ACII DLC was originally part of game News

Boo. Wrong reasons for making DLC in my book.

DLC should be unique and interesting, not offcuts from the main game that you sliced because of tightening deadlines.

/create cash cow
/go

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.

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.

"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. :/

@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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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

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.

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

"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".

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

@Doctor_What
I don't think anyone's fundamentally opposed to the concept of paid-for DLC, just that they expect it to be interesting and worth buying, not stuff that wasn't deemed strong/relevant enough for the main game.

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.

"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.

rip off merchants

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.

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?

Vote with your wallets.

@ 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 :)

"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.

"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.

"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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

http://www.operationburnout.com/paradise...

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.

" 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.

"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?

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!

"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.

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...

@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.

"Movies coming out with extended/directors cuts?"

The perfect example.

"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.

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).

"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.