Assassin's Creed 2 getting double dose of DLC starting January 2010

that's exactly why I'll just wait for the goty edition next year

No YOU be soft!

It may be a tired discussion, but unless we voice or concern, companies will put out less game for the same price and more DLC.

Think about how some DLC unlocked disc content. Think about games still in development and the producer is talking DLC they are working on. Those are the things that concern me.

We are coming were to realize that DLC is part of production, but it's sad when it's a money grab

@ Reddrive having more content for an already massive and amazing game isn't a bad thing at all.

For $59.99 (Canadian), Assassin's Creed 2 is worth its price tag and I think they've already put as much content as they can within the price range. Good game

So does Assassin's Creed have less content than the first one (which didn't have DLC)? No, it doesn't. It has more, so there goes your whole ridiculous point.

What's happening here, Reddrive, is that you're some ignorant little kid that doesn't know anything about software development process. I work in software (non-game related). We often have some team members working on the next version of the software before the first version is done. We often have decisions made by the higher ups to work on something that we can sell for extra cost, that without that option would not have ever been made in the first place. It's been like that for every company I've ever worked for.

There's nothing different here. 99% of the time DLC isn't something that "would have been included for free otherwise", even if it's just an unlock key. What it is, is something that wouldn't have been made otherwise.

I really have no idea how these companies control their outrage with stupid people spouting off this "it should have been on the disc" crap. Though I guess in some cases they don't (that Capcom guy that went apeshit on those people, for instance), but I guess sometimes you just have to shake your head and understand that people love to talk about stuff they know nothing about, and act like they do.

Its funny you mention Capcom, since its SF4 DLC is the most ridiculous thing ever. The data are all on the disc, so did they really have to spend that much of an effort to make an unlock code? Would that have really delay the release of the game at all?

I'm not going to say all DLc are bad, but for every good example there will be a bad one.

I could explain it to you Unknown, but you wouldn't listen. Why listen to someone that's actually worked in that process when you could just rage about something you don't understand?

"It may be a tired discussion, but unless we voice or concern"

I don't think anyone is concerned about gamers not voicing their opinions any time soon.

@Vcize

Sorry, not some ignorant kid. I'm a business major and a gamer. I know that developments late in the production won't make in "on the disc" and teams are always working on the next big thing. That has been the process since we were still playing on carts. It's a no-brainer that initial sales offset costs for developing DLC. It also makes sense that developers have to plan for the possibility of DLC in today's games.

I think you are a missing the point. There is a difference between the next version and DLC. The CAPCOM example above is what I am complaining about. Look at EA Sports and Madden 10. I do find it hard to believe that when they are still early in development some big wig isn't saying, "Oh that can be the DLC. Develop that and we will make more money." I'm sorry you are not bothered when a game launches and they suddenly want you to pony up some more spacebucks for content.

Capcom is a perfect example of what I'M talking about.

When they're planning out these games, they plan out the features, etc they're going to include, and what kind of development time they're going to take up vs the money they're going to bring in.

For the last 15 years, in Street Fighter planning meetings the answer to "will alternate costumes sell enough additional copies of the game to offset the cost of keeping these artists on the project for an extra month?" was always "no".

For the last 15 years, when looking at Resident Evil planning meetings the answer to "will a tacked on multiplayer mode sell enough additional copies to offset the cost it will take our developers to make it?" was always "no".

So, for the last 15 years, that was the end of it and those games never included those things. However now, there is a new option. They can make money DIRECTLY off those things by selling them seperately such that they CAN offset the cost it took to create them, and make some profit on top of it. So now, they can be made.

I don't work for Capcom, but this likely is not a case where, without DLC, those things would have been on the disk for free. More than likely, not only would alternate costumes in SF and multiplayer in Resident Evil not have been on the disk for free, but they wouldn't have been made AT ALL. It's no coincidence that there have been like 15 SF/RE games and those things never existed before.

And that's what people don't get. There are business decisions being made here that people that haven't worked in the field can't even dream up. When the stuff was made is irrelevant, because it wouldn't have been made otherwise.

Without DLC, we would have had our $60 street fighter 4 with no alternate costumes. If you want, you can still have $60 street fighter 4 with no alternate costumes, but you also have the additional option of getting costumes on top of that, which without the ability to charge for would never have even been an option at all. I can't say for sure as I don't work for Capcom, but it is extremely unlikely that if DLC didn't exist you would have bought SF4 for $60 and had alternate costumes included on the disk. They just wouldn't have been made at all.

But people see something that got made ahead of time and assume it's something that was already made and someone said "hey let's take that away and sell it we can rip these stupid people off haha". That's not how it works, but people like to think the world is out to get them.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Vcize.

Assassin's Creed 2 has the most content of any game since Oblivion. Yeah, maybe this content could have been on the disc (obviously they set the story up, because she says that you should return to Forli and have sex with her essentially) but who cares. They also could have put the Auditore crypt on the disc instead of making you unlock it via Uplay (it's awesome by the way. Spend your Uplay points on it first), or that pre-order bonus from Gamestop on the disc (I forget the name of the building, but it looks sweet. I hope it becomes regular DLC), but I think they've done more than enough.

I agree though, content that is on the disc should never be pay-to-unlock (unless it is a pre-order bonus). Since we can't prove that this content was on the disc though, there is no reason to get out our pitchforks.

In regards to SF4, if the costumes where not made because there isn't an option for DLC, that would have been fine. If Capcom never did jack in any direction towards that option, because they don't want to or can't sell it, that would have been good too.

But the costumes were made, and the content is already packaged into the game. They are already included in the disc regardless of whether the players were able to be use them, regardless of whether they players even knew the content were there. In this case, you can't say they wouldn't have made it otherwise. So to just release a DLC to "unlock" those content that buyers already paid for, as it is already on disc, is objectionable. Now I'm sure you can say that developers leave left over or unused materials in games all the time,and that would be true, but they usually won't charge people for things that were never intended to be used in the game so this would have been a different topic altogether.

I would have rather buy a disc without the locked, on pupose, hidden content that would be unlock by DLC. Sure, you can say I get less for my buck, considering the option for DLC might be non-existent, but I would have rather had that then the current version where I know I have the content already but can't use it without forking extra.

I do not think all DLC are good. If a developer truly wants to support a game, then the new content should have been made after the game is release, so it doesn't feel like they are holding out on purpose (at least in relation to on disc content). If it was just done in house but not release then it should be fine (which is why I did not consider the RE5 DLC to be bad, since I consider it new code using old assets). Preferably, it should also be content that the players are asking for. However, it is clear that the existent of DLC itself allows developers to get away with some bad practices, ones should not be encourage one way or an other. If you want to support all the nickel-and-dime DLC, that would be your choice, but it will be a decision I would have to disagree on.

Just because there is DLC doesn't mean the players are getting more than they were before. All the older Madden games had cheat codes before, but the latest Madden had cheats sold as DLC. In this case, how exactly were players being given more content then before?

You can lists all the business reason for DLC all you want, but not everyone of them are going benefit gamers. If exploitive DLC are not made because gamers refuse to be exploited, then I don't see the loss there. Please enlighten me if you ever considered any DLC pratices to be bad, just so I get a better understanding. I promise not to rage.

@BananaBoat The place you're thinking of is Palazzo de Medici and it is definitely not worth any money. It was a chore if anything. Also dont you think that's a bit of exaggeration? The most since Oblivion? I think Dragon Age and Fallout 3 as well as many others I am too inept to remember had a lot more. Also I think the Uplay thing is the best idea for DLC yet. Instead of paying for DLC, you pay for the game, preferably new, and for actually playing it you are rewarded with new content either for the one you're playing or more. I wish achievements worked that way, cause id never have to pay for DLC again

@The Dark Wayne

I meant to say "most main story content". Fallout 3 definitely had a lot more, and I'm sure Dragon Age lays on the content pretty thick as well (though I haven't played it yet). Oblivion might not have been the best example, since it's story mode was relatively short, but I wasn't sure what other game to mention. Fallout 3 has a metric ton of content, but it's so inaccessible that I doubt most people ever got around to all of it. Maybe I should have said "most content in any game that isn't an RPG". Either way, I'm at 20+ hours and I've still got the messenger missions and the beat-em up missions to do.

It sucks a bit that the gamestop exclusive isn't worth the money. Is there some nice architecture to look at in the DLC pack? I guess I won't have to worry about it, since they announced the first two DLC packs, and neither includes the gamestop exclusive. I just hope "The Battle of Forli" is worth it.

@Vcize

Maybe you forgot about spending $180 to play thee 3 different Street Fighter 2's on SNES back then. Maybe you forgot about MK3, UK3, MKT. So don't say the market didn't support teams staying on to add features.

I'm all for developers getting paid for the hard work they put in. I love DLC, as it can keep the game alive years longer after leaving the production line, and bring those add-on features for a lower cost than a new game. Your defenses are all valid, but I don't want to see DLC become the travesty the internet says it currently is.

I'll leave it at that

@BananaBoat I understand what you're saying although I think depending on how you look at it something like ODST and MW2 could have even more "content" if you really got into multiplayer but i realize that isnt what you mean. It definitely does last awhile, but to me a lot of that felt artificially lengthened. I wish there had been a teleport feature because sometimes getting from one end of a city to a mission just felt like a chore.


Did you do any of the assassin's crypt missions? Because it's almost exactly like that, only it's Lorenzo Medici's house, it's a lot brighter than the crypts, and instead of a seal you get like, idk 4000f florins at the end and a pat on the back from Lorenzo. Im sure the actual DLC will be much more worthwhile.

@The Dark Wayne - Yeah, one of my only gripes is how I had to go back to the villa every ten minutes or so to collect my florins. It definitely breaks up the flow of the game when you can't buy anything because you don't want to trek all the way to a fast travel station, and then all the way up to your villa (why it doesn't teleport you closer to the villa, I'll never know) and back. It definitely has that Grand Theft Auto 4 mechanic to it as well, where you start a mission on one side of the map sometimes, and have to go all the way to the other side to complete it, but I enjoyed the city so it wasn't that much of a chore for me.

The crypts were easily my favorite part of the game. Just when the game could have gotten a bit monotonous, I'd come across a building with the assassin symbol, and the crypt would keep my interest in the game. Then there are the glyphs, which I had a hell of a time trying to finish (the later ones anyway). At 20 hours, I'm all out of what I'd call important story content. The beat em ups and the assassin missions (non-story ones) are all pretty generic, but they are such an afterthought that it is hard for me to penalize the game for that. I do penalize it for the elements that are easy to overlook (I had beaten the game before I realized that the trainer in front of the villa could teach you more attacks in exchange for money), but at least I didn't have that moment where the game was over and I realized that there was a run button or something (which has happened to me, sadly)

I hope the next one is set somewhere that isn't the future. The sci-fi element of the story almost kills the game for me, and it seems like they are leading up to a game set in either the future or the present.

it definitely seems like that's what they'll be doing, although I would really hope we have another one. They went 300 years from the first AC to this one, so i can only hope we have another 300 for a revolutionary war period America, or maybe France which seems likely since one of the glyphs had GWashington with a poe. That would fit well, because another 300 years would plop us right at desmond's time.

I think my biggest complaint was the combat this time, it felt so much more fluid in AC1, which is strange because they were even lazy enough to reuse some of the counter kill animations. I also dearly missed the combo kill attacks where you would basically do a counter kill animation without countering, those are either completely gone or god damn impossible to get.

And a bigger boat.

SAME MAN!

You're retarded. From in-game: press start -> DNA -> select the memory segment -> select the specific mission.

Evidently I am the retarded one, as it appears that only works for the side missions.

Exactly. It does not work with full missions.

Don't get me wrong, i loved the game. But not being able to hop in and out of the memories like in the 1st games is stupid. Who thought to remove that?

I think you're overreacting...

I thing thas the 360 not able to hold the size of the game with that content.
i own the the 360 Dragon Age and it looks realy realy compressed.
i thing thats the reason anyway

I have no idea what any of you are saying

You don't remember people complaining about Dragon Age DLC? Did you even read the articles about it on this site? There were many complaints about it.

welcome to the world of the circa 2009 PS3 owner....hell I put a 320GB HDD in my PS3 and its down to just 30GBs now.....

going to put in a 750GB HDD next year as soon as they hit $100

I think the beard made him more Clooney badass as opposed to Orlando Bloom badass....it worked for him

'Orlando Bloom' and 'badass' should never be in the same sentence...

I remember reading the game informer article when it was first announced, and they had an entire little sidebar about her, and then barely anything at all in the game