ACII DLC was originally part of game

By Tom Bramwell Published 22 December, 2009

1 becomes 2.

Assassin's Creed II's dad Patrice Desilets has confirmed that the Battle of Forli and Bonfire of the Vanities download packs due next year were originally meant to be in the main game.

"I felt that, 'Okay, there were too many things to do and to finish.' So we said, 'Okay, let's take a portion of the game that was planned and we'll give it in DLC.' We'll remove some stress to the team while giving more to fans and people who like Assassin's Creed," Desilets told Kotaku.

"I think we gave them so much content that they cannot say that we owe them, that we didn't give them a lot for their 60 bucks," he added.

The two bonus episodes are due out in January and February for $4 and $5 respectively, and fill in the "Sequence" gap in the Assassin's Creed II storyline.

Desilets also hinted that the team may reintroduce another feature that was cut in order to get the game finished - the ability to replay any mission. "Eventually maybe we'll come out with some way to do it somehow," he said.

Check out our previous coverage for recently announced details of the DLC packs, including a video demo from Desilets. Or, check out our Assassin's Creed II review.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (267) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Byzanite #1 2 years ago

    /create cash cow
    /go

  • 52pickup #2 2 years ago

    I think we always knew this since sequences 12 and 13 were conveniently missing. I get annoyed when a dev take things from the game while keeping in mind they can cash in later and offer it at a premium. No doubt they will cost between £8-10 each.

    I will buy it, but i can see some people really ticked off with this.

  • PlugMonkey #3 2 years ago

    So, what? If they had some good ideas they had to cut to get the game out, they should just consign them to the bin forever? Peoples' attitudes to this sort of stuff are utterly bizarre.

    Also, people with no concept of how games development works should refrain from commenting on this thread. That includes anyone who is about to say that this stuff should be released "for free" because it "should have been in the original game".

    Thankyou.

  • Syrok #4 2 years ago

    "We'll remove some stress to the team while giving more to fans and people who like Assassin's Creed,"

    But the fans don't get more they just pay more. :/

  • JahB #5 2 years ago

    @grimmace

    bitter much? i like the idea of DLC (and patches), simply because it means the experience i get with a new game can be extended if i want to. borderlands DLC? quite good. GTA IV DLC? quite awesome.

  • wizlon #6 2 years ago

    You can justify this all you want but this is bollocks, cutting shit out of a game to add it in later to charge for it is wrong.

    Boycott this tactic before we end up with bare bones experiences backed up by the rest of the game being delivered via DLC!

  • Stardusted #7 2 years ago

    The DLC trend is really starting to get on my nerves...

    I want to play the games as a whole, and not in parts. Plus, this is ruining my game collection as well. How the hell am I supposed to store the DLC I buy? In burned dvds? In seperate cases? I am a fun of actually buying my games in their cases, physical copies.

    This whole DLC thing is turning fast into a mess. I will think very carefully and wait next time before I buy any major title.

  • Vinchio #8 2 years ago

    What a load of shit. I can't stand the fact that some consumers encourage this sort of capitalist behaviour by purchasing shit like this. If the levels are part of the main story then they should be released for free, either that or have the original rrp lower since your not paying for a complete game. Then the cost of the extra missions could bump it back to the normal rrp. YOU SUCK A MILLION BUMS.

  • the_dudefather #9 2 years ago

    As much as I loved AC2, this was the wrong approach to take

    Fair enough they had to get the game released in time, and it's better to have this content in some form rather than not at all, but it still leaves a bitter taste
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 09:33

  • PlugMonkey #10 2 years ago

    6 and a half years working for a main stream studio - thanks

    Ha ha! Is that supposed to make me think better of you? That's even worse! You should know better. I didn't say "non-games developers", I said "people with no idea how games development works". Somehow, even after 6 years, you still manage to be one of those. That's sad.

    Seriously? 6 and half years and you've never seen content cut due to schedule and budget limitations? I want to work at your studio!

    (Actually, I don't. It would appear at least one member of staff is a moron.)

    cutting shit out of a game to add it in later to charge for it is wrong.

    But they're not cutting shit out to add it in later to charge for it. They're cutting shit out because they don't have the time and money to put it in. Then they get offered more time and money to put it in later. That time and money is only offered because it will be sold for a price.

    So, without the DLC this stuff would remain on the cutting room floor forever. No developer wants to make cuts. If they get the opportunity to put stuff back in again, they'll take it. They may also foolishly believe that some gamers may prefer the opportunity to pay to see it rather than it being lost forever. Desilets appears to be one of them. The sap. He'll get pilloried for it.

  • menage #11 2 years ago

    I usually hate it when this stuff happens, I don't mind much now. At least the DLC is actually worth a damn, isn't a complete ripoff and the game is packed already.


  • PlugMonkey #12 2 years ago

    "If the levels are part of the main story then they should be released for free, either that or have the original rrp lower since your not paying for a complete game. Then the cost of the extra missions could bump it back to the normal rrp."

    Christ, they're coming thick and fast today.

    You get given a budget. This is based on projected sales at a certain rrp. You then try and make a game that fits in that budget. But developers are ambitious people. They will inevitably try and build more stuff than they actually have the time and money for, and you have to make cuts.

    This happens with every game. This does not mean that you are not shipping a full game. You can't lower the rrp because of it. If you don't get a separate DLC budget (based on projected sales at an rrp), you can't pay your staff, and you can't make the content to put it out "for free".

    Does any of this make sense to anyone?

  • Widge #13 2 years ago

    Well I don't know about you, but if I'm playing a game like this I'd just want to play it through the once and experience all the story as part of that. Not have to wait and pay for additional dribs and drabs. Fallout 3 can hang its head in shame at this. I'm not going to experience part of the story now because at £17 I felt the game was a bargain and worthy of the time. Adding on chunks of £8 is not acceptable.

    Some games really do give you a big shit load, GTA and its entire new stories, Wipeout and its massive Fury refresh. Stuff like this feels a bit meh.

  • JahB #14 2 years ago

    why the hell is plug monkey getting negs? that's one of the more insightful posts around here

  • Shinetop #15 2 years ago

    I dislike the current trend of complaining about DLC and nickeling and diming, I realise that expansion packs have been around since forever, and I actually have the sense to realise that sometimes there's just no time to add certain content and still make a deadline, but throwing the content away would be a waste. I'm all for DLC and expansion packs. However, the 'giving more to fans' line is a bit bullshitty.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 09:45

  • bad09 #16 2 years ago

    I have no problem with devs making DLC the same time as a game, but when devs openly admit they've cut content out of a game to sell afterwards there is something VERY wrong with the games industry.

    Ubi, meet Capcom and EA. Join them in the cold shadows of the likes of Criterion, Rockstar and Valve people who actually offer something EXTRA for the money they ask. You thieving bastards....

    / Expects AC2 PC to be COMPLETE

  • FreakyZoid #17 2 years ago

    "I might buy a cake later on today, I'll have to go back to the shop tomorrow though and pay more for the jam. "

    I don't understand. Are you saying that AC2 didn't have enough content in it to justify the price? To use your metaphor, AC2 was a large cake that was already delicious, and the chef left the jam out because he wasn't sure it really made the cake taste any nicer (and might have even made the cake too sweet for some, stopping them from finishing it).

    In "the old days" this stuff would have been left on the cutting room floor and you would have never have known about it - they're just letting people who want more buy more.

    Some people are quite odd with their attitudes to what "should have been in the game".

  • Shinetop #18 2 years ago

    You can justify this all you want but this is bollocks, cutting shit out of a game to add it in later to charge for it is wrong.

    Here's where you're wrong: they didn't cut it out to add it for a charge, they cut it out because in the real world you sometimes need to make a deadline and not everything you plan gets to make it in the final product.

    I have no problem with devs making DLC the same time as a game, but when devs openly admit they've cut content out of a game to sell afterwards there is something VERY wrong with the games industry.

    Where is he openly admitting that?
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 09:48

  • FreakyZoid #19 2 years ago

    "No doubt they will cost between £8-10 each."

    No doubt you didn't even read the news story.

  • Kazzahdrane #20 2 years ago

    People need to get their heads looked at.

    The team designed (and possibly started creating) some levels/missions/whatever that they then couldn't finish within their time/financial budgets, so once they'd finished the game and sent it to MS and Sony for submission (probably at the beginning of October-ish), they got started on ressurecting that stuff as DLC.

    The whole "they should have put this in the full game" argument is a complete farce. If developers put everything they wanted to do in a game they WOULD NEVER FINISH IT.

    The only reason people are pissed with Ubisoft is that they had the audacity to decide before the game was finished that they were going to do these 2 memory segments as DLC and so hinted at them during the course of the game (and included their existence in the UI). IMO it was very clever and makes the integration of the DLC (hopefully) pretty seamless.

    Yes, it was once intended to be part of the game. No, I very much doubt Ubisoft decided the game was too full of content and that they could fleece gamers for more money by cutting full finished sections. Anyone who has played through AC2 and thinks it's thin on content is bonkers.

  • M_of_the_sys #21 2 years ago

    PlugMonkey has hit the nail on the head. Shit gets cut out of games all the time, never to be seen again. Considering they left the memory sequence in the game, this was probably planned before the game was released nut I feel I got much more than my moneys worth with ACII. I'll be purchasing this.

    @Widge

    How much is the DLC for the games that gave you a shit load? I'm imagining quite a bit more than what this will be? If not then fair enough.

  • Doctor_What #22 2 years ago

    I know my opinion won't be popular, but I hope you'll give it a chance:

    People always conplain about bolted-on multiplayer features, but then they complain about paid-for DLC in single-player games. You can't have it both ways. Single-player games absolutely have to have DLC - they're the games that end up in second-hand sales the fastest and most often.

    How many people here are going to sell ACII when they're finished with it? 40%? Maybe a lot more. How much money does Ubisoft get out of that resale? Nothing. So, if Ubisoft want to make any money out of the second-hand sales, then they need to release paid-for DLC.

    The other way of doing things is to release regular free DLC (like Batman did this year) which stops the game going back into the second-hand market because people hold on to it for longer. That does mean that there are more first-hand sales, but ultimately there's still very little money in it for the delveopers. I'd prefer this model, but realistically if we want people to continue to make single-player games we have to face up to the fact that early adopters are going to be charged for DLC later on. It's not great, but there's no business model any other way, meaning that these games just wouldn't be possible to finance without it.

    So there's your choice, sadly: paid-for DLC or no big-budget single-player games. I'll go for the later, because I love single-player games, and it's not like I *have* to buy the DLC.

  • ruined #23 2 years ago

    In defence of Ubisoft on this one Microsoft and Sony don't allow free DLC packs so they couldn't offer it for free like the poster above suggested. Even if they did there is a cost per unique key on live / per download on PSN to the publisher.

    Fact is that in any games development process the game is going to vary from the original "wouldn't it be cool if..." plan. This is for all manner of reasons including time and budget.

    Delaying a game isn't always an option as that has real implications on the financials of that company and could hurt shares. Spending more isn't the solution either, in an ideal world you could pump £100 million into a game, make it the most perfect title anyone has ever played and make a profit. But the reality is even if the game is amazing, if it doesn't cover its costs there won't be a sequel and the studio that made it could even go under.

    The games industry is a business at the end of the day.

  • PhoenixMDK #24 2 years ago

    It’s important to separate a few different types of content here:

    1. Intentionally cutting out a completed feature or section of a game from the final release so that it can be monetised later as DLC.
    2. Intentionally stopping the story short so that the ending can only be played by purchasing DLC (I would cite Prince of Persia, but personally I preferred the original ambiguous ending so was quite happy to ignore the DLC entirely).
    3. Releasing later as DLC features or sections that were cut from the original game due to genuine time/budget constraints and developed after release.

    The first two seem wrong, while I can’t understand how people could legitimately complain about the last one, since it’s content that otherwise would never see the light of day. I say “seem wrong” since there’s no moral imperative here. They’re selling products which they can price however they like. Gamers need to learn to vote with their wallets if they dislike something instead of complaining online and then going ahead and buying it anyway.

  • bad09 #25 2 years ago

    "Where is he openly admitting that?

    Hmmmm.

    "I felt that, 'Okay, there were too many things to do and to finish.' So we said, 'Okay, let's take a portion of the game that was planned and we'll give it in DLC.' We'll remove some stress to the team while giving more to fans and people who like Assassin's Creed,"

    He is basically saying "the game is not gonna be finished by deadline. Cut some out, we'll finish it and even make some cash". You sound like you are fine with that attitude and TBH you are not alone (probably why companies feel they can rip us all the time and DLC is in the hated state it's in with many gamers) but personally I would rather they took the time to actually finish the games they want increasing amounts of money for.

    Am I wrong? Maybe, but as a consumer the attitide you defend hardly makes me want to rush out and throw money at them. People like Rockstar and Valve however get my money with hardly a thought.

  • swissorc #26 2 years ago

    rip off merchants

  • gnrlstuart #27 2 years ago

    this is not dlc, things like the ballad of gay tony, big surf island, and the hot holidays car pack are dlc, adding missions that were originally in the game, then justifying us paying for them is unfair.

  • Shinetop #28 2 years ago

    He is basically saying "the game is not gonna be finished by deadline. Cut some out, we'll finish it and even make some cash".

    Correct. This is exactly what he is saying. It is, however, not the same as "cutting it out to sell it later", which is what you were claiming earlier.

    You sound like you are fine with that attitude and TBH you are not alone (probably why companies feel they can rip us all the time and DLC is in the hated state it's in with many gamers) but personally I would rather they took the time to actually finish the games they want increasing amounts of money for.

    They did finish the game. The finished game is available in stores right now! It may not contain everything the developers planned for it or wanted to put in it, but that's the case with every game. For every game you've ever played, stuff got cut. Does this mean that all games are unfinished?

    Am I wrong? Maybe, but as a consumer the attitide you defend hardly makes me want to rush out and throw money at them. People like Rockstar and Valve however get my money with hardly a thought.

    Despite them also cutting stuff out of games and later using some of those ideas into DLC?
    Edited by 2 at 22/12/09 @ 10:08

  • jack_klugman #29 2 years ago

    Vote with your wallets.

  • bad09 #30 2 years ago

    @ Shinetop

    "They did finish the game. For every game you've ever played, stuff got cut. Does this mean that all games are unfinished?"

    I'm not so naive to think things don't get cut. This is not about stuff we may have lost. This is stuff they could not finish due to deadlines. I'll repeat my original point that maybe there is something very wrong with the industry if people cannot finish their games and resort to selling parts of it as DLC.

    "Despite them also cutting stuff out of games and later using some of those ideas into DLC? "
    Now you're splitting hairs. Did Rockstar ever say "originally we had 3 separate stories in GTA4, we ran out of time though so split them into 3 and sold the other two as DLC"?



    EDIT - jack_klugman. As smart as he's namesake :)
    Edited by 2 at 22/12/09 @ 10:16

  • PlugMonkey #31 2 years ago

    "I would rather they took the time to actually finish the games"

    Took the time? Took the time from where? In this instance, he's said he took the time from the DLC budget, and that's being labled WRONG! Where else is he supposed to 'take the time' from?

    In 'the good old days', you used to hear developers talking about how excited they were to be making a sequel, because they had more money this time and could restore all the features they had to cut from the original, and I don't remember anyone clamouring that they should get the next game for free.

    Developers need to get a lot more savvy with how they pitch this stuff, and probably a lot more disciplined with what they try to rescue. They might think that it provides an ideal opportunity to restore lost content, and that fans of the game would be excitied about getting the lost stuff back, but it looks like that's a rather naive approach.

    Then again, if it sells well, maybe it does work and the internet is just full of an extremely vocal minority railing against the percieved injustice of it all? Who knows.

  • NewbieZilla #32 2 years ago

    "I actually have the sense to realise that sometimes there's just no time to add certain content and still make a deadline.. but throwing the content away would be a waste. "

    "However, the 'giving more to fans' line is a bit bullshitty."

    Contradiction. I don't see how you can feel it is bulshitty when you are aware that certain content can not be made for release date, and developers want a certain part of their plans released. Unless you are of the mindset none of it is for the fans, which in some cases is probably the truth.

  • kangarootoo #33 2 years ago

    "I think we gave them so much content that they cannot say that we owe them, that we didn't give them a lot for their 60 bucks,"

    He is absolutely right. There is really nothing more to say about it. AC2 as it shipped on disc is more than worth the money, so who gives a stuff about the DLC. If you don't want it, don't buy it, and your main game experience will still be great and well worth the money you paid for it.


    @wizlon

    "Boycott this tactic"

    What is it with ther internet and people endlessly calling for boycotts of everything. I mean seriously, if you don't like something, WHY WOULD YOU BUY IT?!? You don't need to declare a boycott, you just don't buy something. Its that simple.

    Do you buy every game that gets released? Of course not, you just make your choices. It doesn't mean you are "boycotting" all the games you don't buy, it means you just don't buy them.

    Why on earth does everyone feel the need to get so dramatic about this sort of thing? Just don't buy the DLC if you don't want it, and just have fun playing the more than ample main game.


    @Shinetop and Plugmonkey

    Good posts.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 10:15

  • asphaltcowboy #34 2 years ago

    What a tidal wave of stupid we have here in this thread. PlugMonkey really is talking sense. Good posts mate!

  • Shinetop #35 2 years ago

    I'm not so naive to think things don't get cut. This is not about stuff we may have lost. This is stuff they could not finish due to deadlines. I'll repeat my original point that maybe there is something very wrong with the industry if people cannot finish their games and resort to selling parts of it as DLC.

    Again, stuff always ends up on the cutting room floor. This is how -every- industry works, and has always worked.


    "Despite them also cutting stuff out of games and later using some of those ideas into DLC? "
    Now you're splitting hairs. Did Rockstar ever say "originally we had 3 separate stories in GTA4, we ran out of time though so split them into 3 and sold the other two as DLC"?

    No. Is that what happened? To an extent. They had some ideas and plans that eventually didn't make it into GTA4, and eventually those things found their way into being implemented in the DLC.

  • grayn #36 2 years ago

    "why the hell is plug monkey getting negs? that's one of the more insightful posts around here "

    Probably because he's being incredibly rude and arrogant as he makes his point.

  • Shinetop #37 2 years ago

    Contradiction. I don't see how you can feel it is bulshitty when you are aware that certain content can not be made for release date, and developers want a certain part of their plans released. Unless you are of the mindset none of it is for the fans, which in some cases is probably the truth.

    Correct. I should've used a clearer reasoning than "a bit bulshitty", and now that I look back on it, I don't really see why I felt that way. I guess I'm too used to people like David Cage and Cliff Bezinski spouting off about what great services they're doing gamers, causing my bullshit-detector to give off too many false positives.

  • PlugMonkey #38 2 years ago

    "this is not dlc, things like the ballad of gay tony, big surf island, and the hot holidays car pack are dlc, adding missions that were originally in the game, then justifying us paying for them is unfair.

    Lolz. See what I mean? It's all in the pitch!

    This is the original planned map of Paradise City, before schedules and budgets meant it had to be cut.

    [link url=http://www.operationburnout.com/paradise-ass ets/art/paradisecity.jpg
    ]http://ww w.operationburnout.com/paradise...[/link]

    Whoa! What the hell is that off the east coast of Paradise? It looks like some sort of island!

    There are some very savvy people at Criterion. I've no idea if their DLC was a financial success, but I hope it was because they really raised the bar on how to approach it. And more importantly, how to pitch it.

  • NewbieZilla #39 2 years ago

    " Did Rockstar ever say "originally we had 3 separate stories in GTA4, we ran out of time though so split them into 3 and sold the other two as DLC"? "

    Ah, so the issue is openness? Ah, I see.

    "I guess I'm too used to people like David Cage and Cliff Bezinski spouting off about what great services they're doing gamers, causing my bullshit-detector to give off too many false positives."

    Well, honestly, I am a big Gears fan and loved Fahrenheit, so in their cases, I don't really have to pay attention to what they say. Their products speak for themselves. Had you mentioned Molyneux, well, if he said it was raining, I'd know it for a fine sunny day.

  • kangarootoo #40 2 years ago

    "I'll repeat my original point that maybe there is something very wrong with the industry if people cannot finish their games and resort to selling parts of it as DLC"

    The games industry has never worked that way, and it never will, and neither should it. Cuts are important on principle for quality reasons. If you stubbornly included every idea of scenario you ever commited to paper, the end result would suffer.

    Don't they always say that films are made or broken in the cutting room?

  • Ninja_Tino #41 2 years ago

    I feel that, regardless of what was taken out, AC2 still delivered enough to be worth a full price purchase. I will definitely be picking up the DLC, as it appears that it'll be only around 400 - 500 points each. Gotta say though, this guy is a complete and utter moron for admitting this!

  • NewbieZilla #42 2 years ago

    "Gotta say though, this guy is a complete and utter moron for admitting this!"

    In this case, I don't think so. The game clearly states it without any say so. If they tried saying anything else, everyone would know. Thats the cynical perspective which I'm sure is the heavier side of the scales on this one, and probably less of the idealistic honesty is the best policy approach.

  • iamian #43 2 years ago

    Isn't this the same kind of thing that happens in all industries? Movies coming out with extended/directors cuts? Albums being rereleased with additional tracks that were released after the intital album?

    Personally I don't have a problem with this. I much prefere the idea of having DLC developed along side the main game so that fits into the story and is properly integrated and so that it is available while I'm still interested in the game. I don't want to hear about DLC being released months later when I've moved on - I just wouldn't buy it.

    I lot of good points made here. I think maybe this has blown up a bit simply because of the way it was worded in the press release...

  • kangarootoo #44 2 years ago

    @Ninja_Tino

    "Gotta say though, this guy is a complete and utter moron for admitting this!"

    You see, I think its a real shame that we think that way. If he had kept his gob shut about this, we would simply be happy in our ignorance as we were for the GTA4 DLC (which of course was planned well before the main game was finished). What we were getting for a our money wouldn't have changed. And you know, when I read this article my first thought was surprise at him being so open, and my second was a degree of admiration for him saying opening what is exactly the same case all oevr the business.

    It seems that public figures are damned either way, be they game devs or politicians or whoever. Essentially we want the moon on a stick, so we are of course never short of opportunities to be disappointed.

  • kangarootoo #45 2 years ago

    "Movies coming out with extended/directors cuts?"

    The perfect example.

  • PlugMonkey #46 2 years ago

    "Probably because he's being incredibly rude and arrogant as he makes his point. "

    I would say that is more than likely the reason, yes. ;D

    I'm going to blame my shitty attitude this morning on my cold, because it's much less painful than blaming it on my personality.

    And I was really only rude to Grimmace. And he should know better. Sorry Grimmace.

    But you should.

    " Did Rockstar ever say "originally we had 3 separate stories in GTA4, we ran out of time though so split them into 3 and sold the other two as DLC"? "

    In so many words, no. But I would imagine that the DLC was planned from the get go, and that if they weren't planning on re-using Liberty City for two paid-for DLCs, they wouldn't have cleared as big a budget to build it in such fine detail in the first place.

    I think Rockstar's DLC was very nicely done as well. In reality, they didn't do much more than a quick reskin job, but they made it feel like it was good value. Doing a whole new story makes it feel a lot fresher. For example, I would rather have got the opportunity to explore Fallout 3 from the angle of a Raider or a Super Mutant than just have a few extra scenarios with my original character.

    Different feels like better value than More.

  • jonfon #47 2 years ago

    Agree with PlugMonkey and Dr What, this stuff is generally content that couldn't make the deadline, so traditionally it'd be dropped and never seen again.

    Now developers can take these "deleted scenes" and work on getting it up to standard to be released later. This means people who finish the game and are bulling for more content can get it, as well as a means for Developers and Publishers to potentially gain something from second hand sales & trade-ins via purchases of DLC add-ons.

    Of course you can vote with your wallet and skip it, but making claims that "This should be in the full game" makes no sense, this is content that couldn't be put into the full game because it didn't make the grade.

    That said it's up to you to decide if it's worth it for you or not. But that's a calculation of whether the DLC is simply worth the price charged (some of the Dragon Age DLC fails in this regard IMO), not withholding your cash because you erroneously believe that if it wasn't for DLC this content would be in the main game.

    I want to know if Peter Jackson got all this hassle for making deleted scenes available in the Lord of the Rings DVDs (and there some scenes were cut because of cinematic film length and not always because the scenes weren't up to scratch).

  • NewbieZilla #48 2 years ago

    "For example, I would rather have got the opportunity to explore Fallout 3 from the angle of a Raider or a Super Mutant than just have a few extra scenarios with my original character."

    I have agreed with all you have said, pretty much. This is an example of somewhere I'd disagree, it goes against the idea of being an RPG and having a character you put a lot of work into. But, hey, we can't agree on everything.

  • kangarootoo #49 2 years ago

    "I'm going to blame my shitty attitude this morning on my cold, because it's much less painful than blaming it on my personality."

    I must remember that one ;)

  • actionfitz #50 2 years ago

    "So we said, 'Okay, let's take a portion of the game that was planned and we'll give it in DLC.'"

    you fucking what?
    o.O
    Maybe she would be more at home working for Activision.
    Sounds like a play out of the Kotick book of 'cynical cuntary'
    ---
    bring on the negs, your tears make me stronger etc.
    split hairs if you like, but I stand by my view that DLC should be fresh content that adds to / compliments the main game experience.
    Not content you cut from the game to sell separately later.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 11:05

  • PanStre #51 2 years ago

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I hate it when businesses try to stay in business.

  • Shinetop #52 2 years ago

    Sounds like a play out of the Kotick book of 'cynical cuntary'

    He must've taught you everything you know.

  • kangarootoo #53 2 years ago

    @NewbieZilla

    Not being able to let go of a character is one of the blights of RPGs in my opinion (I'm as guilty as any mind you). We invest so much in building the up the character, we don't like the idea of playing a different one as we feel our "investment" is wasted. But surely the fun we get from playing is the reward for the investment, not some numbers on a page.

    I recommend some Call of Cthulhu p&p rpg playing. If memory serves, you die an awful lot (or become otherwise unplayable) in that and get used to playing new characters pretty quickly :)

  • kangarootoo #54 2 years ago

    @actionfitz

    You haven't read the thread have you.

  • jonfon #55 2 years ago

    @actionfitz : "So we said, 'Okay, let's take a portion of the game that was planned and we'll give it in DLC.'"

    The keyword here is "planned". As in something they thought they could do within the time and budget constraints of the initial development but which didn't make it.

    ie stuff that would otherwise have been cut completely and never seen again.

    @PanStre : Indeed :)

  • Kapo! #56 2 years ago

    There's absolutely zero chance I will be buying this game after the over-hyped travesty which was the original AC. The sequel looks more of the same - I think I will pass, thank you.

  • NewbieZilla #57 2 years ago

    "But surely the fun we get from playing is the reward for the investment, not some numbers on a page. "

    Well, in theory that is true, but its not the numbers. Its more related to the choices you have made. And if you only continue on making the same choices with the new playable character, whats the point*? So, at some point during the game, you end up going on a different tangent. I guess thats not so bad a thing, at times.

    *I suppose that should be obvious. The different type of skills available to a different character. Difficult to pull off though. The expansion would have to be hefty. Would have to have the feeling you've invested time to have the choices and skill in this new character. I guess numbers does play a bigger role in it than I think about while playing the games.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 11:02

  • kangarootoo #58 2 years ago

    @Kapo!

    Fair enough. Its not for everyone, same as every game.

  • PlugMonkey #59 2 years ago

    @ Newbiezilla

    Interesting. I hadn't really thought of it like that. I suppose the RPG element does make it a bit different, but by the time the Fallout DLC arrived my character was pretty much maxed out and invlunerable, so i didn't get much from taking her any further.

    They could have re-used the world and given me new stuff to do in it, and I'd have been just as happy. That's a good line to take with DLC, I think, as world's are very expensive so once you have one, use it a lot!

    How about a prologue detailing the adventures of Dogmeat up until you meet him? :D

    Presumably you did prefer The Lost and The Damned and Gay Tony to any sort of Continued Adventures of Niko Bellic that they could have done?

    Yeah, now I think of it doing DLC for an RPG that doesn't let you use your character would be a bit weird, but somehow it still feels like it's better value for money. Because I'm getting a whole new (albeit smaller) game instead of an extra 1% added onto the game I already have.

  • dloob #60 2 years ago

    Isn't it better that we have it rather than it being dumped forever.
    Isn't any DLC going to be planned at the same time as the main game if it's going to fit into the story line properly.
    I'm looking forward to a bit more assassining.

  • VicViper #61 2 years ago

    AC2 was a complete game, yeah when the two memory blocks were metioned I immediately thought DLC.

    However by the time I finished the game the complete story that I feel AC2 was telling was told and I was more than satisfied.

    I didn't bother with most of the side missions so I'll be going back to finish them before considering any DLC but at a gig in size each these are fairly huge chucks that for all I know are just being finished as the Dev team finally had time and if I want more I'll get them if not well I won't.

  • kangarootoo #62 2 years ago

    @NewbieZilla

    But a new character can maybe be the perfect catalyst to help you make different choices. One of the limiting factors with building up a long term character imo is that you end up playing to its strengths and voiding its weaknesses. A new character perhaps brings new strengths (or simply levels the field), giving you the perfect oppotunity to change your playing style.

    Anyway, I'll quit preaching the gospel of "play a new character from time to time" now. Not sure how I ended up heading down that track.

  • dloob #63 2 years ago

    @actionfitz "So we said, 'Okay, let's take a portion of the game that was planned and we'll give it in DLC."

    The other option was "Okay let's take a portion of the game that was planned and cut it or we'll never make the planned ship date."
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 11:07

  • NewbieZilla #64 2 years ago

    Kanga, yeah, I edited my comment pretty to much the same effect.

  • kangarootoo #65 2 years ago

    @Newbiezilla and PlugMonkey

    I found it much more interesting to replay Oblivion with a brand new character than to finish up all the side mission with the same powerful character I had started with. There is something distinctly fresh about going right back to basics.

    Right, this time I'll stop preaching.

  • Postumo #66 2 years ago

    Thiefs!

  • PlugMonkey #67 2 years ago

    I found it much more interesting to replay Oblivion with a brand new character than to finish up all the side mission with the same powerful character I had started with.

    I wish I'd done that.

    In fact, I'd love to play an RPG where the whole point was to experience the same events from the perspective of half a dozen different characters. The early part of the character development is always the most interesting bit.

  • NewbieZilla #68 2 years ago

    I played Oblivion a load of times for the sake of finding a perfect build. Mass Effect like 7 or 8 times for the sake of going through with various choices made throughout. Fallout 3, I think 4 times. Replaying games, well, I don't understand people who buy games to play them once and then just let them gather dust. Though to that ilk, I am considered strange because of how much playtime I'd give a game even after clearing it.

  • DanForinton #69 2 years ago

    Personally, I got more than my money's worth out of the original game. Given the placement in the storyline of these episodes, I'm not sorry to have skipped them at the time - a certain amount of fatigue was setting in and the game was in danger of becoming a chore rather than fun. It was obvious looking at the game and those two missing segments that they'd be prime candidates for DLC. I can't quite make up my mind whether I'm going to get these, but it's not for some bizarre moral outrage or sense of self-entitlement but purely because I've already played enough of the game to last me until AC3 turns up.

  • kangarootoo #70 2 years ago

    "I played Oblivion a load of times for the sake of finding a perfect build"

    Oh I've seen your type before, tweaking the numbers for the perfect power character ;)


    ... 'cos I used to play p&p that way myself way back in my Shadowrun days :), dissecting the stats and skills to make my character the fastest the system would allow. Guilty your honour.

  • actionfitz #71 2 years ago

    @Shinetop

    Sounds like a play out of the Kotick book of 'cynical cuntary'

    He must've taught you everything you know.
    ---
    oh! oh! I see what you did there! you win the internet,
    I am rubber you are glue etc.
    ( /love monkey Island).
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 11:38

  • cock #72 2 years ago

    I have no particular problem with what they're doing personally but I do think it was a pretty bad decision to frame it in this manner.

    "Hi, here's some stuff you need to pay for to plug the gaps in the game you already bought"
    vs
    "Hi, here are some cool extra bits to add onto that game you bought"

    It's hard for people looking at it from a customer / gamer point of view to accept that it's still the same thing (assuming the work really was done after the main game was finished).

  • raion #73 2 years ago

    I wouldn't have minded it if there were only the 12 playable chapters, and then added some, rather than go the "corrupted memory" bull. the same with the dragon age npc. I don't mind games with dlc, as long as they don't rub it in our faces going "oooooh, man, you're missing out". THAT's why the games seem like they're not complete, because they are the ones telling us so.

    k. beated to it hehe.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 11:29

  • NewbieZilla #74 2 years ago

    "Oh I've seen your type before, tweaking the numbers for the perfect power character ;)"

    Heh, I had a playthrough where I just had the character in stealth in the prison, and only left once I had some great bonuses out of it. Morrowind was a game that encouraged power gaming more than Oblivion though. Them bonuses were a lot more important back then. Though, I do also have playthroughs with some form of limitation too, which are cool, too.

    "It's hard for people looking at it from a customer / gamer point of view to accept that it's still the same thing (assuming the work really was done after the main game was finished)."

    The thing with this approach in this instance, though, is that people see the memory parts there, and not available. Then they become available. They can't conceal the fact, its there for people to see. If it were memories directly after the end game, then they could go down an alternative route, and I'm sure they would have.

    As has already pointed out in the comments, its probably not accurate to think that Rockstar are the saints of DLC that they are made out to be.

  • Ninja_Tino #75 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo. I know I sounded overly critical in my post, but I meant that due to what the general feedback to him is going to be like, he's an idiot for admitting the reasons behind the DLC. The average response is going to be negative and can only hurt sales of the DLC, as you'll get some people now who will outright refuse to buy it. Was it the right thing for him to tell the truth? Who cares?! It's a business and it would have just made much more sense to just release the DLC and not give any background details behind it.

  • sarcasmoidosis #76 2 years ago

    Perfectly understandable business decision meets bad marketing pitch. Shitstorm ensues :)

  • kangarootoo #77 2 years ago

    @Ninja_Tino

    "It's a business and it would have just made much more sense to just release the DLC and not give any background details behind it."

    I agree. I personally quite liked that he was so open about it, but it was also probably an unwise thing to do.

  • bad09 #78 2 years ago

    Well said designerheadache

  • Sonic_D #79 2 years ago

    I enjoyed AC2 muchly, but retrospectively inserting chapters in to the story doesn't really appeal to me. DLC should be on top, something extra that goes beyond the original story. I felt the ending where you skip 10 years was rushed at the time and felt the game would have benefited, but I don't see how it's going to work now I have completed the game.

  • Grogmonkey #80 2 years ago

    Anyone who thinks game developers should just jolly well carry on working and 'finish' their games before shipping them (ie: not cutting any content whatsoever, which could potentially be used as DLC later) should probably read this article:

    [link url=http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_duke_nukem /all/1
    ]http://ww w.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fa...[/link]

    A fairly enlightening read about time-frames, ambition, and just what happens when you try to do too much rather than just buckling down and finishing your game.

    Also, I applaud the honesty of Desilets for telling it how it is.

  • Jay-ITFC #81 2 years ago

    'Okay, let's take a portion of the game that was planned and we'll give it in DLC.'

    There is a difference between giving people something and charging them for it.

  • lockload #82 2 years ago

    Already traded in

  • greenllama88 #83 2 years ago

    Personally, I can’t see the point in getting upset about downloadable content for a game if you enjoyed the game enough to want to spend more money on it in the first place… I’d rather get pissed off about the numerous sub par games out there which don’t give you value to begin with, rather than the option to pay for more one if it did. And if you didn’t enjoy the game, then why would you buy DLC for it?

  • EgbertoTheGreat #84 2 years ago

    "Does anyone remember the time when *once* a game shipped there was no chance to patch it later?"

    The first run of a game would invariably have bugs. These would be fixed for later runs. That's patching of a sort. What has changed is that the increased size & complexity of games means they're likely to contain more bugs & the internet means you're more likely to be aware of them.

    "You wouldnt pay to watch a film with a bit in the middle missing and then an extra fiver later to find out what happened?"

    I wouldn't but a lot of people do.

  • Spekingur #85 2 years ago

    Have the people, who are complaining about this DLC, actually played ACII?
    There is quite a bit of content already within the game and these two episodes do not deter from the main story.

    Edit: "You wouldnt pay to watch a film with a bit in the middle missing and then an extra fiver later to find out what happened? Why should this tactic be valid in gaming terms?"
    You already do. Often there are special DVD version released of movies with additional scenes that were cut out of the movie. A good example are the Lord of the Rings movies and their extended version counterparts.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 12:28

  • djed #86 2 years ago

    "haha, fuck you, consumers".

    edit: Yes, I know, Mona Lisa would have been ten times the master piece with DLC. Additionally, the Louvre would have had an additional revenue stream, synergizing the perceived value of its revisited offers and the empowerment of product to market ideals, resulting in reciprocal supra-intuitive daisies in a field in spring.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 12:55

  • kangarootoo #87 2 years ago

    @designerheadache

    "and dont over promise things you arent in a position to deliver at the time."

    Does that really apply here though? They didn't promise us these extra bits beforehand. What they did promise was a huge game chock full of interesting stuff to do, and imho they delivered on that with spades.

  • kangarootoo #88 2 years ago

    Am scooting off now.

    Merry Xmas everyone if I'm not in here before then. See you all next year for more of me throwing my weight around ;)

  • asphaltcowboy #89 2 years ago

    "In the same manner i now feel DLC has taken the same route (for the most part) It seems to be offload some of the cost and risk of a larger development product by adding bits as DLC for an inflated price, so they can ship on time. Again this is not in the consumers interest at all and just undermines the whole experience."

    Yes because being able to fix any issues that may have slipped through (it will happen, no matter how much testing you do), add value to or improve a product that has already reached the hands of the consumer is definitely a Bad Thing™ compared to not being able to sort out any issues or indeed allow the consumer to have a bit more of the game they really enjoyed without having to spend another 3 years and making the consumer spend another £40 on a sequel. Genius.

    "You wouldnt pay to watch a film with a bit in the middle missing and then an extra fiver later to find out what happened? Why should this tactic be valid in gaming terms? "

    And again, using films as an example, that happens all the time with Director's cuts. When do they ever chop out anything that is essential to the storyline as opposed to just adding a bit more colour and depth to the stuff you have already seen/experienced?

    Seriously, tidal wave of stupid...


    EDIT: Merry Christmas Kanga!
    Edited by 2 at 22/12/09 @ 12:39

  • HermitArcader #90 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • makeamazing #91 2 years ago

    I finished AC2, and it was great, over30+ hours. I personally dont have an issue with the DLC, as I have got more than my monies worth from the game.

    It is all about value. If they had made a game that was 6 hours long and that was it, to be honest then i might consider this a poor decision, but the game wasnt and isnt.

    Are people going to complain that the last Harry Potter movie has been split into two, while its just one book..... its all about value.

    I personally didnt think MW2 was worth the money, but then i wasnt fussed about the MP aspect, while others probably thought MW2 is great value for money because they are going to be playing it for ages. So in this case AC2's core content was ALOT, so it was therefore value for money.

  • wingZero21 #92 2 years ago

    Yeah get that DLC that was originally in the game.. completed and then taken out to... MAKE MONEY $$$$ RE$(5) anyone?

    Do it handover your money $$$$ to them..

  • Shinetop #93 2 years ago

    I'm glad to see I'm not alone in seeing DLC and offering bits that had to be cut later on as a good thing. Merry Christmas Kanga and others.

  • KRadiation #94 2 years ago

    Did they remove the 'assassin' part of the game by mistake again? I'm sure you're supposed to be an assassin but for the life of me I fail to see how stabbing someone at point blank range over and over makes you an assassin? Agent 47 this guy is not.

  • Rubarack #95 2 years ago

    Cut content from a good release that spent a decent amount of time in development, released a few months later because it wasn't ready on time is fine by me. Cut content released on day 1 from an unpolished release pushed out of the door months after development started is not cool.

    So I'm fine with this, but I probably won't buy the extra content because it seems a bit pricey considering.

  • EgbertoTheGreat #96 2 years ago

    "I'm sure you're supposed to be an assassin but for the life of me I fail to see how stabbing someone at point blank range over and over makes you an assassin?"

    Maybe a "Chav's Creed" dlc pack would be a good idea then. Out of curiosity, how do you stab someone at range?

  • darleysam #97 2 years ago

    So are we ignoring the bit where he said it was cut so they could get the game finished? Or are we just impotently waving our arms about because we don't want to acknowledge that bit.

  • Gaol #98 2 years ago

    I can't believe the amount of mugs that bought the 'we didn't have time' crap (or maybe we have a lot of corporate socks around). Its fucking obvious that an Ubi suit has gone 'hmmm how can we milk this'. The fact that content was cut *last minute* is evidence by the crappy way the game skips time periods and leaves loose ends. It is clearly detrimental to the retail product to have this released later.

    None of this matters to me, as some other bright spark at Ubi decided to lock my game save to the PS3 I was playing on, which has since YLODed. I was able to boot it up long enough to get my other saves off, bit some idiot thought it would be a good idea to lock AC2 saves to hardware, instead of my profile.

  • linksdad #99 2 years ago

    If he is telling the truth, then I have no grumbles. AC2 was a very well crafted piece of interactive entertainment (if a little short and easy) Certainly one of my highlights of 09.

    If however this was a cynical ploy to nickel and dime and the excuse is that they ran out of budget/time I will be as indignant as most of the previous posters. There is no way to prove either way so we have to take what he says at face value (or ignore him).

  • Stroller4 #100 2 years ago

    @ Shinetop / PlugMonkey - fair and insightful comments. DLC that's done well and adds to the original title is welcome but what about DLC that ships on the disk at the point of purchase but that is only unlocked when you by a code (e.g Dragon Age, where DLC came out instantly)? I think that is what sticks in the throats of most people and has led to some people's negative view of DLC

  • The_Inquisitor #101 2 years ago

    No wonder the story felt rushed and incomplete. Now with this DLC it will feel 'out of context' also.

    I'll probably boycott it for that reason.

    Edit: Forgot to say unless the price is right and I feel like some more content down the road.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 13:46

  • telboy007 #102 2 years ago

    Aha, so my original comment that got marked negative becomes justified.

    Edit: Fine fine negative marking peeps, I feel put out at having to pay for content which was part of the original game. You don't have missing memory slots already there if this wasn't the plan from the beginning - and that mod earlier is right, we just get to pay more. Still, I will be buying it. :) Great game.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 14:25

  • Moz #103 2 years ago

    *sigh* some people have no clue do they. if dlc wasn't an option then these levels would have been put in the bin and we'd never know they ever existed.

  • Silvervein #104 2 years ago

    Just a little post.

    Due to time constraints (coming almost exclusively from bad management, by the way) something might get cut from the game. It's how it works.
    However, when the development process is so rushed that the game plot has glaring holes in it (two missing chapters in this case), things are not as they should be. All it would take is just changing the numbering of the chapters. They didn't do even that.

    At the same time, after the game is released in such state, they say that they are going to charge people for content missing from the game. I believe people might be upset with this kind of attitude.

    Bottomline: from company standpoint, cutting development costs by cutting development time, and then selling the bits that were cut for extra money makes sense since it makes company shareholders happy due to extra profit.

    I'd like to notice that it's consumers, that's gamers, that are paying for it. Some don't mind, but I don't think this kind of corporate trick should be lauded as wise by people who will pay for it. Unless some of the posters here are working for those companies.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 13:54

  • ccfb #105 2 years ago

    I'm not really in a "break-giving" mood when it comes to publishers and developers reporting they had to make cuts due to time. I am one of those cynics that knows ALL publishers see DLC as a very lucrative way to generate more revenue and keep their games from being traded in.

    So, to my eyes this is very much like the Dragon Age thing where you've got merchants reporting DLC for purchase in the game, only without the price ticket attached, and I will be voting with my wallet.

    Perhaps it's becuase Ubi is both Developer AND Publisher that makes me think this way, but something like the Trials DLC that's coming just seems a bit more genuine somehow.

  • Stratix #106 2 years ago

    The game was amazing, and it lasted me a good 20 hours of fun and I haven't even finished everything. I don't remember once getting bored, and I will happily buy these two DLC. With a game this big, I don't mind if they cut a bit of content and price it as cheaply as they are.

  • Shinetop #107 2 years ago

    Bottomline: from company standpoint, cutting development costs by cutting development time, and then selling the bits that were cut for extra money makes sense since it makes company shareholders happy due to extra profit. I'd like to notice that it's consumers, that's gamers, that are paying for it. Some don't mind, but I don't think this kind of corporate trick should be lauded as wise by people who will pay for it.

    Of course, labelling something as a corporate trick doesn't automatically make it a corporate trick.


    Unless some of the posters here are working for those companies.

    You see, it almost seemed like you were a sensible decent person, that just happened to have a different opinion of the matter, but then you pulled some weird populist move and suggested that people could only appreciate this if they were company shills, and your credibility went right out the window.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 13:57

  • Silvervein #108 2 years ago

    @shinetop
    I'd like to discuss facts...whether people agree with me or not, it doesn't really matter since everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    But just to elaborate, I, personally, have a hard time imagining that any person earning their money will be happy to give it away for nothing. Or even worse in this case, give it to someone that basically publicly admitted to being a conman. And with straight face, at that.

  • Shinetop #109 2 years ago

    Did they remove the 'assassin' part of the game by mistake again? I'm sure you're supposed to be an assassin but for the life of me I fail to see how stabbing someone at point blank range over and over makes you an assassin? Agent 47 this guy is not.

    An assassin is someone who kills people, especially prominent people for monetary or ideological reasons. Both Altaïr and Ezio kill prominent people for ideological reasons. I fail to see your problem.

  • Shinetop #110 2 years ago

    But just to elaborate, I, personally, have a hard time imagining that any person earning their money will be happy to give it away for nothing. Or even worse in this case, give it to someone that basically publicly admitted to being a conman. And with straight face, at that.

    I and others have already stated why we feel that this has nothing to do with cons or money grabbing schemes, hence we do not feel that we're 'giving away' our money to a 'conman', as you say. I'd discuss the issue, but again, I'd like to discuss it with people who don't feel a need to insert insinuations about shilling. Also I'd like to discuss it with people who read previous posts in the thread so that I don't have to keep repeating myself.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 14:07

  • dirtschmooz #111 2 years ago

    All the guy had to say was 'we have been working on some DLC' rather than admit it was dropped from the original game.
    However, the fact that 'DLC' is very often developed at the same time as the game is surely no shock. Borderlands, OP flashpoint, Fallout 3, Map packs for COD: all of these are cynical cash cows. Do you really think time and effort was spent into developing these after the main release? Clearly not. Still, it doesn't stop people buying them.

    At the end of the day if DLC is priced fairly and is of sufficient quality, and really is an 'extra' to the original game, then no problems.

    take care all. Xmas Excess awaits

  • Grogmonkey #112 2 years ago

    @EarlBassett

    "They fully intended this to go back in, and for that reason it is disgusting to charge for it."

    There is an AMAZINGLY HUGE difference between knowingly attempting to rip-off your consumer and future-proofing your game.

    Here's how the meeting would have gone:

    Producer: We don't have time to properly polish all the content that is currently in the game. Some of it needs to be cut.

    Developer 1: Okay, well, we can get rid of these bits. They don't effect the main story that much.

    Producer: Okay, cool. Let's do that. But make sure it's all tied up so that it makes sense chronologically...

    Developer 2: Hang on! Why not keep the content for DLC! We don't need to get rid of it altogether, and the potential profits from selling the DLC can go towards funding the extra development time it would take to bring the content up to scratch! Plus, it means we don't need to change any of the sequence numbering because we can just stick it all back in later!

    Producer: That's a great idea! It means we won't have wasted valuable development time on things we will never use, plus it gives us a bit of extra revenue!

    Developer 1: Don't forget that our fans get to play those parts of the game that would have otherwise never seen the light of day! Hi-fives all round, guys!

    And thus, the main game was kept how it was, with empty sections waiting patiently for the day when the DLC was finished and ready to be added to its rightful place in the game.

  • Vinchio #113 2 years ago

    @ EarlBassett
    You Are Right. It's not like the developers decided after finishing the game to SELL dlc, otherwise the memory gaps wouldn't be in the 'completed' game. It sucks because it seems to be a money grabbing ploy. If any dlc that complements the games story or characters (which is easier for people not to purchase) then fine; but they know the nature of most gamers if to want to joy of kicking a games arse 100%, so without the proposed missions as DLC we are left to think its only 95% of the game that is available to complete on the disc. Leeches.

    @Shinetop
    You are Wrong. Staff and Execs do check these sites, and if they view something they do not like, they do comment against them.

  • TheRealBadabing #114 2 years ago

    This is probably an unwinnable battle for the anti-DLC brigade. The game shipped in a very finished state, unlike many recent titles. Of course, it may seem like a precident is being set but in truth, that horse bolted a long time ago.

  • KRadiation #115 2 years ago

    An assassin is someone who kills people, especially prominent people for monetary or ideological reasons. Both Altaïr and Ezio kill prominent people for ideological reasons. I fail to see your problem.

    Because it's near to no fun having to take nearly all of targets out by basically stabbing them at point blank range. The Hitman games have the best side of being an 'assassin' by letting you decide how to take the target out. Sniper, poison, stab, strangle, drown, crush.

    Would it have been that hard to allow us to use the bow and arrows or to poison their drink while disguised for example. Still killing the figures they target but at least doing it in a way that I don't know... makes some sense so they don't put themselves in danger by standing right in front of the target with a sword stabbing them with guards surrounding them.

    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 15:06

  • KRadiation #116 2 years ago

    Maybe a "Chav's Creed" dlc pack would be a good idea then. Out of curiosity, how do you stab someone at range?

    Throwing dart/knife maybe?
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 15:14

  • butler` #117 2 years ago

    so fundamentally wrong i don't care what PR bullshit he spouts

  • SomaticSense #118 2 years ago

    Refreshingly honest, but it's still a lost sale from my side.

    Knowingly removing gameplay from a full priced release, with the intention of selling it seperately to those that have already bought the product, is just wrong.

  • Shinetop #119 2 years ago

    @Shinetop
    You are Wrong. Staff and Execs do check these sites, and if they view something they do not like, they do comment against them.


    @Vinchia
    You are An Idiot. I never claimed that they don't. The point is that not everyone who disagrees with you is automatically an evil corporate shill.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 15:14

  • VibratingDonkey #120 2 years ago

    While I definitely got my money's worth out of ACII, this kind of shit should not be encouraged. Not buying the DLC even harder now.

    Kudos to Patrice for being upfront about it at least. I imagine most would say nothing.

  • Vinchio #121 2 years ago

    @Shinetoa
    If those people are for companies ripping off their customers then they are indeed. DLC is fine, but content taken from a game to be sold seperatly is not.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 15:27

  • darleysam #122 2 years ago

    It's not like it's content that was finished and then pulled out. They cut it because it wasn't finished and they needed to get the game out, or face a torrent of whinging for that instead. But rather than drop it entirely and just give you 12 memory sections, they left in space for the two and finished them up afterwards.

    The reactions to DLC do boggle me. If a developer wants to include DLC they need to code it into the game so that it'll work and not cock everything up when they do so. But then that shows they were planning DLC all along and cutting things out to sell to us later! Conspiracy, those profiteering bastards! So they should just lock out all possibilities of future expansion, since that's the only way the braying masses will ever be placated.

    Oh but how they will complain when a new map-pack released two years down the line goes and screws everything up.

  • kingcrude #123 2 years ago

    gaming will eat itself

  • Silvervein #124 2 years ago

    This issue is rather funny, if you look at it.

    A car dealer that would sell a car that's painted only in half, because 'they runned out of paint at the factory', but offering to sell you more paint for just a bit extra so you can finish the car yourself would get lynched.

    A music company selling song album that's missing couple bits from the songs 'because there was a power outage when they were recording them', and offering to sell you the missing bits on separate disk for just a bit extra, would get sued.

    Yet a game publisher that sells you a game obviously missing bits 'because we didn't have the time to finish it', but comforting you saying that they will sell you those missing bits for just a bit extra is considered an honest business, and treated as nothing is wrong with it.

    Where do those double standards come from? And when will we get to the point where consumer watchdog organizations will expose game publisher/developer business practices that are harmful to the customers?

  • makeamazing #125 2 years ago

    What makes me laugh, is that the game has way more content then most normal single player games (MW2 I'm looking at you for a starter)...

    So that being the case, you can either buy the DLC or not, but to complain they are scamming when the game is clearly excellent and worth the money twice over, is just being very muppety (if there is such a word).

    So buy it or not, but dont complain the game is any the worse for missing it.

    Ps I live in the UK and do not work for ubi... so there :D

  • menage #126 2 years ago

    You guys really think that if we all stop purchasing DLC the content missing will be on the disc next year out of the goodness of their hearts? Delusional. No, it will be cut just as hard to meet that deadline, so either way it's pay or not play.

    Or be content with what AC2 did give you and don't buy the DLC. You still have a fucking choice.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 16:24

  • Silvervein #127 2 years ago

    @makeamazing

    Oh, but you miss the problem. It's not about how much content is in the game, how long the game is or even if devs had to work 24/7 for a year straight, without sleep, and had to sacrifice their babies and wives to the dark gods in bloody rituals. It's not even about releasing downloadable content.

    The problem is that they released the game that's obviously incomplete (it does miss two chapters at the end, does it not?) and yet see nothing wrong with it. And to add insult to injury, they then want to charge people extra for those two missing chapters.

    There's a difference between that situation and what EA did with dragon age, releasing extra content containing that golem companion. Dragon Age story is closed and complete without golem companion. Game is finished, complete and ready. What they want to add to it in expansion packs later, is between them and their gods.

    But assassin creed 2 *was* released with two missing chapters. That's a fact. And mind you: they didn't even bother to close off the story by simply changing chapter numbering so the game (that's largely driven by the story) is a closed, finished and complete entity. No, they released it as it was. This is very sloppy, and is not acceptable. Simple as that.

    People really need to start being aware of their rights as paying customers, and not just bend over with a smile whenever some company decides to pull a quickie on them, because that sets a bad precedent.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 16:27

  • Grogmonkey #128 2 years ago

    @Silvervein

    Both of your examples are stupid.

    Do you know what it's really like? It's really like a band releasing a full, 15-track album with amazingly high production values, and then allowing you to download different single tracks, for a price, at a later date. Because not all songs that a band writes are put on an album, you know. In fact, I believe they're often used as 'B-sides' for singles. Which you have to pay for seperately to the main album. You know, like DLC.

    Or, more appropriately, and has been pointed out before, it's like a movie where scenes are taken out (due to time or budget constraints) and then re-added via a Director's Cut. Only with DLC you don't need to buy the whole thing again just to get the extra 5 minutes.

  • menage #129 2 years ago

    @Silvervein

    You're delusional if you think half of Dragon Age isn't on some cutting floor somewhere And that will be part of the extensive DLC plan they have for that turd.

    Hell they fucking released that lousy Keep DLC day one, for even more than this AC2 DLC costs.
    Edited by 2 at 22/12/09 @ 16:33

  • darleysam #130 2 years ago

    Good point about music recording. Like how Radiohead recorded the tracks used on both Kid A and Amnesiac at the same time, then had the gall to sell them both as separate albums.

    Filthy capitalists.

  • Silvervein #131 2 years ago

    @grogmonkey

    Bad examples, mate. In case of your song album, it's sold complete. What songs are in there, are full, complete and not missing bits. In your movie example, the storyline of the movie is also closed, complete and finished.

    The right example is a movie, lets say, terminator 1, where everything is ok to the point where governator is teleported from the future to the present, but then screen flickers and then you see crushed metallic skeleton, followed by end credits.

    Assassin creed is not a complete product, yet it was priced as 60 bucks, as if nothing was wrong with it. And that's the core of the problem. The fact that they want to sell the bits of the game later, for a fee, that by all rights should be in game you paid full price for already is just adding an insult to injury.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 16:33

  • MrChuckles #132 2 years ago

    I've worked in the industry for 14 years and tons of stuff have been cut from every game i have ever worked on. Pre DLC that stuff would never get released, post DLC it is tidied up and released after the gold deadline and offered to fans for extra cash.

    All that final work done is post the Gold Date internally for the studio but before the game reaches the shops. If you don't want the DLC then don't buy it.

    And for those who say 'but the story doesn't make any sense, they ripped us off!', well, they messed up the production, but the other choice was that you'd NEVER get to see the other part of the story. AC2 HAS to hit a deadline for the publisher's sales this year, and delaying past the date is simply not an option.

  • Silvervein #133 2 years ago

    @MrChuckles

    That's true. But does it make it right for any company to sell unfinished product? No.

    PS.
    And there is no justification for it. I said it before, and I'll say it again: the double standards for game industry and every other industry on this planet have to end.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 16:43

  • menage #134 2 years ago

    @Silvervein

    They all do that. It's only more obvious here.

    You could also find a hobby were it doesn't happen. Like knitting, you can finish it yourself when you feel it's done.

    How many director's cuts have I seen that have 45 minutes of extra footage the director wanted to show but didn't get to. This shit has to stop NOW!
    Edited by 2 at 22/12/09 @ 16:47

  • MrChuckles #135 2 years ago

    @Silvervein - I dunno about 'unfished' it's more like a bad stroy.. Just like many films that come out and you don't quite understand what is happening, something got cut to fit the schedule or running time, and something was lost... With Entertainment media it's just a pitfall of the development process.

  • Silvervein #136 2 years ago

    @menage
    Bad practices have to be exposed and eradicated, and not glossed over. If you accept it now, it will only get worse since people will always take the easiest way. Right now it's two chapters missing from a game, and then sold for extra. What's the next step? A game that has bare bones of content and is unplayable due to bugs, priced 60$, with the 'expansions' that will fix the bugs and fill in the content available for 60$ more? Why not charge people 200$ for a game straight away, and be done with it?

  • menage #137 2 years ago

    @Silvervein

    You really think all these 800 people at Ubi worked for 2 years on this massive game just to take the easy way out? they could have just made 1 again without improving it one bit and it still would have sold one million

    I guess there's always something to bitch about. I hear Lord of the Rings came in 3 fucking movies making me pay 3 times for the same story, and then there came the Directors cuts, making it 6 fucking times,
    Edited by 2 at 22/12/09 @ 16:57

  • EgbertoTheGreat #138 2 years ago

    " it will only get worse since people will always take the easiest way"

    Not true, developers will really push to make their games the best they can be. If developers didn't, then AC2 would have been sold complete but with a fraction of the content.

  • Silvervein #139 2 years ago

    @menage
    It's double standards, mate. Double standards. You have a breakfast or dinner each day, right? When you have bread, you expect a bread, not a pile of flour and excuses from the baker.
    I'm a customer. You are a customer. What do you or I care what do people at ubi do to make games? They can have wild parties all year long and lock a hundred monkeys with hundred typewrites in one room to get the job done for all I care. As long as it gets done. I judge them by the state of the product they sell, not anything else.

  • Vinchio #140 2 years ago

    Mr Chuckles: But that's not the point, fine if the game had been edited to not reveal the missing missions. Its not OK when it’s a blatant piss take of removing content with the intention of selling it later.
    The problem with the industry is that there are no renegade artists; the industry is full of geeks who will suck off the corporate devils for money and will sacrifice their vision, to meet deadlines. It’s a really important time for gaming, and this kind of behaviour will give it a bad name just as people are starting to consider it a real artistic medium. It’s down to the consumers to let them know that this shit will not fly, if we queue up and buy these missions then it will happen again and again.

  • asphaltcowboy #141 2 years ago

    "The right example is a movie, lets say, terminator 1, where everything is ok to the point where governator is teleported from the future to the present, but then screen flickers and then you see crushed metallic skeleton, followed by end credits."

    lmao! So those 2 chapters represent what should have been 90% of the finished product? You're an idiot.

  • EgbertoTheGreat #142 2 years ago

    Silvervein,

    If you judge them by the finished product, would you have been happier if they'd had far more conservative planning & released a title with far less content? Genuine question.

  • Grogmonkey #143 2 years ago

    "I judge them by the state of the product they sell, not anything else."

    No you don't. Otherwise you would recognise Assassin's Creed 2 as being one of the greatest games released this year, with or without DLC. And you would commend them for that. Rather than doing what you're doing now, which is trying to claim they released a shoddy, half-finished product.

  • Grogmonkey #144 2 years ago

    "the industry is full of geeks who will suck off the corporate devils for money and will sacrifice their vision, to meet deadlines."

    You know absolutely nothing about the industry, or the people who work in it. So I would shut up now before you start insulting people further.

  • Gaol #145 2 years ago

    I still can't believe people are buying the 'not ready in time'. This 'DLC' was completed, and ready to ship as part of the retail game - it's clearly been excised from the game at the last minute on corporate orders. Let's look at the evidence:

    - The games barely out a month and we already have it fully revealed and ready
    - All the assets for the game are already built
    - A character is introduced in the retail game for no apparent reason that reappears in the DLC (the lady you help on the boat) - clearly the voice acting is done and dusted
    - They couldn't even be bothered renumbering the chapters
    - They've just lopped two bits out and covered it with a voiceover
    - The producer has just admitted it!

    There is NO DANGER this would be on the cutting room floor. It was ready to go. It's a cynical move by the publisher to gouge more money from fans and decrease used copy sales. Each person can jugde for themselves whether they think AC2 is worth more of their hard earned, but let's call it what it is and stop believing throwaway excuses.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 17:14

  • menage #146 2 years ago

    @Silvervein

    God you're a stonewall.

    You compare the industry to all others claiming it doesn't happen anywhere else (in fact it does, everywhere, hell how many actual pineaples are there packaged pineapple juice exactly??? ),

    See, I'm not saying you don't have a point, but we get shafted with all things we buy, not just this game. Don't buy it then, case close.

    Good liuck on your Crusade howver, I'm off to play AC2. Which I'm not nearly done with after 4 weeks.

    Edited by 3 at 22/12/09 @ 17:11

  • Lord_Gremlin #147 2 years ago

    Why it's a bad DLC anyway? Because it's not something additional, not some brand new content? it's a part of game, which was intentionally cut out.

  • asphaltcowboy #148 2 years ago

    "The games barely out a month and we already have it fully revealed and ready"

    You do understand that there is a significant amount of time between finishing a game and it actually going on sale, right?

  • Gaol #149 2 years ago

    @asphaltcowboy

    Sure, but it's basically been released on the schedule 'what is the shortest period of time we can get away with'.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 17:15

  • menage #150 2 years ago

    @Gaol

    No that's day one like Dragon Age pulled. Heck I even saw DLC appaering for games that went on sale the next week.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 17:19

  • asphaltcowboy #151 2 years ago

    @Gaol

    lol? How do you know that? Maybe a few months was all they needed to get it ready for release?
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 17:19

  • darleysam #152 2 years ago

    Gaol, released on schedule... (go on, guess) because they decided to drop a couple of unfinished sections, maybe?

  • menage #153 2 years ago

    @aspahltcowboy

    That's called paranoia.:D

    I also think the heating of the earth as all AC2s doing, conspiracy theory revealed. All just loose claims people pull out of their wisdom hat which obviously contains the truth because they said so.

    Sure companies do bad things, but if i have to worry about every fucking little DLC pack I might as well become a hermit and live in a forest, away from evil society and technology which will take all my money.

    I feel shafted when I don't like a game (subjective) or when I feel it's presents lousy value (also subjective), AC2 doesn't (subjective).

    Edited by 3 at 22/12/09 @ 17:29

  • man.the.king #154 2 years ago

    @ruined

    "In defence of Ubisoft on this one Microsoft and Sony don't allow free DLC packs so they couldn't offer it for free like the poster above suggested."

    Not sure where you got that from - Sony does allow free DLC. There's lots of free DLC on PSN, for games like LBP, Batman: AA, etc.

  • JimWest #155 2 years ago

    When a game goes into Submission with Sony and MS it takes 2 weeks of testing before it will pass. Then after this it is sent off to be copied onto the many discs for the general public. After this games have release dates that they will be sold to the general public. This process is a minimum of 6 weeks, if you are lucky.

    These 6 weeks will be when the devs will start work on the DLC. This DLC also takes less time to go through submission with Sony & MS and doesn't need to be burnt onto discs. So this can be finished in about 6 - 10 weeks, obviously depending on size of the DLC, and thus is released to the general public.

    This is the reason DLC is able to be released relatively soon after game on disc is released. People who don't know know this, shouldn't start spouting there nonsense about DLC being made side by side with the game. It's offensive to the devs, who work hard on the product, and pretty naive!

  • man.the.king #156 2 years ago

    @menage

    "How many director's cuts have I seen that have 45 minutes of extra footage the director wanted to show but didn't get to."

    As I understand it, the "Director's Cut" may have extra or less as the sole power of editing for that cut is the Director's. In the theatrical edition, the Director may not have final say on the finished product. However, the Theatrical Edition is not released unfinished. The Theatrical version of the movie, from start to finish, does appear finished, even if the Director's version may shed some extra light on certain aspects of the Theatrical version. You never see any movie with an obvious blank that later requires/asks you to pay extra to fill that blank in, do you? From that standpoint, I happen to agree with Silvervein.

  • davisorle #157 2 years ago

    I havent read any of the rest of the comments cause the arguement here is clear even if it has been made already in eevery single post here or not.

    " we didn't give them a lot for their 60 bucks"

    And who the fuck are you to also come out and tell me that you will charge me for it an extra 4+5$? lol I mean wtf is going on in the gaming industry nowdays?! Will they wake the hell up any time soon or the growth and huge improvement of it has to be shaken to the ground cause most of the current developers are on fucking expired pills? Cause I really see no other reason for the whole DLC decisions, amongst many other things which are irrelevant to the article.

  • neems #158 2 years ago

    I recommend you either buy the dlc, or don't, depending on your point of view.

  • menage #159 2 years ago

    @man the king

    Sorry, disagree here, I've seen a lot of movies where the DC makes much more sense than the Theatrical version, and that's because they cut it. And they release the DC afterwards for money, not for free.

    "As I understand it, the "Director's Cut" may have extra or less as the sole power of editing for that cut is the Director's. In the theatrical edition, the Director may not have final say on the finished product. However, the Theatrical Edition is not released unfinished. The Theatrical version of the movie, from start to finish, does appear finished,"

    Does appear being the keywords here. cause that's all it is, appearance. If AC2 would have bothered changing the titlenumbers we wouldn't have had this conversation and Silverein wouldn't have fallen of his horse. Cause going from 10 to 11 appears logical and finished, while 10-12 does not. thats al it is, just a freaking number.

    How about open endings, can you really tell that was the real end or they just ran out of ideas /money:p?

    And I doubt the director felt that way otherwise he wouldn't want to make a "better" version in the end



    Edited by 2 at 22/12/09 @ 19:04

  • PlugMonkey #160 2 years ago

    "A car dealer that would sell a car that's painted only in half, because 'they runned out of paint at the factory', but offering to sell you more paint for just a bit extra so you can finish the car yourself would get lynched."

    @ Silvervein: You mean like how car manufacturers have to manufacture their cars to a certain budget to hit a certain street price, with a certain profit margin? And so to do that they might cut some of the non-essential features, like leather seats and alloy wheels? But then, when you buy the car, you can add them back on as "optional extras"?

    Well, it's a pretty moronic analogy to draw, if you ask me, but I suppose it is quite a lot alike, yes.

    Your point was?

  • NewbieZilla #161 2 years ago

    "Sure, but it's basically been released on the schedule 'what is the shortest period of time we can get away with'."

    Right, and the Russians want to contaminate our precious bodily fluids.

  • man.the.king #162 2 years ago

    @menage

    "Sorry, disagree here, I've seen a lot of movies where the DC makes much more sense than the Theatrical version, and that's because they cut it. And they release the DC afterwards for money, not for free."

    Obviously not for free, but my point is that the Theatrical version having certain cuts may have nothing to do with the Director (except for Peter Jackson, of course, who, I think was in on the New Line Cinema strategy of the LOTR Ext Ed moneygrabs). The Director may have had to bow to Producer/studio pressure as far as the Theatrical version is concerned, and he/she had a chance to rectify that with the Director's Cut. And DC does not have always have to have extra content. For an example, see Ridley Scott's cut of Alien, released in (I think) 2003, which actually excised some of the Theatrical version content and added other sections and overall had about the same running-time length as the Theatrical Ed.

    "How about open endings, can you really tell that was the real end or they just ran out of ideas /money"

    Open-ended movies are a completely different issue. Some critics seem to prefer them for the ambiguity, but I feel that there are very few actual situations where an open-ended story actually makes sense and is in keeping with the rest of the movie. My personal opinion is that the Director/Writer wrote themselves into a corner, and elected for the cheap (while appearing "elite") out of not having an actual ending.

    On-topic Summary: I still agree with Silvervein :)
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 19:30

  • menage #163 2 years ago

    @man.the.king

    I was just fucking around with the open endings, sorry about that.

    And longer doesn't indeed always mean better, that goes for games as well. Technically this DLC might even be considered a DC though, since it's adding missing pieces that had to be cut to meet the studios deadlines and relive pressure and such. I don't see much difference. Apart from it not being handled very subtly.

    And the LOTR reference is just what I meant thank you. I didn't hear much complaints about that one though, cause that stuff is accepted in movies. Problem is games are seen as a product that HAS to have a certain amount of content for some stupid reason. People even complain when a JRPG is ONLY 40 hours long. Is fun really measured in time? Do you have to have 10 minutes of gametime per dollar? I'm not going to the movies and complain when my movie is only 89 minutes demanding a dollar back even when the DC might be 120 minutes.

    Who's to say these chapters are actually good anyway, and people are already up in arms about them not being on the disc. Maybe they suck balls, but instead of finding out we get ahead of ourselves and cry on the interwebs.

  • Froggit #164 2 years ago

    Ok so lets stay with cars for a minute

    @Silvervein: Your original analogy of getting a half painted car - bollocks. When you buy a car, you expect it to be fully painted, and if there was some factory fuck up the car wouldn't get sent to shop until the problem was sorted out.
    A parallel situation with games would be if the studio all came down with swine flu or something so that come deadline time, the game is nowhere near finished - they'd not release the bloody thing, they'd have to suck it up and delay it.

    This hasn't happened here.

    @PlugMonkey: A closer analogy, but still slightly off in this specific case. Those added extras are complete and everything, so not cut due to time constraints or any of that gubbins - they were planned to be extras from the start.
    The closer parallel here would be (or indeed is) when games offer paid for little extras themselves - extra weapons or costumes for example. (Slight tangent - people don't complain when these kinds of things are part of special editions, but they're still paying extra for crap that's already finished.)

    The direct comparison is something that I doubt would ever happen with cars, but it's basically - in design/ideas meetings etc before the car goes to the factory, somebody says "Hey, let's build and design our own mp3 player and include that with the car - we can have a unique* socket to connect it in such and such a place.
    Such and such a place is designed and the connection incorporated into the design of the car.
    However, oh no(!), the deadline for submitting plans to the factory draws near and the design of the mp3 player isn't going to get finished, even though the connection has been implemented.
    So they can either remove the connection and put the planning time for that down as wasted, or the leave the connection there and submit the actual car plans to the factory, then continue with the mp3 player seperately and release and charge for it later - it was never promised or anything, so why would people be pissed off at the option of having it?
    People are mainly getting arsey because the connections for the DLC - the chapter titles - have been left in, so they feel like they're currently missing out on something that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the DLC. If that makes sense.

    *Before one of you says (but they can use their own mp3 player or something - it's a shit example, but I did say it'd never happen
    __________

    Next.
    One of you mentioned everything already being in place, so why should this DLC have been cut to save time, as it shouldn't have taken long to implement in the first place.
    It took time to get the city/world built - if you keep saying "oh but you can add this and this because it won't take any time now" then eventually you'd just end up with a game with an infinite number of extra gubbins because none of them took much time - the thing is, these "not much times" soon add up to "lots of time"


    __________

    The Director's Cut movie thing is...a very close parallel. Well done people.
    Not 100% perfect of course, because it's still not quite the same, but closer nontheless.
    The car thing is like comparing apples to oranges, this is more apples and pears.

    I think I'll stop before I completely lose track of where I am.
    No gold star for noticing I can talk a load of bollocks by the way.

  • Collymilad #165 2 years ago

    "You get given a budget. This is based on projected sales at a certain rrp. You then try and make a game that fits in that budget. But developers are ambitious people. They will inevitably try and build more stuff than they actually have the time and money for, and you have to make cuts. "

    Er, so what you're saying is they managed to make the stuff they had to cut, even though they didn't have enough time and money to make it? How exactly does that work.

    This is BS, cutting stuff which was already there (and not lowering the RRP) is a dirty thing to do. Either don't make the stuff at all, or make it later and charge - don't make "too much stuff to do" (totally pathetic excuse) then cut it and charge extra - it's just blatent screwing of the consumer.

  • NewbieZilla #166 2 years ago

    "Er, so what you're saying is they managed to make the stuff they had to cut, even though they didn't have enough time and money to make it?"

    No. They had to stop working on the new stuff so they could meet the deadline. Development, presumably continued at the point the game went gold.

  • menage #167 2 years ago

    @Collymaddy

    RRP are a joke as it is. I actually think AC2 should have been 70 bucks compared to something like Katamari (not hating, but it's way too expensive), AC2 is also just as expensive as AC1 was and has tons more content.

    I agree about the cutting it out when done thing, not attacking, but asking less money is kinda unsellable in business.

    "hey were giving a little less game for 50 bucks because we fucked up" who would buy that shit after such a claim

  • Froggit #168 2 years ago

    People seem to have trouble understanding the word "planned"
    Jesus

  • PlugMonkey #169 2 years ago

    "@PlugMonkey: A closer analogy, but still slightly off in this specific case. "

    Well, I did say it was a moronic analogy when I responded to it, but I would contest that optional extras on cars are all designed that way from the start.

    Car designers, like games designers, are ambitious people and nobody designs a car with plastic wheels and nylon seats. They become standard when the reality police descend and point out that you can't afford to put walnut trim in a car that needs to retail for £7,950.

    But you could offer it as an optional extra...

  • menage #170 2 years ago

    "Car designers, like games designers, are ambitious people and nobody designs a car with plastic wheels and nylon seats."

    That's almost always so with creative jobs, we're told to aim high and kill your darlings accordingly. Otherwise you start out sub standard and nothing new would ever get done.
    Edited by 1 at 22/12/09 @ 21:04

  • man.the.king #171 2 years ago

    @menage

    "...And longer doesn't indeed always mean better..."

    Correct. For the best example of this, see David Fincher's DC of Alien 3 - boring as all hell, and longer than Aliens DC to boot!

    "...People even complain when a JRPG is ONLY 40 hours long. Is fun really measured in time?..."

    I agree. Myself, I don't care whether a game is long or short. What I do care about is whether it feels complete. This is one of the reasons I thought MW2 was half an SP experience (with the game forgetting completely about the original villian - Makarov, and concentrating on Shepard instead), with the other half discrete episodes being used as Spec Ops.

    "Maybe they suck balls, but instead of finding out we get ahead of ourselves and cry on the interwebs. "

    Maybe they do and maybe they don't. I think the people who are up in arms about this are the ones who are worried that this situation - a game having stuff cut out, and letting the portion that's left out being glaringly obvious in the game, and then later charging people for the "privilege" of being able to fill in that blank - may become the rule rather than the exception, and hence the calls for boycotts. Myself, I'm not going to buy the DLC, so don't care either way (actually, I'm planning on waiting about a year or so - hopefully the game+DLC should be available as a package then), but others may not feel the same.
    Edited by 3 at 22/12/09 @ 21:16

  • menage #172 2 years ago

    I can totally agree on that, but some people act like AC2 is the only game doing it, instead it's the only one actually being honest about it. Sure it's kinda wrong, but it's certianly not a sole offender.

  • Froggit #173 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    I know we agree about the inanity of the analogy as a whole.
    That was more, "This is much better, without going into my rambling monologue of an analogy comparing it to a situation that would never actually happen in the first place."

    Yeh.

    Also, going off at a tangent again re optional extras on cars being planned. When a car designer gets a brief or whatever, they'll be given an end price to aim for (with price being a differentiating factor in the buyer's decision) - all these extras are things that they would see as obviously increasing said end price so they'd not include in the "standard" package to begin with.

    Games developers, however, ((at least good ones (especially in regards to open world games such as ACII and GTAIV - maybe)) tend to have the same end price as the competition - £50 or so, so it's the content that is the only differentiato, so they plan to include asmuch as they squeeze in during development time and inevitably they realise they're not going to have enough time to finish everything off.
    Or something.
    Erm.

    Basically, games development seems to be more "fluid" during the actual process.

    I think.

    Of course, none of this is saying that there aren't publishers out there who'll intentionally hold things back purely for DLC and whatnot, or even saying that Ubisoft didn't have this content finished and chose to chop it as some are suspecting, but I think those that seem most sure of themselves that this is the case ("This is FACT damnit!)" seem to have simply become overly cynical due to the likes of certain other publishers seeming to attempt to milk the consumer dry til their teats are like strawberries.

    Nice image of Silvervein for you there.

  • Silvervein #174 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    You did decide to ignore the problem with ac2, did you? It misses two chapters...so what? It's a great game, lets support the publisher that sells the game like that, because it's great.

    If you want to do it, it's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But don't tell me that a bunch of people who couldn't even be bothered to sell polished product (care to tell me how much effort would it take to change chapter numberings in the game chapter overview? Hm?) are doing everything ok.

    PS.
    And about your comment about my car analogy that you obviously didn't like. It's not the extras that are missing from the as2 retail. It's the TWO WHOLE CHAPTERS listed in the IN GAME CHAPTER LIST that are missing, not an extra game outfit or some other feature that can be considered extra.

    Why do people defend sloppy work and money grabbing schemes of devs and publishers? So far I thought that everyone wants to get a full and complete product.

    Well, at least regular customers do. People who make those things would be happy to sell empty, blank cardboard box with a title hand drawn on it, if anyone would buy that. And truth to tell it's not even a question of whether the game is worth buying or not. That's up to everyone to decide for themselves. It's about the quality of product that was released.
    Edited by 4 at 23/12/09 @ 04:53

  • Murton #175 2 years ago

    While this announcement is certainly disappointing and doesn't help the image of the game at all as it gives the impression that these gaps in the story may have been created artificially in order to sell this DLC rather than the gaps being natural and this DLC acting as a "patch" to fill that gap. I'm getting this game for Christmas so I'll be playing it next week and decide from there whether I feel this was a late production cut (read: deliberate gouging) or if it was a budget decision as the article claims. If it was a late cut then the point at which the gap begins will feel very abrupt and nonsensical, much like the ending to Failout 3, but if the decision to cut was made based on budgets then the gap will have been tidied so as not to detract from the main game experience.

    Looking on the plus side though, there is some good news. 1: the DLC is available on all platforms the game is released on so nobody is being left out. 2: at least the producer is admitting that things have been cut, unlike say, Resi 5 and its 100kB Versus mode DLC. 3: the DLC is being reasonably priced, 4 and 5 dollars rather than 10 and 10, though we still need to see what sort of exchange rate is given to the UK.

  • EgbertoTheGreat #176 2 years ago

    Silvervein,

    "And truth to tell it's not even a question of whether the game is worth buying or not. That's up to everyone to decide for themselves. It's about the quality of product that was released. "

    That doesn't make sense. The quality of the product determines whether it's worth buying it or not.

    I'l ask again, would a 'complete' game with correctly numbered chapters but half the content be preferable to you? Which would be the higher quality product?

  • Xerx3s #177 2 years ago

    "Also, people with no concept of how games development works should refrain from commenting on this thread. That includes anyone who is about to say that this stuff should be released "for free" because it "should have been in the original game". "

    What an arrogant attitude. Those people are the ones who pay for all the people working in the industry so yes, I'd say that they have every right to be a bit pissed off at being blatantly ripped off. I could morally never sell such a thing to my clients and I doubt that there are many who can (not saying that they aren't still doing it).
    All this DLC is creating some really bad blood. The last time that I bought DLC was Shadow Complex and I can't even remember the time before that. DLC is just becoming another name for rip-off.

  • asphaltcowboy #178 2 years ago

    @davisorle: Remarkable piece of misquoting there! Absolutely remarkable! :D

  • earobus #179 2 years ago

    trading stadards needs to look at the regulations and sort this shit out before it gets worse, if its as blatant as leaving the memorys in the stats, you could of left it out for me cos i wont BUY it although i think i may be in a small minority shame really loads of mouth and no action is all i read everyday.If you stop paying for this shit they will stop trying to sell it

  • telboy007 #180 2 years ago

    Okay I've changed my tune, finished the game last night (well 950 gamer points finished) and it is the most awesome game I think I've ever played - better than panzer dragoon saga and that takes some serious beating. Anyway I'm buying this DLC and I don't care if it was cynical on their part to withhold it or not. I'm havin' it!

  • XdarXideX #181 2 years ago

    Wow... a lot of heated discussion on this without a lot of knowledge to back it all up.

    As far as game development goes, developers DO have to work to publishers' deadlines. There is an agreement that studios and publishers have to make whether they're in-house or not. As a general rule, a game will have to be made "final" at LEAST 6 weeks before release so that all the testing, mastering and distribution can be completed on time (which does leave room for production of DLC after the main product). As you all know, AC2 is a very important Christmas period release for Ubisoft. They would NOT want it to slip and risk losing revenue.

    I'm not sure what to believe about their claims of having to remove the content because of time constraints. It certainly felt like there was something weird about the missing two memories... like the storyline was adjusted last minute as little explanation was given by the characters as to what happened over those years. But then, as someone above me said there was dialog spoken by one of the real-world characters explaining that the content was missing which would lead one to believe it was planned all along.

    Normally this kind of thing doesn't bother me, but to pull content from the storyline of a game (as opposed to say... the multiplayer content from Resi 5) for use as DLC, it sickens me!

  • kongzi #182 2 years ago

    this is totally unreasonable cashcow behaviour... the price is pretty reasonable tho. Personally I don't get this DLC crap, i'm not gonna fall for it. I don't like paying for stuff that has no resell value, but yeah if you're the kind of person that gets feng shui experts to move furniture around your house, pay 4 euro's for tapwater in a fancy bottle and eat chemically enhanced foods because you think that that's healthy... paying for DLC might not look so ridiculous to you..

  • EgbertoTheGreat #183 2 years ago

    "I don't like paying for stuff that has no resell value"

    Guessing you don't go to the cinema, concerts or buy newspapers then.

  • asphaltcowboy #184 2 years ago

    ^^ Haha yeah! I find food overrated... I can't resell it after I've used it! :(

  • EgbertoTheGreat #185 2 years ago

    For sale: 1 Condom, almost new, only used once. 50 pence ONO. No timewasters.
    Edited by 1 at 23/12/09 @ 11:38

  • TonyHarrison #186 2 years ago

    IMO it should be free if they were going to include it in the main game but simply ran out of time, as it's not the same as something that was developed after the initial release (or along side it) with the intent purpose of releasing further down the line as an extra.

    For what it's worth, I have no qualms paying for DLC normally (with a few exceptions), but I immediately have reservations when someone from the company comes out and says that the DLC should really have been in the game itself, which I'd already bought for £35.

  • asphaltcowboy #187 2 years ago

    "IMO it should be free if they were going to include it in the main game but simply ran out of time, as it's not the same as something that was developed after the initial release (or along side it) with the intent purpose of releasing further down the line as an extra."

    You've contradicted yourself there. They clearly stated that their intention was to put it in the game, but due to time constraints (aka it wasn't done) they cut it and intended to put it in later once it had actually been created/finished. Or do you think they finished it before release and then cut it out in order to add it back in? When do you imagine this DLC was actually created and finished?

  • icematt12 #188 2 years ago

    Points expressed for and against seem valid, but there is only one thing I don't like. To effectively get 100% completion of the game you need to buy the DLC. I have not played an Assassin's Creed game yet, but there is a big difference to me between things you cannot collect and a locked gate you cannot open or get around without the DLC.

  • MattyB2007 #189 2 years ago

    At the end of the day they budgeted poorly and over promised on what they could do in the time they had if they couldn't get it all in, ambitious or otherwise. If it was free no one would be complaining one bit but when they charge us for effectively their fuck up then yeah to right consumers have every reason to voice there opinion and complain. I for one won't be buying it on principle.

  • Vinchio #190 2 years ago

    Well said MattyB2007, well said.

  • EgbertoTheGreat #191 2 years ago

    MattyB2007 ,

    If that's all they had to cut then they're budgeting was pretty good & how exactly did they overpromise?

  • menage #192 2 years ago

    @MattyB

    In the end of the day they didnt promise customers jack shit. They never said that stuff would be in the game before you bought it.

    People need to research or wait before they buy games day one if they have problems with stuff like this. Not buy something blindly after 2 glowing reviews and feel shafted afterwards if something doesn't suit you.

    Gamers are just as greedy as publishers. This whole we are in the right cause we paid for it doesn't fly if you don't know what you're buying exactly. And that will never happen day one. Cause nobody can promise someone that the content they deliver will be ever enough for some people.



    Edited by 5 at 23/12/09 @ 15:11

  • MattyB2007 #193 2 years ago

    Well say for a start at no point did i mention they promised US anything. However they will have told people in there own company what they expected to fit in the game. Which they got wrong, which i'd say is poor time management if you can't spot it early enough to ! This is what i mean by over promising as well. And yes i'm sure it happens all the time when making games but charging for it just plain wrong.

  • menage #194 2 years ago

    Seems like an internal problem to me, no obligation of giving shit away to customers for free at all, just like we have no obligation to buy anything.

  • PlugMonkey #195 2 years ago

    @ Silvervein: How is that sloppy? They made the decision to cut the content and move it to the DLC sku, so they left the numbering as is so it could be slotted back in later for thems that want it. You think they did that by accident? Because they were too lazy? FFS! Give the people a little credit, please. Does the rest of AC look like something made my people who are incompetent or lazy?

    "- The games barely out a month and we already have it fully revealed and ready "

    @ Gaol. The game is barely out a month. Which means it went into manufacturing 2 weeks before that. Which means it went into submission a month before that. Which means the content of the game would have been locked down, with only major bug fixes going in, for a couple of weeks before that. With a big xmas release, maybe add an extra week to all of those.

    That's three months for them to work on the DLC they are releasing now. Lots of time.

    So when you say that this is 'clearly' content that has been excised from the game at last minute by corporate orders, you 'clearly' have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    "the industry is full of geeks who will suck off the corporate devils for money and will sacrifice their vision, to meet deadlines."

    @ Vinchio. The industry is full of hard working people who put in hundreds of hours of unpaid overtime to try and preserve their vision as much as they humanly possibly can.

    And then I read posts like that this, and I really wonder why they fucking bother.

    One hundred and ninety nine posts ago, I suggested maybe people with no idea how the games industry works might want to just keep their mouths shut. I didn't expect much, but the last four pages have been comfortably beneath even those low expectations.

  • EgbertoTheGreat #196 2 years ago

    The problem is in defining when a game is complete. Would AC2 have been complete if the numbering had been altered & the DLC never released? howabout it if it had been planned from the outset that the final game would have half the content & no DLC? The only real answer is to consider not if a game is complete but if it represents good value to you, likewise for the DLC. Make your decisions based on what the product is, not what you think it should have been or dogmatic thinking about when the DLC was created. If you don't, you're the one that's losing out.
    Edited by 1 at 23/12/09 @ 16:32

  • menage #197 2 years ago

    @Egberto

    Finally some sensible thinking in this place.





    Edited by 1 at 23/12/09 @ 16:32

  • Emmit_Assassin #198 2 years ago

    I'm now not going to buy this. Didn't buy Resi 5 because they did it. They shouldn't be allowed to rip us off like this.

    Unfortunately there is feck all anyone can do...

  • MattyB2007 #199 2 years ago

    Or all of a 3rd person who doesn't disagree with you you mean. Also the way your going on plug monkey with your ranting it doesn't exactly sound like you know what goes on in the industry and it sounds like your in it which is scary!

  • EgbertoTheGreat #200 2 years ago

    "Or all of a 3rd person who doesn't disagree with you you mean"

    What does that mean?

  • hiddenranbir #201 2 years ago

    That isn't giving MORE to fans. That is giving what they were already due.

  • Gaol #202 2 years ago

    "The industry is full of hard working people who put in hundreds of hours of unpaid overtime to try and preserve their vision as much as they humanly possibly can."

    My heart is bleeding for these poor tormented artistic souls, who are clearly living on the breadline just so we can enjoy our consoles.

    Lets skip this DLC and just set up a fucking charity.

  • MattyB2007 #203 2 years ago

    @ Egberto

    It just means that only a handful of people have actually not out and out disagreed with menage and plug monkey and also a subtle dig at everyone who has a differing opinion to them. And apparantly 90% of the comments have been posted by people with no common sense or no sensible thinking.
    Edited by 1 at 23/12/09 @ 17:36

  • MattyB2007 #204 2 years ago

    "Seems like an internal problem to me, no obligation of giving shit away to customers for free at all, just like we have no obligation to buy anything."

    Well that just makes the management standards look even worse when they come out and say the reasons doesn't it?

    I'll say it once again. They intended it to be in the game due to the chaptering numbers. They fucked up which ever way you want to put it. Whether it be money, not meeting there deadline. Whatever reason you want to come up with but it's still there fault. I have no doubt they work there arses off doing a job they hopefully love getting paid a lot for (heaven forbid) but don't make the consumers pay for your inabilty to finish a game properly. Or you know just release it for free.

  • WinterSnowblind #205 2 years ago

    I remember when games used to have unlockables.. :(

    I'm all for DLC, especially in cases like Oblivion, Fallout and GTA where they added a significant amount of new content, basically releasing expansion packs. I don't even mind the smaller packs like what we saw for Fable, as long as they're reasonably priced.

    But DLC should NOT just be an excuse for the developers to be lazy and make us pay extra. I could understand if they were on a tight deadline and they just missed being able to include this.. but in that case, surely it could be a free bonus? This type of behaviour is just absolutely ridiculous and should not be supported. I don't own ACII, but I really hope none of you go out and buy this.

  • PlugMonkey #206 2 years ago

    "Lets skip this DLC and just set up a fucking charity. "

    Or people could just not go around labelling them corporate cocksuckers based on logic built on misinformation.

    I can't help feeling there might be a happy middle ground somewhere there.

    I don't really mind people like yourself who just don't understand the process. Why should you? That's why I said that developers need to get much better at how they present this kind of thing. Just because they see this as a great opportunity to retain some content that would otherwise have been lost doesn't mean that you or anyone else will do.

    However, it's all too easy to fall into an elaborate conspiracy theory where evil devolopers rub their hands together with glee at the thought of how they can SCREW you, the gamer, out of an extra few quid MWA-HA-HA-HA, but in truth this isn't how any developer I've met thinks, and if the timing 'clearly' shows it, it's only because you don't understand how the timing really works.

    Ultimately, if you don't think the content is worth the price, don't buy it. It'll make a loss, people will realise this isn't viable, and things that have to get cut to fit the schedule will just stay cut - no matter how much the people involved want to retain it.

    MattyB: No, there were quite a few people in the early pages, if you go and look. And yes, 90% of the people commenting don't know what they're talking about. Sorry, but some of this stuff is just factually incorrect.

    They're more than entitled to their opinion of course, which is again why developers need to communicate it better, but things like Gaol's Timing Theory of How This Stuff Was Clearly Pulled Just To Make Money are based purely on a lack of understanding of how it all really works. Not his fault. Now, if Desilets had come out and said "When we were shipping the game in September, we realised we couldn't fit all this stuff in and hit our date, so we decided to keep part of the team together to finish it afterwards in the three months leading up to January so that players who wanted to could download them..." Well. Then maybe people would know.

    Vinchio, on the other hand, can sod off.

    EDIT: And that is my final wall of text on the matter. :)
    Edited by 1 at 23/12/09 @ 18:48

  • QotSAfan #207 2 years ago

    Dont get people raging at this. Bands, film directors and other artists make cuts to their work the whole time to concentrate on quality. it may be because these ideas arent working, require too much time or just arent suited for the work as a whole. However these people often return to the old cuts and build upon them. i dont see why game developers shouldnt be allowed the same thing.

  • vegard #208 2 years ago

    unsure how i feel about this particular DLC, but at least it's not DLC of the "cheat code" variant.
    Edited by 1 at 23/12/09 @ 19:56

  • menage #209 2 years ago

    @Matty B

    You really don't get it do you.

    You the consumer are only entitled to what they sell you in the box cause that's what you agree to when you give them their money. Only thing they're obliged to is that it works properly, if they decide to keep 20 chapters back it's still their intelectual property to do with as they see fit. But we're ceratinly not entitled to free content because they "fucked up" (they might have, but that still doesn't give you any rights to cut content). You didn't get sold that content, you bought the box with AC2 without that content.

    You have got multiple options after that

    Swap it, keep it, whine about it, never buy a Ubisoft game again, don't buy the DLC, etc. But going around claiming you got any right to it is ludicrous. You don't buy and eat the bread and then go on complaing to the bakery you want more cause you're not full. Should have checked if it was filling enough for you.

    Oh and I don't doubt they're adding tons of stuff on top of the DLC to make it better at this point, so essentailly you're not going to play the pure cut bits either.

  • Kovacs77 #210 2 years ago

    "We'll remove some stress to the team while giving more to fans and people who like Assassin's Creed"

    I've not read a single comment and I'm sure this has been said a hundred times already but: why the fuck are they asking us to pay for this then? oh boo hoo the poor team, lets reduce their workload ("woe is me, I sit in front of a computer all day and press keys for a living"? get a grip) and simultaneously fist our fanbase. Fuck them, the game was pretty good for £40, but I'm not paying £50/£55 to finance the teams pool-cleaning bills.

  • freakzilla #211 2 years ago

    To be frank I don't think they should have to give this DLC away, games like AC2 are pretty long and take far more effort than say UC2 or MW2.

  • Gaol #212 2 years ago

    @plugmonkey

    To clarify (again); I'm not raging at the DLC prices. AC2 was one of my favourite games of the year and I'd be all over this DLC if my save wasn't tied to a YLODed PS3. It's the justification and excuses for it.

    "evil devolopers rub their hands together with glee at the thought of how they can SCREW you, the gamer, out of an extra few quid MWA-HA-HA-HA"

    But that's exactly it.. it's capitalism, the justification for charging is always to make more money, that's how the industry works. I can deal with that, just don't feed me lines about deadlines and how it is somehow a favour to me to pay extra for stuff that was originally planned as part of the game. If downloadable episodic content starts making producers and developers more money than retail boxes, you can sure as hell bet that's the way we're headed.

  • menage #213 2 years ago

    I do think he had better not said anything at all. Kinda weird. It didn't really need that much justification if I look at the game I got.

    I also think that for all the bad DLC sometimes brings it is changing how games work. We're buidling worlds that can be expanded upon very easely (easier than with expansion packs), making the games more open and interesting at times even. Yes this leads to overamibition cause there's little boundaries and sometimes that goes a bit wrong, it's all pretty new. I also think my experiences with say the F3 DLC were sometimes even better than the original. So it breeds experiment and intersting stuff as well as shit sometimes.

    I don't like all DLC, but one that expands horizons like Fallout 3 or Ac2 are fine in my book. Just as long as the game it's based on is decent and content heavy enough I'm fine. No problem with AC2 on that front.
    Edited by 2 at 23/12/09 @ 22:50

  • EgbertoTheGreat #214 2 years ago

    "oh boo hoo the poor team, lets reduce their workload ("woe is me, I sit in front of a computer all day and press keys for a living"? get a grip)"

    Don't know why so many people bang on about Shakespeare, I mean all he did was sit about all day & write words, how hard can that be?

  • trubadman #215 2 years ago

    You can justify this all you want but this is bollocks, cutting shit out of a game to add it in later to charge for it is wrong. The way

    If we are to believe the Ubisoft guy getting interviewed, this part wasnt cut out of the game in the first place, it was planned, but never created till the game was released, due to time constraints and not wanting the game to be delayed for the Christmas period. I loved Assassin's Creed II, i played it for 5 days straight and didnt even complete it 100%, there's so much stuff to do and see, so even without DLC the game is complete. The DLC is something extra, and granted having to pay for an extra part off the PS store might be saddening, but its kinda good in that it renews interest in the game, and means that more people come back to it and it attracts more buyers. Say the DLC wasn't released, what we're left with still feels like a complete game.

    Obvioisuly if a game has 50% of it taken off to be sold as DLC, i'd be annoyed by that. Or if significant modes are taken off a game e.g the £7.99 FIFA pack called team ultimate or £7.99 for the updates for the players stats (can't remember what it's called.)

    TBH the only thing that is going to piss me off about the ACII DLC, is the price we get charged compared to USA. The guy said $4 for ep 1 and $5 for ep2, i wonder how much that will be in pounds

    You don't want to pay, ok but you can't play!!

  • FromTheLandUnknown #216 2 years ago

    It is very interesting to see how lately Ubisoft manages to put themselves in some kind of controversy, even when they make not only good, but excellent game, which runs nice enough out from the box, and is patched soon.

    I agree with some here ( but just in legal view), which say, that we paid for the content in the box, and have no additional rights in regards to DLC. But that is just legal view. The bad feeling remains, as this kind of behaviour rightly leaves a bad impression.There is simply no excuse for it, even in a case of an excellent game, which AC2 is.

    The fact is, that, especially in case of a story driven game, we want to be able to experience the whole story, not just a part of it,even if it is a main part. And that is main reason, I'm sure, that so many object to such behaviour, and not greed (and I must say, that this expression isn't even appropriate here-we do not get paid to play a game, we pay them, remember?)
    I personally still didn't play Fallout for example, because the whole DLC thing rubs my back in totally wrong way, because of the reasons above. I bought Oblivion when it came out in GOTY edition, with all content on one disc, and now will buy Fallout also.If I knew, that this would be the case with AC2, however hard I waited for the game, and I'm enjoying it now, I would not have bought it, until all content is available on one disc.Because of a complete story and my personal, collector obsession, to have all content on discs, that I'm able to install or uninstall the whole game.

    It is sad, that we are not able to do much legally in a much more clear cases like clear frauds, again from Ubisoft. Remember Far Cry 2? Probably not, as it got mixed reviews, and more important, was NOT PLAYABLE ON CONSOLES OUT OF THE BOX. Gamesradar reported, that this was the case even eight months after release. Ubisoft released very soon Fortune pack, before even first patch of a very broken game came out. Again, they wanted just more money, by making You pay for the things, which should be in the game from the start.

    I don't agree with the premise, that DLC renews interest in the game. What PR bullshit is this, anyway? Renews? People, who bought the game were or are interested enough already. And many of them then give in, because they want to experience the rest of the story. But some of us do not buy the title, and that is the reason, that publishers do not like to announce DLC too soon. If all would think like some very few on this thread (I personally think, that they work at least in the industry, if not Ubisoft, lets not be naive - or they are extremely stupid), don't you think, they would do this sooner or more openly?
    Good full sequel renews interest in the game (like AC2 did for the first, and some which didn't bought the game because mixed reviews are buying it now), not DLC.

    I for certain will never buy Ubisoft title on launch day, or month again, regardless of any good reviews, but will wait until much later, when it is proven that it works, and is available for normal price on one disc.

    Edit:typos
    Edited by 3 at 24/12/09 @ 10:26

  • trip919 #217 2 years ago

    ''We'll remove some stress to the team while giving more to fans and people who like Assassin's Creed," Desilets told Kotaku."

    Yeah, this is not really true though is it? I think the fans are definitely giving you more.

    I’m all for DLC but not like this. Just don’t cut large chunks out of the game so that it becomes completely jarring while playing it, then try and justify it by saying look how long the game is.

    This is completely the wrong approach. They will end up pissing a lot of people off like this. Forli became redundant (save for a few side quests) because of this.

    At the end off the game I was left scratching my head at why it had even been included.
    Edited by 1 at 24/12/09 @ 10:29

  • alcides #218 2 years ago

    "60 bucks" is not what a videogame is worth. Not a Ubi game anyway

  • Paulie_P #219 2 years ago

    I can understand the whole argument about film makers releasing Director's Cuts and Bands releasing Special Edition versions of their albums but I've been uneasy with that and I'm uneasy with this.

    I skipped all the Fallout DLC and I was glad because I bought the GOTY edition once it came out, sort of wish I had done the same with the Episodes of Liberty City (Having said that the DLC for GTA IV was worth paying extra).

    I have been extremely disappointed with Capcom's attitude to DLC this generation. As I've stated before, their DLC seems to be things that in the past would've been unlockable in games. It almost makes me think about boycotting any of their future releases (not sure how long that'll last though).

  • menage #220 2 years ago

    I don't agree with the premise, that DLC renews interest in the game. What PR bullshit is this, anyway? Renews? People, who bought the game were or are interested enough already. "

    Sometimes ir does, and while not all DLC for F3 was spot on I do think Lookout and Broken Steel added tons of cool things. And I was still playing it 6 months after release, which never happens, cause I burned through the rest already.

  • prettyboytim #221 2 years ago

    I don't understand all this whining. This is all stuff they had to cut because there wasn't time to finish it for the main release. If they didn't release it as DLC *you'd never get to play it at all*. Now you have the option.

  • SlackMaster #222 2 years ago

    Regardless it should be good that dlc is being made available. People just need to grow up a bit really.

  • bloodflowers #223 2 years ago

    The people being accepting of this are part of the problem.

    So it's ok now to not get a game finished on time, and decide "well hey, we'll just give it to them unfinished and charge them for the rest!"

    Just fantastic. DLC is fast becoming the scam it was always doomed to be.

  • super_monty #224 2 years ago

    After reading that I won't be buying this game next week as planned and wait for it to hit bargain bucket for under £8.

  • VMerken #225 2 years ago

    It is sad to read about this kind of reasoning. Let's say you're low on time and need to cut out parts of your game to meet the deadline. You will probably have some very good reasons to cut part X over part Y. Such reasons probably involve statements such as, "Part X is less vital to the game than part Y" or "Part X is not of the same quality level as part Y". Well then, what makes you think consumers would snap up part X separately later on? They played the game containing part Y, so paying separately for the 'inferior'part X, probably at a higher price than part Y, doesn't sound like a good deal. That's probably where your marketing department takes over. OR you invest and turn part X into something much bigger and richer than was originally intended. I.e. give the consumer the right bang for their buck.

    But I guess this is how it works, as DLC gives you this kind of freedom. If someone wants things better or changed, either vote with the wallet or take on this whole "game development" and show the established industry how things should really be going.

  • menage #226 2 years ago

    @vmerken

    Ehm, why should it be inferior, the whole Forli/Romanga thing reeked of sidequests from the start. Sometimes sidequests are more fun than the main quest even, only less relevant to the outcome of the story.

    Thta's why they we're cut imo, not quality.

    @bloodflowers

    Glad to be part of your problem.



    Edited by 1 at 26/12/09 @ 13:15

  • kangarootoo #227 2 years ago

    Hello everyone. Hope you got what you wanted in your Xmas socks.

    So, the thread so far. Not a lot has changed. A bunch of people who know what they are on about and accept that we can't always have everything we want as we want it, and another bunch of people who have no clue how games are actually made and assume that if devs don't spend both infinite time and money they are somehow on the make or lazy.

    Great car optional extras analogy by someone earlier, in response to a truly ludicrous "half painted car" analogy before it (as Poirot would say "it offends the intelligence) - anyone who thinks AC2 is half of anything is frankly mad or spoilt or both.


    I think what we have learned here is as follows.

    1. This guy should have kept his mouth shut, as people would much rather live in ignorance than deal with the subtle shades of grey that are reality.

    2. The concept that purchase of games is optional is strangely lost on many, who act like they are forced to buy anything at all. Perhaps they are addicted, in which case I can suggest a good new year's resolution.

    3. Writing a whole post in bold makes you look like an illiterate twit.

    4. I am enjoying AC2 a whole lot. Its one of my faves of the last 6 months easily, and those who disagree should play something else and quit whining.

    5. Cointreau filled chocolates are exceedingly tasty (perhaps I alone learned that, so you shall have to trust me on it).

    Bon Noel.

  • Alkeno #228 2 years ago

    Although I haven't played it, I believe AC2 is a good, long and polished experience worth its full price (despite having been shipped with some missing content). It happens all the time, content gets cut. I don't believe it's a matter of morality (business is business after all) or a matter of money (on its own, AC2 is great value). Ubisoft cannot be blamed for charging for the DLC (what I don't understand is what was this guy thinking when he opened his mouth to reveal such truth!)

    However, I'd love more developers to understand that taking care of their fans is a better long-term strategy than charging for such things... I mean, c'mon, we all know that business is business, but still they could show some class. If they planned the game with those missions from the start and had to cut them due to lack of time/resources they should have gone the extra mile and given them for free.

    Dammit, found myself wishful thinking again, I'll never get rich...

  • metalangel #229 2 years ago

    This is all down to the way it's said.

    There may have been genuine reasons for this stuff being cut, but those aren't detailed. And I fully accept that this sometimes happens (GoW2 'sneaking into Nexus' bit for example).

    But the way it comes across here - that they cut this content out with the intention of charging extra for it later - is what gets peoples' backs up. And more so when there's two very obvious slots for it go into. If there's any better explanation FROM UBISOFT then I'm sure we'll happily listen and maybe change our tone. But as it stands, from what this guy has said and the way he's said it, it sounds like nothing more than a greedy cash-making exercise. To me, I don't care how good your game is, if you're going to treat me like this.

  • Diabeu #230 2 years ago

    thats the way to milk the cow

    GTA4 DLC is stand alone, you dont need GTA4 to play Lost & Damned or Gay Tony

    oh, and I'm gonna vote with my wallet

    it's like ripping part of the book, you want to read the WHOLE story? pay extra
    it feels a little unfair
    Edited by 3 at 27/12/09 @ 00:15

  • Stardusted #231 2 years ago

    One of the most important facts that many pro-DLCers are overlooking is a real simple one.

    I am a gamer and I want to buy my games and not having to do any extra "work" to keep them complete in my collection. That is NOT possible anymore. It's not only the cost in money, it is also the cost in time. To search for updates, download the updates, burn them to dvd, so you wont have to redownload them. Repeat once new ones are out.

    And again. And again.

    Same with DLC. I end up burning several discs per game I OWN, per game I have BOUGHT and not cheaply. This is simply inconvinient and pays no respect to me, the customer.

  • Geordiemp #232 2 years ago

    Lot of really strange angry comments here. Played it for 12 hours so far and looks like a long way to go. Great game.

    How many people on this thread have complained and bought MW2 or Halo ODST with ultra short campaigns ?

    EVERY game developer PLANS DLC for there games before relase, otherwise they end up traded in first few months.

    Just that ACII developers being HONEST about it. They should have said DLC in a month or so and everyone here would have gone woopee what effort.

    Wake up and smell the roses. Jeesh.
    Edited by 1 at 27/12/09 @ 11:33

  • menage #233 2 years ago

    @Stardusted

    Well times change, my games used to exist of 8 levels with a final boss consisting of 8 bit sprites stil selling for 40-50 bucks. You could blow through them in 2 hours, how's that for value? And it didn't even come in an plastic box, damn cardboard. Or how about cassetetapes, they lasted as long as my recorder didn't eat them.

    I think some people are getting old and are starting to be whiney old grandfathers who can only complain on how good the good old days were. Only bitching about the negatives of new tech and ways to play games.

    Well, I never stabbed a guy on top of a Venice roof before so I'll take that any day.

    @Georiemp

    Right. I'll bet most of em were planning on buying the game for 8 bucks from the bargain bin killing the games industry in other ways. Not attacking anyone, but people should take a look in the mirror sometimes and see what they're really contributing. The people who yell the hardset about this stuff are sometimes the ones who never actually touched the damn thing and know what tyhe hell they're talking about or the ones riping them from the internets
    Edited by 8 at 27/12/09 @ 13:35

  • VMerken #234 2 years ago

    @menage
    Right, which is why I also mentioned the "Part X is less vital to the game than part Y" argument. Part X may hold quality, but confesses it's not really something that will pull you deeper into the game. The fact that part Y was chosen over it means that if you played the game containing part Y, part X is unlikely to attract you more than Y. And as such, offering X as premium DLC is not quite value for money. You may buy it out for completionist reasons, just don't expect it's going to feel like a whole new world opening up in ACII. Unless, of course, part X is completely revamped, remastered, expanded upon and whatnot.

    With that said, please tell me more about the 8 bit games which cost 40-50 bucks. Especially the ones on cassette tape :). Remembering the c64 age, premium cassette (or disk) games usually cost about 10 bucks, premium budget was something like 4 bucks. Or are you talking about console cartridges? Those cost a fortune, yeah, about as much as the console itself.

  • PuppyFiddler #235 2 years ago

    Assassin's creed 2 is a gameplay dullards wetdream. I traded it in today and I'm not sorry to see the back of it.

  • menage #236 2 years ago

    @vmerken

    hehe, yeah those C64 cassettes weren't that expensive indeed, that was directed at the new! nes, snes, megadrive, neo geo thingy's:p. gaming is also more expensive because they cost shitloads to make sometimes. You could always go retro if people want to stay cheap, but we all want the bestesttsst graphix and shitloads of content for the price of yesteryear.

    Also take inflation into account:D
    Edited by 3 at 27/12/09 @ 20:57

  • SmoothieMonster #237 2 years ago

    Reading the threads here it seems publishers really need to nail the psychology of DLC as much as anything else. Someone made a comment about expansion packs having been around for ages that made me think.

    If the extra sections had been after the end (or well to the side) of the main story line then people probably wouldn't complain, they really are extras. But extra content that look like it should have gone in the middle of the game (particularly if the developer mentions it was "cut", whatever that means) really feels like you missed a part of the story and that the package was incomplete in the first place.

    If DLC extends the main package then I doubt most people have a problem with it but when it fits into the main part of the game then it feels like you were cheated out of part of the game and asked to pay more to get the whole thing.

    From the tone of this thread it really sounds like developers really need to understand how people view DLC versus the original package and how it should fit with the main game. Adding content that fits in the middle and might have languished unused because of time and budget constraints might seem like a great idea artisticly (so people get your full vision for the game) and financially (because you get value out of something you've already invested in) but may actually not fit with the customers perception of value for money as they may feel that what they paid for was incomplete and they are now being blackmailed into paying more to get the full package or the whole story. That can then quickly burn out the goodwill you may have gained from the customer enjoying the game in the first place.

    (This post turned out to be much longer than I planned.)

  • Stardusted #238 2 years ago

    @menage

    I was born in 82 so do not consider myself an old man yet. As for the rest of your answer, I'm afraid I have to say that you completely missed my point. Plus, your references to really old games cassetes cartidges etc etc must serve a purpose, but I really can't comprehend which one exactly.

    I am not against patching or against DLC. But there is a line that has "ridiculous" written all over it, and most companies nowadays use both patching and DLC releasing so shamelessly and in a very very wrong way leaving the line soooo far behind them...

    P.S. - I have many many many games in cd dvd cartidge cassete form. I have yet to witness a single one failing to load. Maybe you should reconsider the way you treat your collection. And I sure hope companies reconsider their patch/dlc model approach.
    Edited by 1 at 27/12/09 @ 23:25

  • Murton #239 2 years ago

    Damn this thread is long.

    I've been playing the game for a couple days now and for the most part have been gunning down collectibles and side quests, only done the first 4 "sequences" but I'm more than confident that by the time I finish the game I'll have had a lengthy and enjoyable experience.

    It does however annoy me that my experience of this game is going to run from chapter 1 to 11 then suddenly jump to 14 with 12 and 13 to follow if I buy them unless I deliberately not play the game until the second DLC is released. I can't help but feel sorry for those who pre-ordered this game, a November release where the story can't be played from start to finish until late Febrary, that's shit no matter what colour you try and paint it.

  • metalangel #240 2 years ago

    @Smoothiemonster: Not to mention that your most hardcore fans, who'll have completed the game in its entirety already, will now have to play it all again in order to see the new bits that've been added. And a few 'new bits' in the middle of a big game don't especially stick out, believe me; with the result of feeling cheated.

    I'd go so far as to say that most DLC is hugely overpriced for what you get. When you consider the amount of content in a game that costs £35, paying another £5 for a pathetic handful of missions doesn't feel right. £1 or £2 maybe. Hell, I'd have never bought Mothership Zeta were it not at the far more reasonable price of 400msp as the New Year Deal today. ;)

  • menage #241 2 years ago

    @Stardusted

    You were the one complaining that keeping your games complete anymore wasn't possible anymore, I just said that times change and there's always some negative shit connected to the "new". I'd rather not be stuick in the past and let that completionsit mentality go cause shit is hardly going back the way it used to be. I never said you were old, only some gamers act like things were always better in the good old days before DLC. Well, DLC brought a lot of fun as well for me at least.

    I still don't know how you're able to burn all your DLC to a disk if you're playing in console either.

    Oh and bullshit on all cassettes still working after 20 years, that shit decays at some point. It's not how you treat them but nature of the beast.
    Edited by 2 at 28/12/09 @ 09:16

  • Murton #242 2 years ago

    Menage: a case can be made either way for patching and DLC. Patches obviously bring the chance to fix problems that couldn't be fixed before release whereas in the days before patching and widespread availability of broadband games would have to be more technically solid than they are now. Look at the state of Failout 3, the game actually shipped with a progress halting bug within the first 20 minutes of gameplay (the GOAT bug) as well as a rather nasty memory leak, but it's ok to release with these things as they can patch it later right? As a former games tester myself I would place Failout 3 in the beta stage of development and after one year to patch it up they haven't done so in favour of releasing a half dozen equally problematic DLCs. You don't release expansions with more assets and more map locations without first fixing a fatal memory leak in the core software, doing so only further breaks the experience for the consumer.

    As for DLC, that's somehing of a grey area. I personally am more than ok with DLC as a concept but most developers/publishers don't seem to understand what it is actually for. I see DLC as the natural evolution of the expansion pack, additional content to supplement the main game, this could take the form of a continuation, a backstory/prequel or something that happened alongside the main story but some people in the industry seem to believe that it can equally be a cheat code, new skins, or in the worst cases, actually replace or contradict parts of the main story, in this case replacing the gap they created by plugging in those missing chapters at a cost. The sad thing is though, these sorts of "bad" DLCs greatly outnumber the "good" DLCs and a result ruin the whole DLC concept to the majority.

  • menage #243 2 years ago

    @Murton

    I'm not saying that all's fine and dandy in DLC land. I do agree about bugs and stuff. But AC2 has rather little to do with it (there was one I heard of).

    I'm also assuming it's a hell of task to bughunt something like AC2 or F3 compared to Space Invaders or Sonic

    And like said 1000 times before by others, don't like it, don't buy it. .Do your research if you really want to avoid stuff like that.

    Edited by 1 at 28/12/09 @ 12:06

  • makeamazing #244 2 years ago

    @Murton the chapters that are missing do not affect the games story, ive completed the games and didnt notice anything missing except for the strange numbering that i didnt know was chapters removed. Its only because people are finding out this info BEFORE they started the game or not very far into it.

    It took me 30 hours to collect and complete the game, compare that to the 5-6 hours of some games, so about £1.30 an hour of entertainment, seriously i would love to know where people will get entertainment that cheap... at the end of it, i could trade the game in, or replay it, making that £1.30 actually not that at all. (In fact i probably could get what £20 for it in trade in at least).

  • Wyrm #245 2 years ago

    Why did he admit this?

    Aww, poor games buyers, we're giving them too much value for money, how will they cope!?

  • icematt12 #246 2 years ago

    Imagine this scenario. "The Only Easy Day was Yesterday" was removed from the retail version of MW2 and was to be released as DLC. Not a big deal you say, it's in the middle of the game and has little impact on the story. However this mission is visible within Act II of the mission select screen but it is greyed out and unselectable. How do you feel, what do you do?

    That is kind of the scenario we have here, not a good one I know but I had to pick a well known game and things I can remember of this game. I could have picked a couple of Spec Ops missions. The cost of the DLC has nothing to do with it for me, it's the principle of the game you buying being 100% finished. Not having stuff held back and charging for it later. In my scenario, I would be happy paying for prequel missions playing as Soap in the SAS and/or 141. Even more Spec Ops missions or playing story missions as a different person eg Ghost. Some may still moan about should be free or already on disc though but at least i wouldn't feel like they give you 95% but want you to pay more for the extra 5%.

    As for the Director's Cut version of movies someone mentioned, yes I agree on that in a way. Street Fighter is doing that in the next couple of months anyway. But there is a difference between a Director's Cut of a movie and a movie that won't allow you access to certain material until you enter a code you have to pay for. That's how I and other people seem to see this Assassin's Creed DLC as.

  • menage #247 2 years ago

    Like said before. It's all perception, they could have just removed any reference and released it all afterwards and nobody would have a fucking clue. Only difference is that they didn't and are open about it.

  • makeamazing #248 2 years ago

    @icematt12 problem is to me MW2 as a single player experience wasnt worth the money with the ALL of the content that was in it, while AC2 had more than enough content to keep me very happy. This is the difference.

  • patchbox360 #249 2 years ago

    if you don't want it don't buy it

  • jawolf #250 2 years ago

    Maybe there should be government sanctioned warning, such as "content may be added at a later date", so that the buying public can be rid of this traversty of justice.

    Nothing is complete- it is in human nature to want to do more, previously you just got one compromise (basically what the people delivered in the release). Now we have a means to offer a compromise, but always improve on it.

    Anything that has monetary interest in it, such as a game, vehicle, film etc will always be designed with constraints of time and money. A vehicle or film (as these are examples used) that takes many years to do when the money and time constraints are lifted isn't going to be perfect, it will mean the people involved will endevour to do more, but these things may not align with what you the viewer/consumer want. So with infinite time and money you will still not get a game out that everyone wants, and people will be moaning that it isn't coming out.

    I am guessing the best way to handle the public would be release with no comment, most of the time surprises are held in higher regard than an explaination. At least then the only way they can compain or approve is via paying for the content or not.

  • Murton #251 2 years ago

    Menage: bughunting isn't as hard as you might think, during my time as a games tester I'd say I found at least twice as many bugs by just playing the game normally as I did by following the testing plan or doing dumb stuff in a deliberate effort to break the game. As I've said in many threads regarding game bugs, if a gamer finds a bug in the release code you can guarantee at least two testers found it the same way and the fact it's still in the release code can only mean that for whatever reason the devs didn't implement a fix. I use Failout as an example as some of the bugs (still) present are inexcusable and memory leaks should never make it to market, regular software companies would be destroyed by selling such faulty software.

    Jawolf: I would have to fully disagree that the best way to handle this would have been to say nothing. The industry needs to be more open with its fans, especially with regards to its strategies that go beyond the initial product. Nobody likes being kept in the dark, with the chapter numbering and storyline showing this blatant gap this was always going to widely speculated on, and though I can't respect this marketing strategy and I can definitely respect Ubisoft having the balls to come out and tellus what's going on, though personally I would have renumbered the chapter and closed the hole in the plot for the benefit of those who could not access DLC, that's just common sense and courtesy in my opinion.

  • jawolf #252 2 years ago

    You are right Murton in what you say about being informed, but the way people seem to be it doesn't appear to be in their best interest to give a reason. Fans are just high potential repeat customers- so why would a company/singer/film maker preach to the converted. Following up on consumer feedback is important as that is a means to solidify a repeat customer. The informed consumer is what marketers care/worry about, or at least leaving them uninformed so they can make a uninformed decision.

    I'm rambling.

  • waggy79 #253 2 years ago

    I wondered a while ago if certain developers would ever 'hold back' parts of a game to sell as DLC later on. The less cynical part of me thought "naaaah"....

    Damn.

  • makeamazing #254 2 years ago

    @Murton, finding bugs is one thing, fixing bugs and finishing features is another thing. Its easy to find a bug, but when you have a schedule and a high risk that fixing one bug might cause other bugs, then these things go out of the window. AC has some bugs, but isnt the buggiest game ive played, and it took 30 hours to complete, I think they probably just added too much content which they couldnt complete/fix in time for release. This is normal for 99% of games.

    As someone else has said, they would have been better served by changing the chapter numbers and not saying something. But as usual a company gets slaughtered for being honest.

  • Murton #255 2 years ago

    I think MrEd needs to play the game in question before making comments like the one above as the opening credits will have told him that this an Ubisoft created title published by, er, Ubisoft. So the whole "the developer doesn't set the date, the publisher does" argument becomes moot straight away. Ubisoft could very easily have taken a "release when finished" approach and delay the game but instead opted to make the cuts and then admit to them, while this can be seen as a good thing it's still the wrong move as it means those without the means to obtain the DLC are left with the plot hole and no way to plug it.

    The only way to deal with this correctly would have been to renumber the chapters and fill in the hole in the story inside the main game and make the DLCs a side plot, this way those who don't get the DLC for whatever reason still have the complete story. I'm not going to say that the game isn't complete because it is, anyone who has played it can see that, but the story is far from complete due to this glaring gap, it is this that people take exception to and rightly so, anyone who was interested enough in this game to pre-order is faced with a wait of three months (Nov-Feb) in order to get the completed story, that's pretty poor when you think about it.
    Edited by 1 at 01/01/10 @ 20:34

  • Lacero #256 2 years ago

    Father Christmas set the release date. Blame him, the meanie.

  • Bonders99 #257 2 years ago

    For all the debate of time constraints meaning this DLC was cut out. The question, if I am cynical is why are the 2 DLC packs being sold separately a month apart ?. Surely if time was the over-riding factor in these 2 DNA sequences being left out to hit the release date, then should they not be sold as one DLC pack ?. or am I being too cynical ?.
    Edited by 1 at 02/01/10 @ 20:45

  • Murton #258 2 years ago

    Ed, you seem to have missed the point. The producer of the game and the marketting guys are wearing the same colour shirt, they're part of the same company, this could very, very easily have been a Half Life 2 "release when it's ready" title, and instead for whatever reason, it isn't. The game is finished, it works flawlessly or as near to flawlessly as one should expect but the story has a rather large gap in it and a game world with visible locations that simply cannot be visited, and with that in mind the majority of fans are going to have a hard time getting behind this decision.

    You mention the grunts that do the work aren't the same guys who set the dates, that's where your producer steps in, he's supposed to walk in both worlds and keep things going where they need to. Fact remains that people who bought the game day one have been faced with a three month wait and a ten dollar price tag in order to complete Ezio's story, and that's pretty poor, I think we can all agree there.

    Luckily EG will be going back to work tomorrow and this article and therefore thread will be buried and forgotten about until they review the first of the cut chapters. Until then all we need remember from this is that "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" including cutting up and selling the build up to the climax of your story.

  • menage #259 2 years ago

    You've ever worked with a producer? They really are fucking clueless half the time. They have no sense whatsoever on how long shit really takes and how much work it will be.

  • Murton #260 2 years ago

    Menage: I haven't worked directly with a games producer but I am familiar with one in particular, former Codemasters Racing Studio boss Gavin Raeburn. That was a man who knew his stuff and got the job done without all the messing about we see from other producers. But you're right that for every decent producer there are plenty of useless ones, such as Todd Howard, a man who clearly has no idea or interest in the build quality of his games.

  • makeamazing #261 2 years ago

    very easily have been a Half Life 2 "release when it's ready" title

    And how many companies have the money to do a Valve, very few. I wish people would stop using the Valve and Blizzard "Take as long as they like" mentality. Its great they can take as long as they like, but the money that costs is massive. Also where the hell is Half Life Ep 3... it doesnt always work taking as long as you like :D

    The majority of other companies cannot do this. Its costly running a big gaming team, even in a tax friendly country like Canada (I am assuming this is where they are based). Yes i agree with some aspects, it would have been nice for it to be released on time, and if not the DLC to be free, but life isnt that simple.

  • charming_fox #262 2 years ago

    What's DLC?

  • EgbertoTheGreat #263 2 years ago

    "this could very, very easily have been a Half Life 2 "release when it's ready" title"

    Valve is privately owned. They don't have to answer to shareholders. It would have been very, very difficult to make this a "release when it's ready" title.

  • Murton #264 2 years ago

    And how many companies have the money to do a Valve, very few.

    A lot more than you'd think but don't forget that Ubisoft is in the top ten largest games companies in the world and even before the crunch had reportedly put 450 people on the AC2 project if you include game testers, localisation testers, artists, programmers etc, money is really not an issue to Ubi, the issue here is time and time alone.

    Now I can believe that at some point when they looked at things they saw that there would not be enough time to build the completed story and completed world, but there was certainly more than enough time to make what was going to be released a lot tidier than it is currently with the huge plot hole and areas of the map that a both visible and populated, but simply cannot be accessed. That's the real problem here and that's what makes this move look more like gouging and less like budgeting.

  • makeamazing #265 2 years ago

    A lot more than you'd think

    Seriously come on, the issue isnt just time alone, its money as well. Do you have any idea of the costs involved in game development, they are astrononical. And as the previous poster stated, you arnt just spending your own money, its shareholders money, and they expect you to make a profit.

    You say Ubi is one of the top ten developers, and? these companies can still make loses and still go out of business.

    450 people on the AC2 project

    Work out what that would cost a month. Just because they can put that many on the game does not mean they can do it indefinately.

    I really wonder where you get your ideas about games companies and development from.
    Edited by 1 at 04/01/10 @ 07:59

  • Murton #266 2 years ago

    Do you really think the cost of developing these two chapters is worth talking about compared to the rest of the game? The assets are all there, the story is already there, all that is required is implementation and testing, which are actually two of the cheapest processes in games development.

    And you'd be surprised by how many people a company could put on a title if it wanted to, release a title and get the people from that project onto another one, this is what keeps the QA bods in work, it's when a company has no project to move its testers onto that they are "forced" into job cuts, I know this as that's exactly what happened to me. The whole reason Ubi had 450+ on AC2 is because it put testers from other studios onto it while they had nothing to do, which is smart.

    Ubisoft have been around a long, long time and they're the third largest games company in Europe and seventh in America for a reason, they know what they're doing. That's why I have trouble believing that this whole "chapter cut" thing is as cut and dry as they say it is, there was more than enough time and money to keep these chapters and certainly enough to make their removal seamless for those who don't have the option to expand on their games (LIVE and PSN aren't gloabally available and retail disc expansions aren't possible on the PS3) It's the untidy edges around the content cuts that allow us to see these missing chapters and the areas they take place in that gives the impression that this is not something that had to be cut due to constraints but is in fact an attempt to gouge the consumer for an extra ten in order to complete the story.

    But hey, we all knew that this would happen once DLC took off. We'll no doubt see many games this year which showcase inaccessible content that can be purchased later at premium rates.

  • Crispo1981 #267 2 years ago

    Terrible for a developer to do this!

    I don't even believe that the chapters were not completed on time, this type of descision comes down to one thing and one thing only:

    MONEY / WONGA / GREEN / A PHAT WEDGE etc.

    Like the rrp of £45 is not enough money per item for these developers to make serious money from a well designed and implemented game that sells well.

    I actually thought the game was a bit short, but then who has the spare time to bother with all those feathers eh?! one day I will get round to a Platinum trophy :)