Patrice Explains The Assassin's Creed II DLC

Our favourite member of Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed II team, creative director Patrice Desilets with his wondrous beard, explains what exactly is going on in the Battle of Forli and Bonfire of the Vanities DLC.

We already technically know what's coming in the double dose of DLC slated to arrive over the next two months, but everything seems so much better when Patrice explains it.


Comments

    "Assassin's Creed is not only a game, it's an experience" - What the hell does that mean exactly? This sort've vague clap-trap really annoys me, particularly when it's used to sell you parts of a product that should have been part of the original.

      And how do you know it was supposed to be part of the original? Are you trying to say no game should be released unless all DLC is included? It was announced from day one that they intended to release DLC after the release, due to the fact that they had deadlines to meet. Imagine the storm that would have happened had the game been delayed.

        I'd much rather wait an extra month or two for a completed product than have to shell out again for marginal content. It's not that I have a problem with DLC per se, just the way it seems to be used cynically by publishing companies. Value for money is the main issue.

        Also, for the record, I don't for a minute think that the developers are to blame the majority of the time. If it were up to them, we'd never get rough products rushed out the door.

          And you genuinely think you didn't get value for money with the first game? Sounds more like a tight arse whinging than anything else.

            Not sure where you're getting this from. I have the first game and love it. That said, I'd be very put-out had they taken two of the missions out of the middle of the game and then sold them a couple of months later for an extra $20 on top of the full retail price of the game. On the other hand, I'd be thrilled if they released some new DLC content for the original game, including trophy support for the PS3.

            What I have a problem with are the increasing number of releases that factor in expansions or DLC before they're even released, as a way of sucking more money out of the consumer. Spore was another recent example.

          If you take the idea that it should have been part of the original with every single DLC that comes out then you're basicly saying that no games should ever have DLC. Which is stupid.

          Games now are designed around having DLC comming out to stop people trading in game. Try playing the game, these bits don't really feel like anything was left out. The game is just packed full of shit to do it's not funny.

            If DLC is going to become a staple of the industry, I think that's fine, but they need to adjust the market-price of the retail side accordingly.

              Adjusting the market share for the price of DLC is only fine if the DLC budget is taken out of the budget for the game.

              Games are costing more and more to produce so to get them to cut the final price of games is unrealstic.

              For comparison, AC2 had a budget at least 20% larger then AC1. That's not including the money that went into the development of the DLC. So to expect them to then drop the price is kind of unfair.

    He just reminds me of a Hobbit.

    Oh and @ this little argument going on, Thomas, have you even completed AC2 yet?

    I thrashed that for over a week and still didn't finish it. I didn't play it everyday, but when i did, it was a few solid hours i would sit mesmerized by its beauty. It's definitely value for money.

    I'm glad DLC has become what is is for video games. Like Shambrook states, its to prevent people from trading the product in. The dev's are glad you purchased it, but the last thing they want (and publishers) is for the gamer to get sick of it so soon and throw it away to a clearance bucket.

    Some DLC is very questionable but in this situation, Ubisoft are playing their cards right and releasing what seems to be a fairly large slice of DLC for much a fraction of a regular DLC price.

    I guess if you are that annoyed at the whole "I like DLC but think that games shouldn't rob you're experience by taking some away then selling it to you" then wait for a Game of the Year edition to come out next year. Wouldn't bother me or anyone else here i say.

    You make a good point about the various sub-markets among gamers. I'm definitely not part of the play-and-trade market, and generally spend a great deal of time weighing up my options and holding out for price drops before I make the plunge. This means that I rarely end up with a game that I wouldn't keep and play forever, so I guess it's hard to appreciate the kind of incentive you rightfully point out.

    I may also be unfairly using ACII as an example here, which I am committed to buying and will most likely adore (I LOVED the first one). The much-criticised Prince of Persia Epilogue may be a more appropriate choice, but again, I haven't played it yet.

    As with anything, the DLC market will probably turn out to be a mixed blessing, with as many instances of abuse as laudable conduct.

    While we're on the topic, you guys may be interested in this exploration of videogame pricing as a whole:

    http://www.orble.com/exposition-the-price-of-interaction/

    I think people wouldn't be as pissed, or think that it was "supposed to be part of the main game" if they didn't decide to make the DLC themissing parts of the dna memory. Like, if they had simply made the game memory sequences numbered 1-12 and introduced 12 and 13 as 13 and 14.

    Back in the old days they used to make these things called "expansion packs." They were still kind of a cop-out but it was okay since it wasn't a new engine or sequel and it usually was cheaper and contained about 60% of the content the original represented, and you had to wait a good relative amount of time for that content.

    The good old days...

Join the discussion!