Assassin's Creed II DLC was cut from main game due to time constraints

How much less could you care exactly?

Honestly I think it's bullshit. They should have left it in there and given me a bigger game.

Agreed. It's just like any game or movie where certain scenes or levels hit the cutting room floor. This is just content they decided to revive as DLC, which is a GOOD thing. I can't understand why people complain about the ability to buy extra levels...

"Honestly I think it's bullshit. They should have left it in there and given me a bigger game."

You only have the right to say if ever since you got the game you were crying about it being too short.

Give it a fucking rest, if you don't want to buy it then don't, no one is forcing you. Assassin's Creed 2 is much longer than the 8-10 hours you usually get this gen. I can only conclude that you are whining because you have nothing better to do, if that's the case I'm sure there's a village somewhere in need of an idiot.

O.k. For all those people who are complaining that the dlc should have been in the game in the first place its not like you're being forced to buy. If a ubisoft employee comes to your front door with a gun and forces you to buy the dlc then I will take back this statement! Of course the only person who would do such a hanus thing is Bobby Kotick so no need to worry. :)

Honestly, I didn't care...until now. Not the smartest move saying, "Well, this was supposed to be part of the game, but we didn't have time to finish it. So, we took it out to meet our deadline. Now, we're going to make you pay for it."

Really, who decided it was a good idea to tell the public this.

@White Kid Okay I get what you're saying so because a game is so long and so big that means they can take what they want out and sell it to us later as long as it meets a certain length. Gotcha!

I don't bitch about DLC much. I by a lot of it with no problem (including the SFIV alternate costumes D:) But when people are intentionally leaving story out of their games just to sell them later it's kind of weak.

If it was going to be in the game then the DLC should be FREE!!

this was kinda obvious that it had happened tho the rest of the stuff is sitting there as it is not to mention the chick is in the game for 2 seconds is important in one of the DLC stories

i wouldve prefered they didnt say this and that segments 12 and 13 werent shown in the game to begin with just say theres a section of corrupted memory to explain the jump like they did(doesnt mean we wouldve played through that section neccessarily anyways)

yeah at least one of them should be free because i assume that they were both say halfway done which means a whole episode worth of content was funded by the original development cost which should be recouped through game sales and thus half of each of those DLC's should be free :P

Think of it this way: if they delayed the game, it would've come out later right?

But if you buy the game later, I'm sure you'll be able to find it in stores for less than 60 dollars, in a way that you only have to pay 60 dollars for the game + DLC or less, so if you delay your purchase of the game for the amount of time they would've delayed the game to include this, you pay the same fucking amount.

If you pay more than 60$ think of it this way: you paid extra for an early look.

The game is at 50$ on amazon now, and the DLC isn't even fucking out, so quit your whining people, it doesn't even really matter whether they cut it because of time constraints or not.

Borderlands had DLC announced before the game released.

You are exactly what gives gamers a douchey name. They would have never been able to release this content were it not for the digital age and DLC. You're acting like AC2 wasn't chock full of content, which it was.

I'm so fucking tired of whiny, entitled Internet kids.

Look at Borderlands DLC. It added many new enemies, areas, and story. It added awesome value for the money. It wasn't stuff they could not finish and decided to charge extra for. It was planned, amazing, and leaves you not feeling exploited. To me, they executed it perfectly compared to making us pay for missing parts of the story that should have been there in the first place but ran out of time B.S.

I agree entirely with Jerk Face. What is wrong with people these days? Ubisoft releases a game that is absolutely filled with content and is a critical and commercial success and decides to give you more of it and you bitch and moan about how you should have had it when the game came out?

Newsflash: Before DLC existed game companies were still cutting content to get games out on time, you just never got to see it because there wasn't really a means of distributing it. OR it was released as an expansion pack, which *GASP* costs money.

Stop complaining and just be happy that you are getting new content for a great game, and if you are unhappy about the price tag, DON'T BUY IT. Buying DLC is not required for you to enjoy the game.

Well, back in the day before excuses were easier, they would have either rushed to finish everything planned which may have resulted in a buggy game, or they would have delayed the release.

Personally, I think they should have just delayed the release because these self-imposed deadlines are ridiculous and the gaming industry is literally screwing themselves by forcing such a small launch window out of the entire year. It's just stupid and it hurts everyone, especially new titles that continually get overlooked.

Also, back in the day, when this happened to PC games more often than not they'd give the content later as a free update or incorporate it into a nice expansion pack.

You know, to show appreciation.


Gamers have always been fickle, the internet just lets that come out more clearly, and it doesn't help that companies continue to abuse DLC. Not so much in this instance; though their attitude could use a kick in the butt.

Let me ask everyone this: Would you rather have Assassin's Creed II delayed into the crowded Q1, or have it come out during the Holiday season so you wouldn't have to worry about buying it with TONS of other Q1 games? I'd rather have it come out during the Christmas season, reason 1 being that I would run out of games to play this end of the year, and 2 is the obvious reason: Things are too fargin' crowded. In a way, Ubisoft did us a favor. If they put AC II out in Q1, you would be struggling to buy this and so many other games, which would make you pay way over $100. However, they had it out in a not-so-crowded season, and now, our money is saved because we've bought this and and a far-less amount of games.

Sorry if I'm confusing everyone.

@Massmass

You know video games aren't the only medium of entertainment that cuts content to fit a budget or a timeline, or time constraints, or whatever.

Movies and TV shows do it all the time, and when they do it they release the old content in things called DVD box sets, which seem to come out with new content for the same movies every 2 months. Don't believe me, look at all the box sets that exist with extended cuts for the Lord of the Rings movies. My point being? This is common practice, get used to it, enjoy the game you have which for all intents and purposes is complete and fully fleshed out as it is, and if you want the extra content, shell out a few extra bucks to the developers for doing such a good job on the game.

tl;dr stop being poor whiny entitled children.

I don't mind if DLC is announced before a game is released. I care if the DLC is finished before the game is printed.

@Huey - yeah, but the difference is, a consumer buying a complete experience on a DVD released with extras... he or she isn't being nickel-and-dimed for repeat theater visits to come see a few extra "originally intended" plot-lines from a film that were cut for time...

DLC is really a double-edged sword... on the one hand, sure, it gives the player cheap access to additional content without having to wait for a massive expansion pack, or a GOTY edition... on the other hand, it now allows publishers to force devs to make cuts or hold back, for the chance at a quick DLC money-grab on the back-end....

@shadowbender

Personally, I'd rather the game was delayed and completed than be sold something incomplete at full price. I had no problem with this whole thing when I though it was part of the original plan to release the other two sections as DLC. Now that I know they just ditched the content to make a deadline, I'm not paying for it.

All I'm hearing is "bitch bitch bitch, whine whine whine." You haven't seen the DLC for AC2, so you don't know if it won't include some new and improved enemies, you don't know if it won't include more areas of the world for gamers to explore. Here's my question to you: If Borderlands got their DLC right, which was announcing DLC even before the game was released, why didn't they just stick it in there for more content, instead of waiting and charging later? Seriously, they are "making the game so incomplete" and leaving out crap that could of "made more sense to the game then." Game developers have a deadline, they HAVE to pick and choose which content will be released in the game at the time of launch. Playing through the game I did not feel that there was any bit of the story that was left out, so while you sit there whining about the developers who have to do things certain ways, get off your ass and become a game developer yourself. First though, make your own company so we don't have to buy your crap. :D

im buying it so shove off if you dont like it

@Huey I think your comments really sum up everything. What people don't seem to understand is that there are deadlines everywhere, that is how the world works. When Ubisoft decided to cut this content, they really had three options: 1. Release it later as DLC at a cheap price, 2. Release a GOTY version so all these people complaining about $5 would have to pay basically full price again, or 3. Never let us gamers get our hand on the content. I, for one, am happy they decided to go with the first option.

Side Note: Seeing how well the game did only having to compete with MW2 and L4D2, delaying the game would have been a STUPID move on Ubisoft's part.

they told the price the a few week ago, i believe it is 3.99 or 4.99

I think the thing is, even if they wanted to make it free, Microsoft wouldn't let them. It happened with the L4D DLC.

@ Andy You're absolutely right. MS would never let them get away with that. Now, Sony might've let Ubisoft do this, but I'm sure it would seem unfair to the 360 owners. So, in the end, MS screws everyone.

It's not the content was completely done and they pulled it out.
Development takes a lot of time and work, and all that work and time should be compensated for. So it's totally reasonable that it gets charged for. Not to mention we still live in a free market, so they should try to make some profit off of it while they are at it.

Why, Zan? Why should it be free?

Because I'm greedy and everything is about me.

But really, I understand they need to make a living, and that making content takes time and effort, but in my mind it still seems like they were working on it and took it out due to time constraints. It's great that they made the game complete without it, but I'd rather they took the extra months to get this content in there so I didn't have to pay $9 for something I could have had with the rest of the game for no extra cost.

From a business standpoint, what they did makes sense, and they got it out in time for the holidays. But being the cheap customer I am, I'd rather pay as little cash as possible. I'm a patient person; I can wait a few months. But now that they've made it DLC and attached a price, I won't buy it.

I know that a lot of players will, however, and I won't try and argue that they shouldn't.

Ludwig,

Why can't it be free? Some of us have to actually spend our money on games and content, and we don't get review copies, or free download codes. The way you act, always supporting the game publishers, and not the consumer makes me wonder where your priority is. Your plan seems to be to get in the game development industry through the game "journalism" industry. That is a serious breach of ethics, as you would rather support the business, rather than the consumer.

In other words, stop being a shill.

I agree with Zan. Since it should have been part of the game, it should be free now.

Put it like this, if my boss gives me a project to be finished by Monday, and I fail to get it all done by end of work Friday, I can't go to him and say, "Well, hey, I didn't get finished. If you want the project completed, you're going to have to pay me overtime so I can do it this weekend."

Well, I guess I COULD do that. But, I'm pretty sure I'd be looking for a new job soon after.

"The way you act, always supporting the game publishers, and not the consumer makes me wonder where your priority is."

That's kinda been the story this generation, and I don't understand it either. People will defend a company that clearly sold them something rushed, incomplete, faulty...whatever.

Like I said, I didn't mind the idea of the missing chapters being paid DLC when I thought that was the original plan. But, now that I know they were dropped just to meet a deadline, I won't support it. It's the principal of the thing.

Sometimes "time constraints" are also budget constraints, because if you pay people salary, you can only keep working on it as long as you have funding. Since time and money aren't unlimited at some point they have to make choice to not do everything to the degree they'd like. That's why you get buggy games sometimes - they cut out QA time in favor of creating more content. And that's also why highly polished games aren't always as long as less polished games. I bet there's not a game out there where the developer can say, "The game I released is everything I wanted it to be when we started."
Like some other posters have said, if this game was made 10 years ago, we would have just not ever gotten to play this content. Or maybe the game would be rereleased in some kind of "director's cut" where you got to shell out the whole $60 again. Or maybe there would just be some kind of "expansion disc", except that would steeply raise the cost because discs had to be printed and unsold discs had to be accounted for (as well as Gamestop resales).
This is the great beauty of DLC. We get something that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise for a price much lower than it would have been without DLC But you are all looking at this sweetness and getting mad about it?

The problem is schedule. It's nice if they took extra time to finish EVERYTHING they wanted to then release the game.

But if they did that, you'd probably only see games come out every 3-4 years. And the company would not make any money and go bankrupt.

Companies need to create products according to a time table or there is no product to sell.

Or one blu ray, :smug:

The real problem is that people think earning a profit is a bad thing.

They should at least give us the DLC for free.

"Do you give away chicken for free?"

Hmmmm...well, if you went into KFC and paid for a 10 piece family meal, then they said "Hey, only 9 of the pieces are done, so we're just gonna give you those 9. But you can buy the 10th piece for an extra dollar," would that be okay with you?

If that's the way you want to see it. From the statements, it seems that my analogy is closer to what really happened.