The terminology DLCs (Downloadable Contents)
often leaves bad tastes at gamers' mouths. they have been synonymized as a
thing that takes more money from the pocket for a product that we already paid
for. Unfortunately the reputation of DLCs is getting worse from time to time,
as almost all developers release their games with priceys DLCs to follow. Even
worse, some DLCs are either very integral part of gameplay experience (like 2K
Showcases on WWE 2K15 and 2K16), actually part of the main game's storyline
(Ashura's Wrath anyone?), or just too many and not cheap (2K).
Does anybody still remember the debacle of
Assassin's Creed Unity? A game released to the market so unfinished, it's
considered one of the worst video games disappointments in (the already
disappointing) 2014. Although the overall quality of the game has improved a
lot after 3 (massive) updates, the damage has already been done not only to the
game, not only to the Assassin's Creed series, not only to Ubisoft, but to
video games industry as a whole.
However, what is the reasoning of DLCs and
patches? Are they simply greed of industry? Or is there something more
complicated behind them? Last August I got a chance to visit and did interview
with Rachmad Imron; the founder of Digital Happiness and director of DreadOut.
Arguably the most successful Indonesian video game to date. There, he offered
me his insight and view about DLCs from developers' perspective. They'll
probably give readers another point of view about DLCs and Updates.
First of all, Mr Imron told me, the
production costs of video games, especially the Triple A ones, are incredibly
high. So high that some don't reach break even point until years after they
were released. Also, in many cases the sales of video games alone are not
enough to cover the costs. This is where DLCs come in handy. Developers can
gain significant extra income by selling extra digital items that are related
to games. The quality and prices of DLCs depend on the developers obviously.
Another factor is publishers' demands. Mr
Imron hypothesed that the numerous (and notorious) DLCs of Batman Arkham Knight
must have something to do with Warner Bros Games. Especially because they are
under contract with certain retailers and consoles which demand them (which in
turn demanded Rocksteady) to create exclusive contents. Mr Imron's hypothesis
probably explains why there are so many "Best Buy Exclusives",
"WalMart Exclusives", "Playstation Exclusives" label on a
DLC. Although the evidences of his hypothesis is still limited, it makes sense.
As for updates, or patches as we like to call
it, Mr Imron said they're like double edged sword. On one edge, it really helps
developers to add, tweak, fix things on/to their games. If a game was released
broken 10 years ago, the only way to fix it is to retract it, and release an
updated version. Which would cost developers a lot. On the other edge, the
quality control of a video game can be low as developers tend to rely on
post-release updates. This most likely happen in annual video games where
deadlines are tight. Mr Imron added that he believes many video games are
packed, distributed, and released at 75%. In other words, they are unfinished.
The rest will be added via mandatory day one updates. As much as this pains
gamers (especially those with slow internet connection), mandatory day one
updates are a good countermeasure against piracy.
