Sections

Assassin’s Creed 4 and Watch Dogs have PlayStation DLC exclusive for six months

Thursday, 24th October 2013 09:47 GMT By Dave Owen

Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed 4: Black Flag and Watch Dogs will each feature downloadable content that will be exclusive to PlayStation platforms for six months. That’s according to small print in the US version of yesterday’s PS4 promotional video that focused on the platform’s exclusives.

At the one minute fifteen second mark, small print notes that the Assassin’s Creed 4 and Watch Dogs DLC is exclusive to PlayStation for six months. We already knew the content would have an exclusivity period on PlayStation, but we previously didn’t know for how long.

The European version of the trailer doesn’t contain the same note.

The PlayStation exclusive Assassin’s Creed 4 content features an older Aveline de Grandpre, who was the protagonist of last year’s Vita title Assassin’s Creed: Liberation. It takes the form of an hour-long story divided into 3 missions. We don’t know yet what the Watch Dogs content will be.

It seems likely that this content will eventually appear on other platforms, but at present there is no official confirmation.

Latest

19 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Xbone

    I love when they cut of pieces of the game and sell it as timed platform exclusives.

    #1 9 months ago
  2. Dave Owen

    I absolutely agree. Though in the case of AC4, it is something that’s been written separately and deliberately as a DLC bonus. It’s Aveline, so has nothing to do with the AC4 main story.

    #2 9 months ago
  3. Fin

    @1

    Sup bro.

    http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17eig06xukt8apng/original.png

    #3 9 months ago
  4. Gamoc

    Not happy about this. As much as I’d like to give Microsoft the finger and consider this vengeance for all their timed exclusive bullshit from current gen I just can’t be ok with timed exclusive DLC. It’s not something that convinces me to get a console, it’s something that pisses me off if I chose the other one for whatever reason that may have been.

    #4 9 months ago
  5. FatalTee

    #3 Fin

    While this is what Bioware claimed and while I understand that from PR and production standpoint as somewhat valid approach as a gamer, consumer and harsh critic of products I regard this approach as BAD.

    When we are talking about linear SP games like Assassin Creed and Mass Effect, and they are in fact very linear even though ME has this pretention of choices, these DLCs made while the core game was in making are narratively very confusing. Now I am not saying anyone is entitled to not having these DLCs instead I am saying these games with first-day-DLCs are terrible products. It puts a strain on my ability to have fun while being aware of my monetary situation. It is not something that would make me feel bad about the game instantely, it is something that continually adds strain to my patience with these companies.

    Like EA — after ME2 and sheer volume of DLCs and the same story with Dragon Age 1, I was not very tempted to go that route again. Then BF3 came and I bought limited edition and then – bastards – after release date, they put out premium. I bought it when on sale for 10USDs (just to have the whole game, since I kind of like that) and that is last EA game I am bought. Sadly I am tempted by Titanfall, so let us hope there will be no such idiocy (there will be, I know).

    Like UBI.

    BF3 was also my last pre-order. All these business practices these big publishing houses employ makes me incrementally less interested in their products to a point where I would consider buying – let us say AC3 – just in GOTY complete bundle.

    So to sum it up — I do understand their model. I do not call for regulation by law. I am just saying that is damages the product and the name of the publisher/dev. I for one am completely repulsed from buying the product when I see any pre-order DLC or day 1 dlc.

    #5 9 months ago
  6. MFBB

    #4 and thats what they want, pisses you off if you pick the other version :)

    I always wait and get the game of the year/complete editions for 5-20€.

    If you buy games at release day/month, you pay a way higher price for less content + bugs/problems.

    #6 9 months ago
  7. Pytox

    Exclusive hacking boost on playstation :D

    #7 9 months ago
  8. Fin

    @5

    Would you prefer the current model, or would you prefer to pay more (+20% say, on top of nextgen pricing) and have no DLC.

    You can’t have no DLC and current game prices.

    #8 9 months ago
  9. CyberMarco

    @Fin, keep believing them bro!

    #9 9 months ago
  10. Fin

    @9

    Yeah bro, cos it’s not like prices should go up over time (PROTIP: inflation is about 3% at year, which means the cost of making a games goes up about 3% a year while in development), but game prices have been static for at least the last seven years (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/26/ps3-game-prices-at-launch-same-as-xbox-360-game-prices-at-lau/).

    So companies have to make up the deficit somehow. Either you put up with day-one DLC, higher game prices, or fewer, but larger, games companies.
    You can’t say you want the industry to stay the same, prices to stay the same or come down AND not have any DLC.
    That’s just ignoring economics.

    #10 9 months ago
  11. CyberMarco

    @Fin probably the price is the same in your area/city/region/country, but here it’s always increasing, first it was 50€, then 60€ and now goes over 70€ in several cases, so yeah I call bullshit for that.

    The problem is that games are produced with the same capitalist notion as other media and goods, if you think that’s beneficial for anyone except the pub/dev then as you wish!

    Also it’s not my fault that most companies act like “the more money I invest the more money I shall receive in return” (and most of the times lacking quality), if they change their motto maybe we’ll see a better day, not only in gaming but in the market in general.

    Yeah, capitalism and stuff like that I guess.

    #11 9 months ago
  12. Fin

    @11

    From 2007:
    http://uk.playstation.com/ps3/news/articles/detail/item50768/Price-of-SCEEs-PS3-launch-games-confirmed/

    “MotorStorm and Resistance: Fall of Man will be priced at an RRP of €59.99 (£39.99).”

    Random example of Batman Arkham Origins (out Friday) on:
    Amazon UK: £34.99
    Amazon DE: €59.99
    Amazon FR: €47.06
    Amazon ES: €51.28
    Amazon IT: €59.99

    The cost of producing games has gone up, game prices have stayed the same (or gone down) over the last 6.5 years. A game that was £40 in 2007 should now cost £47, according to inflation.
    That 17% shortfall has to be made up somewhere.

    #12 9 months ago
  13. CyberMarco

    @Fin, Then I’m must be blind or something cause games here in Italy don’t start at less than 60€.

    http://compraonline.mediaworld.it/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FFCategoryDisplay?storeId=20000&catalogId=20000&categoryId=60599132&parentCategoryId=60872158&pageNumber=7&searchString=*&searchType=sortPriceAsc&filterCategory=Sony+PS3&filterSubCategory=Giochi&filterSubCategory=Giochi&filterCategory=Sony+PS3

    http://compraonline.mediaworld.it/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FFCategoryDisplay?storeId=20000&catalogId=20000&categoryId=60599132&parentCategoryId=60872158&pageNumber=8&searchString=*&searchType=sortPriceAsc&filterCategory=Sony+PS3&filterSubCategory=Giochi&filterSubCategory=Giochi&filterCategory=Sony+PS3

    #13 9 months ago
  14. Fin

    @13

    Which is my point ain’t it. Games still cost €60, like when they started.

    http://www.amazon.it/gp/bestsellers/videogames/528649031/

    #14 9 months ago
  15. CyberMarco

    @14 As far as I remember I could get a game for ~40€ before the €, and in the PS2 era for 50€+ and now 60€+, so…

    #15 9 months ago
  16. Joe Musashi

    @15 You’ve been able to pay those prices since the 16-bit era.

    Also, MSRP is the barometer to use here. Finding different vendors that offer discounts off the base MSRP is going to give inconsistent results.

    For the most part, game prices have not inflated at the same rate as the costs of game development.

    JM

    #16 9 months ago
  17. Dragon

    @Fin,
    +1.

    Its rather simple. Decide with your wallets. Right now, enough people are happy with current system to keep it going. When they stop paying 60$, the system will fail itself.
    People see value in paying for new games at launch and then for DLC. Unless people who a problem are large enough in number, this will go on. Nothing right or wrong about that. Pubs ask for it, and people pay for it.

    I am not a huge supporter of DLC and more often I don’t buy them, but hey, if people are willing to pay, who am I to complain?

    #17 9 months ago
  18. TheBlackHole

    @15

    Yeah, you’re all kinds of wrong here mate.

    Games on my megadrive cost more than on the 360. I have a VHS with an advert for terminator coming out at £55 RRP.

    Games have got cheaper, accounting for inflation and in real terms. Not only that, but they’ve also got WAY more expensive to make. You can’t have it all.

    #18 9 months ago
  19. Marvin the Paranoid Android

    Interesting discussion about the price of games vs inflation.

    I think it’s a little more complex than price vs inflation:

    Even though the price of games hasn’t changed much, they sell many more copies than they did 10 years ago. The video games industry revenue (worldwide) has gone from $20 billion in 2000 to $65 billion in 2011.
    http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry

    Now, according to Wikipedia, “The average price of producing a video game slowly rose from US$1–4 million in 2000 to over $5 million in 2006, then to over $20 million by 2010.”

    Also, the number of video games released each year has increased, too. This article has a chart that suggests there were twice as many games released in 2010 than in 2000.

    So, if development costs have increased tenfold and the number of games has been multiplied by 2, that means they spend 20 times as much on development than they did 10 years ago, and revenue has increased only 3.25 times. So, yes, the average return on investment is now lower than it was in 2000.

    #19 9 months ago