Evil George Washington? Yea, I'm in, Assassin's Creed III. I might not have been fully in before, but dammit, you win.

So the game isn't out yet but there is DLC for it?

It's very common nowadays for publishers to announce DLC for their games way in advance. They want your money up front, long before all the content is released.

I already had this preordered, and this makes me even more excited.

Welcome to circa 2008 on every other console other than the Wii. Please hand me your passport so I can stamp it.

This is standard practice for modern games, for better or worse.  At least you know this massive game will have even more content for you to plow through post-release.

But if it's already made, why the hell isn't it on the disc?

They never said it is ALREADY made (thought they are working on it, IGN had video of it yesterday), just that it will be the first DLC released.

I don't think any of the Assassin's Creed story DLC has been on the disc so far, as they've been roughly 500 MB - 1 GB downloads.

I once again ask the question, though: if you're happy with the experience you get in the AC3 main game, why do you give a **** whether additional content was already made or not? You were already happy with what you had?  If if you weren't already happy with what you had, why would you want to play more of it anyway?

Because they are withholding the full width of the product in order to gain more later. It's smart business in terms of profit, but it's also dishonest. I'd rather they charge $70 out right then to pull this stunt.

Worst of all, there are advocaters like you who don't seem to mind, scratch that, who DEFEND these dishonest practices. Why? Because this is the way it's always been? Because I should just enjoy the section or part that they gave me for the full price of game? How is that an answer?

Again, I understand if they come up with an idea after the project and decide to take it to completion, but if it's before the game is actually released then there is no excuse. It's dishonest.

And TJ, there is no way that they would say exactly what the DLC is about unless they are either actively making it or it's already completed. They aren't telling the press about some pitch that a developer had that sounded interesting.

How is it dishonest?  They announce before the game's release that they will have downloadable content for AC3.  When you download the content, it is not on the disc but is a sizeable download.  You are paying for the experience you bought on Day 1.  Anything after that is not part of the experience you paid for, so it's fair game to charge for it.

You can like or dislike DLC all you like, but this is hardly "dishonest" (especially compared to what other companies like Capcom do with "DLC").  And if you don't like it, don't pay for it.  The choice is always yours.  Something tells me that Ubisoft will make plenty of money from this game without your DLC money.  Ubisoft's not forcing you to buy it, and from my experience with previous Assassin's Creed games, there is PLENTY of game there already without the DLC.  So yeah, I consider bitching about having to pay for AC DLC to be pretty stupid, considering the 20-30 hours of worthwhile content you get on the disc.

So yeah, label me as an "advocate" "DEFENDER" of DLC if you like.  I just think it's the consumer's choice whether they pay for the content or not, so if you don't want it don't pay for it.

It's especially not dishonest since they're flat out telling us it's happening ahead of time, hence the article here.

adds AC3 to the "Wait for GOTY edition" list

This isn't Day 1 DLC. It's a coordinated release schedule spread out over the six months after the games is released.


Hell, this is better than being promised DLC at a later date and then wondering when its going to arrive. At least now you know what the plan is for at least six month after the game is released.

Just because there is "plenty of game" doesn't mean it's not a shady business practice. They are deliberately holding back content in order to make further profit. I don't know how you guys don't think that's dishonest. Just because they told you their being dishonest?

You mentioned Capcom's DLC debacle. How is that different from this? Because you have to download it?

And just because the size of the DLC might be 500 mb to a Gig isn't a valid reason to leave out content....it's actually a shitty reason to leave out content. I can point to five games right now that have DLC and total are way less than the capacity of the disc.

This is just like buying a movie but being told "Sorry, there won't be any extras. You only get the movie. I know I know. Shitty. Yeah even though we have them right here and there ready to go, all nicely edited....man you should see the commentary! It's amazing...might be better than the movie! hahaha But yeah, we're just gonna...not...have those for you right now. But hey, you can buy them later! How does three months from now sound?"

Why aren't they there in the first place?

By definition, if they're telling you what they're doing it's not dishonest. That doesn't mean it's not a shitty thing to do, but it's definitely not dishonest.

In that metaphor, the DVD/Bluray with all the extra stuff is the Game of the Year edition that you have to wait a few months for, while buying it now is going to see it in the theater.

So you admit it's shitty? Well, I guess we finally agree.

I don't personally like that it's become the norm in modern gaming, but I've accepted that it's here and it's not going away. I'd probably buy a full $60 sequel to the game if it were all about taking down an evil King George Washington, though, so there's pretty much no way I won't pay the money for the DLC.

Because, see, I don't think it's wrong or a crime for a company to make a profit off their work, which seems to be something you have a problem with.  They make a product that's more than worth the $60 you pay at launch, they tell you they have more content planned for the future, and they tell you that you may buy it if you wish.  You may not like that business practice, but there's nothing "dishonest" about it.

Yes, obviously.  Capcom's DLC tends to be on the disc you buy at launch, just locked behind 100 KB unlock codes, which is a much murkier issue than this.

I really hate the entitlement mentality of the people on the websites I visit sometimes.  You have to download them, so they're not on the disc you bought.  They're not YOURS by any stretch of the imagination.  You have no claim to it. And if companies want to make money on content they release after the main game that tends to have its own budget outside of the main game's development costs, fine.  Buy it or don't buy it.  The choice is yours.  As for me, I'll take low-price story expansions to games I enjoy over not having any of that content at all or having to wait 3+ years for that content to maybe be revived in more expensive sequels, which is how it was before the advent of DLC.

If you bought a version of the movie without extras, that tells me that you wanted the movie badly enough that the extras weren't a significant enough factor in your purchasing decision.  That's all on YOU.  It's not the company's problem that you were stupid or gullible enough to buy the first version of a product you saw just because it was there, even if it wasn't what you wanted.  Frankly, I think you deserved what you got, and you similarly deserve to get burned on a double-dip.

See, I believe that consumers have a responsibility to research and be knowledgeable about what they buy, as they have all the power when it comes to purchasing decisions.  If you think a business practice is bad, don't buy products from those who follow said practice.  Put your money where your mouth is.

I am going to respectfully bow out of this discussion. It's going nowhere and we're unlikely to change that.