and kill some raiders. That said, Broken Steel and the Pitt were pretty good - there was a good mix of story and shooting (more so with The Pitt than with Broken Steel). BUT: EXTREME KUDOS on Point Lookout. It was pretty much an expansion rather than a DLC. There was an entirely new place to explore and a few new quests. More quests there would have been good.

My opinion: spend a lot of time and put out a STORY DRIVEN expansion, rather than a DLC focused on shooting it up.

I made a comment before, but I want to comment on this ongoing "selfishness discussion" too.

I think we can all agree that people should have the right to spend their money on what they want, not what the game developer wants, right? If it is selfish to want to have control of your own money, then so be it.

As for these expansions vs. DLC --> Beth is a company. As a company they want to make money. They can either put out lots of cheap DLCs and get people to buy a bunch, or they can put out one or two good expansions that cost more like $30 than $5. Whichever practice generates more revenue is the one Beth will pursue. As long as they make more money with cheap DLCs than with good (and more expensive) expansions, we're going to keep getting cheap DLCs.

I for one do not buy cheap DLCs if I hear they svck. I won't spend my money on them. I will, however, spend money on drawn out and well developed expansions. Beth will do what the market wants, all we can do is say what we want and back that up with our purchasing. If we say we want expansions, but keep buying DLCs, we won't be getting expansions any time soon.

DLCs are better only for like episodes but if you to put really big DLCs, Expansions are preferable. I highly doubt they will release expansions, DLCs will be more likely to be released.
I voted for Expansion anyway.

Make something like Shivering Isle for OB and I'll be happy. Anything smaller just isn't worth the extra dough IMO.

I'd much prefer a full blown expansion over 4 little DLC's. But I'd still buy all the DLC's anyway.

Beth is the only company that puts out games I ever really think about getting the DLC's for, though. (I'm not counting map-packs, because if you still wanna play the game online you almost need them :/)

Well L4D2 is getting some pretty kickass DLC's (Even though Valve are really lazy with putting them out there).
And Dragon Age Origins' Awakening was pretty good as well.

Valve's DLC is always free (for the PC anyway).

And Dragon Age had mediocre DLC that any user could've made themselves.
Awakening was decent but I'd hardly even consider it an expansion.

Exactly, for the PC.
Still, even if PC had to pay for Passing and the upcoming Sacrifice they are still awesome DLC's.