News Article

Assassin's Creed IV DLC Looks Set to Sail Past Wii U

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

Nintendo platform excluded from announcement

Ubisoft has today announced a round of DLC and an accompanying season pass for Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag, but the reveal excludes the Wii U.

Platforms confirmed in the press release for EMEA territories were PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One and PC — the North American equivalent didn't list platforms — which obviously suggest that Nintendo's system will miss out. If this is indeed the case, it would perhaps help explain the rather vague response we received when querying DLC on Wii U in our interview with Wii U Project Manager Robin Lavallée, in which he declined to give a comment.

Only some of the DLC has been outlined to date, but in North America the season pack will cost $19.99 and offer an overall discount of 20%. Below are the details on the included three hour+ single player adventure and additional content on the way.

  • Freedom Cry: Born a slave, Adewale found freedom as a pirate aboard the Jackdaw as Captain Edward Kenway’s second-in-command. Fifteen years later, Adewale has become a trained assassin and finds himself shipwrecked in Saint-Domingue with no weapon nor crew, starting a new adventure of his own.
  • The Exclusive Kraken Ship Pack – Only available to Season Pass owners, this pack includes personalization elements for the Jackdaw
  • New ways to personalize the player’s pirate experience – Additional single player missions, weapons, skins, and collectibles
  • More Multiplayer Mayhem – Unlock new characters for an even more expansive multiplayer experience

We've followed up with Ubisoft to confirm if the Wii U is, as indicated, missing out on DLC for this title. Are you disappointed at the thought of no DLC on the Nintendo console, and does it affect your purchasing decision?

Subscribe to Nintendo Life on YouTube

From the web

Game Screenshots

User Comments (119)



9th_Sage said:

"Our games aren't selling on the WiiU?"
"I know what will help that...make the WiiU version to be inferior by not including things like online play, or DLC!"



TromboneGamer said:

If they are determined to show their support for Wii U they had better treat this and watch dogs just like any other system at the least. They've made a decent attempt to show that Wii U is a step-up from current gen as well, and hopefully they will continue to do that through the rest of 2013 and beyond.



WingedSnagret said:

I'm so fed up with this. Devs complain that their titles aren't selling well on Wii U, but at the same time exclude features for the system like online and DLC that all other platforms get. Talk about making your own problem you jerks!



Marshi said:

I hope ubisoft is reading this(highly doubtful). If this game and watchdogs are not treated the same as all other versions I will not buy the game or any future game by you,PERIOD.



ACK said:

Sounds uninspiring. Don't do DLC, so it's neither here nor there... But it's unfortunate to not have the option in case Ubi does the improbable: release DLC worth buying.



ThomasBW84 said:

@mercurio2054 I think only cold, hard cash really matters with the big boys, I'm afraid. The trouble is that Ubisoft's been burned by Wii U already (as have other 3rd parties. It's lose-lose, as Wii U gets occasionally weaker versions, so gamers don't buy them. Vicious cycle.



rjejr said:

I never buy stuff like until it comes out on the later editions - see Batman Arkham City - but add this news in w/ the Gods Among US news and things dont look very good. At least the new Batman game is $10 cheaper, this one is the same so I'm assuming the same main game, just w/o the DLC. Still annoying though.

Any investigative reporting as to why this trend? Does Nintendo charge more or is less supportive or have lousy infrastructure? When it's 1 game I blame the game makers, when it's 3 all in a row - Injustice, Batman Origins, and now this, well maybe people should be angry at Nintnedo.



Gold_Ranger said:

I played Assassin's Creed 3 on the WiiU...
Hated it...
Will NOT be buying this on ANY System.

Watch_Dogs I am getting on the WiiU... Unless they pull this again...

And Nintendo and Publisers wonder why the WiiU isn't selling any games...
It's because they keep putting out Crippled Games!!!



Exile20 said:

@rjejr I know what you are saying but there are games that have DLC for the Wii U. I am not sure if season passes are different tho.



withoutdk said:

nintendo should make a wii u mk2... with loads of more power than the damn ps4...



Sentinator said:

@rjejr The companies behind the games are to blame. Or should we blame Sony that Fifa on Vita is just a repackaged version of last years edition?

No. The companies bring it on themselves. They blame Nintendo, the fanbase, the console etc. But the truth is they are responsible for their product.

Actually I believe Vita is missing a large amount of content on Rayman Legends. As a result it became the poorest selling. So who is to blame for that? I guess we should blame Sony.



darkgamer001 said:

And again, we have people thinking power would result in better 3rd party support. When will you realize, if ever, that these 3rd parties would, in that scenario, just pull the other excuse - 'the audience isn't there'



raziel1301 said:

In the German version of the official announcement Ubisoft states that only the season pass won't be available on Wii U. The various DLCs should be released on the Wii U too.

Though it's very likely to be just a mistake in the German announcement :-/



ultraraichu said:

Regardless I'll still buy for WiiU, next year when the price drop.

I never downloaded any of the contents for ACIII, so this have no affect on my discision for ACIV. Only price but that's another story.



Marshi said:

So lets say nintendo and third party devs run a burger house. Thier burgers are cooked in a unique way that in many ways is much tastier than the two rivals accross the street. However the two rivals sell way more burgers. They also have burgers cooked by 3rd parties but dont utilise that amazing unique cooking method they use at the nintendo burger house.The nintendo burger house pleads with the third parties to come up with something to ensure better taste/better sales. So what do they do? They largley ditch that unique cooking method and just make them exactly like the rival burgers. But whats worse,they dont employ any of the meal deals or added fries bonuses that the two rival burger houses get from this 3rd party.Thus the customers who frequent the nintendo burger house for that delisious uniqueness are left wondering why they get burgers there rather than the much more attractive additions the two rival houses get...See why on earth would you continue to buy a burger with less on it(even if potentialy that burger house could sell millions if only its uniqueness was utilised and it had the same bonuses) but at the same price. See how insane that sounds ubisoft?

Ok now im hungry!



Conocotarious said:

If you're basing your buying decisions on whether or not you'll get to spend more money later you're a fool. I'm still buying the game as the Wii U is the only system I plan on buying this generation and whether it not the DLC actually comes to the system is up to Wii U owners who speak with their wallets.

There's nothing stopping Ubisoft from bringing the DLC to the system but whether or not they see it as beneficial to them.



Dogpigfish said:

All jokes aside, their dlc was never any good. Does it really matter? I'm buying it on Wii U just to play the actual game. DLC has been garbage in recent years.



Boxmonkey said:

This game has just moved down my wish list, I was going to buy before christmas now I'll wait until I see it on sale somewhere in 6 months.



Megatonwhale said:

Still the platform for me. Plus if I'm honest, I never really look into DLC too much. I'm usually fine with the core experience.



darkswabber said:

Well no. Dlc is very unlikely cause the pre-order edition includes dlc and the collectors edition, the black chest and the buccaneers edition are already anounced for the wiiU. Even my local game store says they are coming and they usually only say such things when it's official. (Sorry for the bad english, i'm from Holland)

Edit: i think it's like batman arkham origins. They anounced the wiiU dlc later.



ShadowFox254 said:

So we have to buy an inferior version of the game, to prove that we want more DLC? And when we still buy it, they will give a poor excuse of "It didn't sell well" and funny that Xbox One & PS4 are confirm for the DLC.



ljb88 said:

I want companies to stop announcing DLC before the game has even been released



Nintenjoe64 said:

If people want to guarantee DLC in AC4 Wii U they all need to get together and buy DLC for AC3 Wii U. I couldn't care less. DLC is a nice idea to extend the lifespan of a great game but AC4 will no doubt have over a hundred hours of stuff to do so I just don't see the point. I'd rather Ubisoft would spend the money that day-one DLC costs on making some more interesting (non-AAA) games.



mercurio2054 said:

@ThomasBW84 you guys interview this people why don't you tell them: "hey Robin Lavallée, if you don't include some content people won't buy the game" it's just logic.



ShadowFox254 said:

"you guys" Please, not everyone here is being a defensive" Nintendo fanboy". And pretty sure, I rather have this in PC, then your console versions. Is just isn't fair that people have to buy the inferior version of the game. Well, others get the better version of the game. Then 3rd parties complain why there games don't sell well.



Ryno said:

I don't buy DLC and after playing 2 Assassins' Creed game I have had enough.



Knux said:

The Wii U is not giving that cold, hard cash to third parties; so how is this surprising? The definitive version of games on multiple platforms is NOT on the Wii U. PS3 or PS4 version for me.



Park_Triolo said:

Who cares... who needs DLC anyway? I thoroughly enjoyed ACIII and I will 100% get ACIV AND Watchdogs. UBI are doing a great job, I think, so let's support them.



IxnayontheCK said:

ANGRY RANT :i'm so F-ing sick of DLC announced before a game has even released AND sick of them neglecting Nintendo. It F-ing P-sses me off! Right fedup with most of the companies! Ea, activision, ubi, your mother, whoever! Im not a fanboy but im so annoyed and i really hope the ps4 and xbone end up being completely mediocre!



P-Gamer-C said:

yea who cares if u get good games or not right thats y nintendo has fallen from the top



Einherjar said:

Guys, the preoblem isnt, that the AC DLC isnt coming to the WiiU, the Problm is, that the game gets released at the end of the month, but the DLC is already set. You basicly complain about not getting ripped off O.o
The WiiU uses 25gig, single layer BluRay like discs. The only console that could end up with a "full disc" is the 360 one with its around 8gig DVDs. And even they wont be completely filled with the game. This isnt aditioal content, this is stinkin obvious content, that was cut intentional during development to artificially buff up the price. So its goinfg to be 70$ for the game plus around 20-30$ for stuff that they expect you to pay extra for.
Look at Nintendos trys to get onto the DLC market. You complain about that too, that aditional challenges for Pikmin will cost money. Bt this is content, that gets created after the game was finished. This is entirely new stuff made with consumer inputs of likes and dislikes in mind.
And you tell me that not seeing rip off content is bad, but also the adition of new content to an existing game ?



sr388survivor said:

Just a thought, but maybe we should wait to get mad and take the game off our wish lists until we know for sure that the game is not getting full support...



cookiex said:

All I've read is that Wii U won't have season pass, which AC III didn't have either yet we got all non-Sony exclusive DLC in the end. I suggest we wait for Ubisoft to clarify this.

Ubisoft hasn't left out Wii U before so I don't know why they'd start now.



P-Gamer-C said:

the problem is nintendo gets passed of like a dried up person by third party and u people are ok with it
Watch the insults please — TBD



NMH-TRI said:

@Einherjar Agreed. Most people don't think about this rationally. Many people have been brainwashed into believing that DLC is an excellent addition. In SOME cases it is, but it shows just how gullible people are when they get excited about pre-planned, pre-made, or on disc DLC.

"Ooh!! DLC!! That's extra content!! I'm excited!!" No, you really shouldn't be. 3hr quest, a few extra missions, and the ability to customize your ship? All for the low price of an extra $20? No thanks...

People keep buying this crap in droves and it'll show the bigger devs that it's too easy to take consumers for a ride. Expansions are normally worth it. Some DLC is okay. Seriously though, this is getting ridiculous.

Either way it doesn't really matter to me. ACIII was borefest. This isn't even on my list of "maybe's" right now.



Sentinator said:

@P-Gamer-C If I was as desperate as you were for third party games I would go out of my way for them. Want to know why I don't? I like Nintendo games more.



Einherjar said:

@NMH-TRI The even bigger problem is this "want want want" attitude as of late. People just "want" stuff, it doesnt matter what it is, how (un)beneficial it is, as long as they get something, it cant be wrong can it, even if its the short end of a stick.

I also was like this at first, especially when the Injustice DLC discussion came up. I was outraged by the descision the devs made and now ? I havent even bought any of these DLCs. Why ? I stopped playing this game because i lost interest and got distracted by other games, and the DLC offered wasnt nearly enough to get me interested again. And thats when i realised "Why did you want it in the first place ? To just "have" it ?"

So, why do people want DLC for a game, that isnt even out yet ? They havent played it and they already want more of it ? If the argument is "because all the other games were good" then you expect it to be the exact same game with other backdrops which is a problem of its own if you ask me.



billychaos said:

I'd like to get an objective reason for why Ubisoft is doing this. As many have pointed out an obvious reaction, some people may not buy this game on the Wii U for this reason. It's clear that Ubisoft shoots themselves in the foot then cry that 'Our games aren't selling on the Wii U'.

Again, I'd like to know an objective reason why you put the game there but leave out the DLC? Are they implying that Nintendo gamers will buy the game but they don't like DLC? If that's the case whey don't they ping Nintendo to get and idea on how many people are buying Fire Emblem 'DLC', or Super Luigi U, Pikman III DLC. Clearly Nintendo is putting DLC out there themselves. So what would prompt a developer to withhold DLC? Do they have data suggesting that DLC doesn't sell? If so what extra costs are incurred that would make this non profitable to be available on the eShop as opposed to PC, Xbox, PS3/4? The eshop can't be that expensive to host DLC on.



Emblem said:

If this proves true I'll be cancelling my Skull Edition and passing on this game, at least until the GOTY edition is on steam for 75% off. I may not have even bought the DLC but i like the option to buy or not just like i want the option of playing an ungimped game on my Wii U.

Would also like to know why some third party companies are not bring DLC Nintendo's way while others manage just fine.



Turbo857 said:

First they nerf Splinter Cell by removing local co-op. Now DLC for a AAA title won't be available.

It's frustrating because the Wii U is more powerful than the PS3 and Xbox 360, but its install base is still in its infancy. If you release inferior ports on new systems, how do you expect them to even sell? Mind as well not even release the game on the system if that's the idea!



MikeLove said:

Splinter Cell Blacklist was the final nail in the UbiSoft coffin for me, and I will NEVER buy anything they create again.

How such a buggy, glitch-filled game got past their 'quality control' department is appalling.



Quickman said:

I'm done buying Ubisoft games so I don't care what they do with this or Watchdogs.

Blacklist was the last straw for me..



darkgamer001 said:

Can we get that flamer off this site? I mean, I don't want to tell the admins what to do, nor do I have any right to do so.
But I genuinely think the community here is much, much better than, say, mynintendonews and I really hope it stays that way.



Araknie said:

I'm not buying AC ever again ever, the ending got another dumb cliffhanger like Revelations...close the damn Desmond story, it's starting to become stupid.

Thankfully, with Watch_Dogs, i only care for single-player so i'm safe, unless they decide to not release it...i will get it.

They make poor choices for the Wii U and then lament for sales.
Do they loving think that Nintendo fans are stupid and they deserve to be treated like this?

I'm talking all devs, you do a poor port or you don't do exclusives, of course you won't sell you dumb love. Is that hard to understand?

They think we are stupid and so i will think too they are stupid from now on.
Watch the profanity. — TBD



Jellitoe said:

I can't say I will never buy from UBI since I got 4 kids who all love Rayman, but this seems to be a norm right now with Wii U and DLC with all 3rd parties.
At least you get the main game (if you only have a Wii U) otherwise get it on a different console.

I know its not the popular thing to say, but if you get no, on inadequate 3rd Party Support on the Wii U, it is Nintendo fault for not getting any system sellers out within the launch of the console.



ikki5 said:

I don't know what annoys me more, the fact that they announced DLC like 3 weeks before the game is released or that they may be skipping the Wii U for DLC..... but I think it is the first considering how they are going to make you pay full price for half a game. It is getting ridiculous now a days. It makes me wonder if they just delay games now to make the DLC. Now I am not entirely sure I want to support ubisoft on any platform. I don't like paying full price for half a game to then be charged an additional $10,$20, or $30 to get the content that should be in the original game. This DLC business about having DLC made or being talked about weeks before a release is starting to piss me off. Games that have this kind of DLC, I just don't want the buy.



tebunker said:

This is very poor reporting. No Seasons Pass does not equal No DLC. You shouldn't report supposittion as fact.

I don't even care about the dlc for this game.

On top of that there is DLC coming as preorder bonus, and other Ubisoft titles have had DLC support. To be honest you should have just said no seasons pass, and we are waiting on word from Ubisoft to make sure the DLC is coming instead of assuming, which you know how that usually ends.



Marshi said:

Hang on guys. Dont think we need to worry! I just recieved an email from ubisoft advertising the dlc for ac 4 and it clearly shows it available for the wii u! I think maybe we just wont get the season pass? Im really relieved!



tebunker said:

@ikki5 the argument that you are getting half a game is really a paper tiger and a falsehood. Seriously, you are getting a fully featured and functional title 99 percent of the time, there are always exceptions.

Instead of now getting expansions they are building the games with interesting little side things that add to the game if you want them.

There will be no impact on the main game if you don't get the dlc, and this is the case for 99percent of dlc. It is just the changing dynamic of gaming. I find it laughable that you think this dlc or any dlc represents half of a game.



ghall said:

Perhaps I'm being a bit optimistic but this seems like it just means that we won't be getting the season pass. Kinda sucks, but I don't think Wii U has ever got a season pass for any other DLC.



ikki5 said:

no, they are ripping you off. Any company that does this rips you off. Here they go and put time and effort into the game to make the game and then they announce it's release. Then we find out that they actually did more than what they said they did and decided to leave it out of the game so that they can sell it as days one DLC so instead of pay $60 for your game for full content, you need to pay $80 or more to get it all.

As for expansions, usually the game would be released and then the expansion would be released months if not a year later because they would take time to develop the game AFTER the base game was done. Not this crap were they make it and leave that section out. If they are going to pull that crap, then release the base game earlier and then continue to work on it to expand the game.



Jellitoe said:

When ever DLC is announced prior to a games release, it has to be sour tasting. I mean they are practically stating they charged you full price for an incomplete game. But this is the world of gaming today, and this is why I buy Nintendo primarily. Complete games. (except Fire Emblem)



darkswabber said:

@ghall wiiU is going to get the batman arkham origins and watch dogs season pass. And i think it also had the injustice season pass.

Also what i said before. WiiU gets the dlc. They were announced a long time ago. It will even get the collectors, buccaneers and black chest edition.
So everybody cries becease we maybe need to pay 10 $ more for the dlc even tough it's not sure.
And what does it matter. Be happy that ubisoft gives the wiiU owners the change to choosr between 6 different special edition from 2 of there games.



Dyltheman said:

NLife, sometimes i fear you dont even like nintendo. link the article cause all your showing is a trailer which doesn't list systems.



Neram said:

It's almost like third-parties are trying to make their games worse on Nintendo platforms so that they don't sell as good, giving them an excuse not to continue making games for their platforms.

This feels like the GameCube days all over again, the Nintendo versions of games having missing features or just being downright worse.



tebunker said:

@ikki5 you may have a point if there was day one dlc, and some times this crap is on the disc, but this isn't a rip off. You don't seem to understand what that term means.

The dlc is being developed now post development of the main title, the original game has been done and in qa and mastering process now.

Look I am not saying I am a fan of the pratice but you are over reacting.

Would you say Skyrim or Fallout 3 are bad values because of all the dlc that came out later? Do not think that a lot of the dlc was developed concurrently with the main game and even after regular development had ended? I mean you have to realize that all of this stuff in ancillory, extra, on top of the main game. It isn't needed to enjoy the full experience, so no, you aren't getting scammed, gipped or ripped off, you can play this complete game, never play the dlc and get a full experience and story.



ghall said:

@darkswabber Good to know. I honestly am not a fan of season passes because I usually only get single player DLC so it actually saves me money to not buy them.



Senario said:

@tebunker Ironically skyrim can be considered a bad value because of the amount of bugs that game had lol. Just saying.



Wowfunhappy said:

Could somebody please name a piece of Assassin's Creed DLC that was actually good?

It's almost always terrible. Nobody is going to be missing out on anything, don't worry.



Hamguar said:

I'll be honest, I've not really given a flying hornswaggler about DLC since it is ubiquitous trash. Which in of itself is truly a shame as DLC conceptually is a good idea.

SO essentially what this article is telling me is that they are not going to bother taking a dump on us with overpriced dross that easily could be in the game originally seeing as they already have all the DLC pre-made.

I'm more concerned of those that keep funding this poor habit and encouraging this insult to gaming, and frankly common sense, know as DLC.



ACK said:

Maybe they're doing us a favor by offering "gimped" versions that will likely drop in price faster without the option of wasting further funds on DLC which has no tangible value. The only people who should be concerned with DLC are the small percentage who will play the game to death... Who can know if that applies to them before the release anyway?

For most, it's probably more practical to use those funds towards my other games/accessories regardless of the availability of DLC. Ultimately, it's an alarming trend we should all be avoiding...

Look at it this way, every time we buy DLC we are encouraging the suits to push the ratio even further. They've already raised the price of games higher than most of us are comfortable with... The only option now is to offer less.



Pod said:

Well honestly, I consider DLC announced before the base game is even out an atrocity and quite frankly offensive to paying costomers.



taffy said:

Was going to get the black skull addition, I can wait till this comes on discount then. Well done Ubisoft, you just lost a day 1 full retail price purchase. Not that they really care anyway.



SPEtheridge said:

Well dosen't effect me as will be buying it on PS4 but still if the Wii U version doesn't have it that is just plain wrong there's no reason it shouldn't



ikki5 said:

no matter how you do it or put it, it is a rip off. Making content for a game and then choosing to leave it out so that you can grab more money from people day one IS A RIP OFF. DLC coming later after they released the game and then put more work and effort into the game a few months later or a year I would not call a rip off simply because they actually put more than the developing time than what the original title was. But in this case, where the create content during the development of the main base for the game, then they choose to keep that out of the base game just to release it pretty much day one to make an extra $20, that is cheating out people instead of taking the extra time to create content for a game.



Quickman said:

@ikki5 It's amusing that people were outraged by the rumour going around that EA may be charging $80 for "next gen" games when a lot of 3rd parties are already doing it...



Marshi said:

@ikki5 It would only be a rip off if ubisoft were forcing you to buy the dlc! Look i get what you been saying,and if you think dlc is a rip off,good for you dont buy it. But if a game is released with 25-30 hours of content on it,id hardly call it a rip off fir them to want to charge extra should i purchase an additional few hours of story/mission/modes. Being developed at the same time as the main game is simple logic to me as if i adhore the game and finish it then i wont have to wait for more



Marshi said:

You guys are probably too young to rember paying £40/ $60 for games like street fighter two or sonic the hedghog. There was no 100 hour story in those games yet felt like a worthy investment. With all of the extra's like dlc available to people nowadays and yet still they complain at getting "half a game" is truly laughable. Ac 4 will offer 25-30 hours of gameplay, is that not enough?! I think dlc like this,that offers an extra story on top of the multiple hour story you buy initially is great. If you dont want to pay for it,dont buy it.Simple!
Gamers are so spoilt



hcfwesker said:

Anytime Ubisoft is mentioned on this site with whatever controversy/theatrics they're pulling, I just pull out my copy of BlackList on WiiU and quote the jews ... "Never Again"



ECMIM said:

@rjejr I keep saying this (no one believes--or wants to believe--it, of course) but Nintendo does not make it easy to do things like online play and DLC. They are simply well behind the curve when it comes to the tools that they provide to developers.

Online play is a good example where, even now, it's a 'roll your own' mentality which, while it sounds good because it means more 'freedom', it also means more work, more time, and more money that devs simply are not going to spend on a platform that's struggling.

Source? I've been in the game biz for 16-years, and I work with companies--and have friends at many others--that have had to deal w/ these shortcomings.

(It'd make your head spin to know some of the other issues Nintendo's lot check reqs involve, too.)



rjejr said:

@Sentinator - Fifa being a repackaged version is very different than Rayman on Vita missing parts so no, not Sony's fault.

Several different companies all deciding to abandon online components - multiplayer or DLC - makes me think there could be something wrong w/ Nintendo's online infrastructure. Not saying there is, but at some point if everybody you have ever dated breaks up w/ you, at some point you have to realize, it's not them, it's you. (Not you personally, I just couldn't think of a good car analogy.)



rjejr said:

@cookiex - Well that's good to hear. I was talking about the lack of online mutliplayer. Which personally I don't care about but I'm sick of reading about all the stuff the Wii U isn't getting.



rjejr said:

@ECMIM - "(no one believes--or wants to believe--it, of course)"

I've had several replies, all mocking me, so thanks.



TruenoGT said:

Assassin's Creed and Season Pass have one thing in common with my view on both: "donkey". Ubisoft can keep it's milked franchises and the whole piecemeal DLC concept for all I care.



ikki5 said:


ok, the reason that it is a rip of is simple. They developed a game, they deliberately took content they made out of the game to sell it separately from the game. they took no extra time to create this as the base game still has not been released so really, the development for the game is still going on technically. This is something that has only started recently (primarily within the last 5 years). Other times, they would release your game, then you get an expansion to it several months to a year later with a continuation of the story or what ever. Now, they are making the game, deliberately leaving content out so that they can sell it to you day one so your $60 game, will cost you $80 if you wanted to get all the content that they originally created during the time of development for the game.

In another post below the reply to me, you mention $60 games like fighting games but I also at the same time remember games where you would spend $60 (or less)and get 60-80+ hours out of it and didn't have extra DLC content. Games such as Final Fantasy (pretty much 3(NES) and on) Paper Mario (both N64 and gamecube), Super Mario RPG, The Zelda series, Mario64, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, Pokemon (probably have 100+ hours on all those game), Prince of Persia (sands of time series), The Tales Series, The Mana Series, Star Ocean,The X series, Dark Cloud, Lego games, Harvest Moon series, and so on. You used to be able to buy games at $60 or less, and have tons of content and tons of gameplay out of them, Heck even other games such as Garry's Mod which is far cheaper than 75% of games released now a days has tons to do, I myself have logged over 850 hours on that game. Sadly however, nowadays this isn't the case anymore because developers know people will buy DLC content when they take chunks of already developed content out of the base game and put it as DLC. That is the problem here.



HotRodimus said:

For as upset as I am at Ubi for this it's really time people started pointing the finger of blame where it belongs at Nintendo. Nintendo is telling anyone who will listen that their relationship with 3rd parties is great but they continue to allow this to happen. Do you think MS/Sony would allow this to happen time and time again, of course they wouldn't. Do you think the the old " Nintendo seal of quality" Nintendo would continue to allow 3rd parties to do this time and time again. Nintendo is not willing to get down and fight for their fair share. So because they refuse to do this expect 3rd parties to continue to give us the shaft



ACK said:

@HotRodimus Is it possible Nintendo is doing the industry justice by offering thorough games with complete content at retail price?

Third parties can't compete with that sort of value. Not on the same platform with these sort of shenanigans. What should Nintendo do? Westernize their business ethics and offer expensive, buggy products with incomplete content to facilitate planned DLC? Just to fit in?

Should we support an industry that relies on glorified beta-testers to fund their unsustainable development cycle fostered by irrelevant marketing departments and incoherent execs?



capitalism said:

It'll probably come as both AC3 and Splinter Cell BL on WIi U got DLC. Instead of complaining support Ubisoft since they're one of the only third parties who still have faith in the Wii U.



Deathgaze said:

Oh well. I don't buy Nintendo systems for 3rd party. That's what my PlayStation is for.

@Jellitoe FE:A was complete at launch... in Japan. But for whatever reason they didn't treat North American and PAL gamers very well.



gojiguy said:

I'm not really salty about it. I have the game pre-ordered but I will cancel if reviews aren't good or if the Wii U version is a hack-job.

If it turns out the Wii U version is good, I'll still get the game, play it, enjoy it, and get my pre-order exclusive DLC. Frankly, the game sounds huge (40+ hours) so I probably wouldn't buy the DLC anyways.

Doesn't seem like a problem to me. :/

Also, those of you complaining about them announcing DLC need to have a reality check.

Right now, ACIV is done. The game is complete, and is simply going through licensing approvals, disc pressings, etc. The content is UNTOUCHABLE and likely has been since september.

So instead of sitting around twiddling their thumbs, Ubisoft had the ACIV team start work on extra content that they literally CAN NOT put on the disc because the final retail candidate would've been locked back in July or August.

DLC announced this late in the game is not an "insult to paying customers" it's just Ubi doing their job and keeping their staff busy producing content that offers extra value to a game that is already complete.



Marshi said:

@ikki5 Again you misunderstand the meaning of the word "rip-off". YOU think that dlc is a rip-off,thats fair enough,you are absolutely entitled to think that,but that dosnt mean you are right mate. Look if ac4 was released,without the use of guns.And the only way to defeat the end boss was by shooting him. And the ONLY way of obtaining said guns is to purchase them via dlc? THAT would be a rip-off,whether it cost $10 or a penny,it would be a rip-off. But that is not the case here. You are getting a full game with tons of content,that may for some people take upwards of 60-70 hours to complete. The reason devs develop new content at the same time as the main game is shear convenience for the consumer. Now you think that content should be in the main game. Again thats your opinion. But think about it. If that extra story was patched into the main game,not only would reviewers mark the game down for having this disjointed bit of game that feels out of whack with the main game but also for hardcore fans of the ac series once theyve finished the game and want more it would mean a much longer wait for any dlc or even the next game in the franchise. And that my friend is a crappy business model. Look think of dlc like extras at a burger house. You go there for a burger,you get a full burger,nothing missing.but ofcourse you have the option of extra fries,a drink, sauces etc. Is it a rip-off they charge you extra for these extras? Ofcourse not,they are after all EXTRAS



datamonkey said:

I was considering supporting Wii U with this and Watch Dogs but I'll likely now get them both on PS4.

I want to support Wii U but I'm not losing out as a consumer in order to do so...



bitemykite said:

sounds bad but I'd rather have it on Wii U, plus I can't remember the last time I got DLC for anything



wombatkidd said:

"I know its not the popular thing to say, but if you get no, on inadequate 3rd Party Support on the Wii U, it is Nintendo fault for not getting any system sellers out within the launch of the console."

You might have an argument if Sony AND Microsoft hadn't been able to build their consoles' user bases nearly entirely on the backs of third party games for the last 3 generations and Nintendo wasn't the only company expected to build a user base without any help before third parties will touch the system.

You might also have a point if Nintendo hadn't released the best selling console of all time, with the highest attach rate of its generation, and STILL not gotten much third party support for it.

You may also have a point if Nintendo didn't have the best selling dedicated gaming device right now that was still getting lackluster 3rd party support compared to a handheld that is selling on par or worse than the Wii U.

But as those things are all things that have happened, I'm calling BS on your entire argument.



CaPPa said:

Announcing DLC before a game has even released is a double edged sword. On one hand it shows that will be supported after release, but on the other it makes it feel like it should have been in the game already and it's just an attempt to fleece more money out of us. Games with day one DLC are the worst.

I think that no DLC should be created until after a game has released (or at least gone gold) and then the DLC should be released 3 - 6 months after the game. That way it'd feel like it is offering more rather than just a ploy to make more money.

As for AC4, it's one of the few Ubisoft games that I have no interest in buying (along with Just Dance) as the series just bores me.



ikki5 said:


ok, first thing. I never once stated that DLC was a rip off, STOP SAYING I HAVE. What I stated is that DLC released day one meaning that they deliberately withheld content from the game was a rip off. DLC released later where they took time after the base game and then putting it out there is far better off than hearing that they want you to spend an extra $20 on day one for stuff they could have easily included with the game but decided to leave it out and make a few extra bucks. You claim that stuff released later would relected badly and reviewers would look down on it and see it as disjointed.... well sorry to say, this isn't true. There are plenty of great games that have released the game and then developed more over time. games such as the command and conquer series, Civilation, Half Life, Skyrim, etc. So telling me that people will see it as disjointed is just plain wrong. Also, you analogy of fast food is flawed. If you go to buy a burger, you buy a burger. you don't go an say you can buy fries and a drink as well because that essentially is two different products so it is like comparing apples to oranges. Really, the proper analogy of this would be, you buy a bacon cheeseburger but then they tell you they decided to leave cheese out and you need to pay extra for your cheese.



Marshi said:

@ikki5 okay im repeating myself again,but a game with alot of content in it,with dlc released day one IS GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE! Your cheeseburger analogy is flawed,like I said the game is full and complete,just like a burger would be,however cooked at the same time are extras like fries and drinks that can be purchased AS OPTIONAL EXTRAS,just like extra modes missions and stories for this game are. Ubisoft are not forcing you to buy it,nor is any of the dlc required to enjoy the game more. That isnt a rip off,end of



HotRodimus said:

I'm not saying Nintendo needs to westernize but cotinuing to allow 3rd parties to shaft them you can't tell me Nintendo doesn't bear some responsibility. As far as DLC goes if you think Nintendo always puts it all on the disk you are kidding yourself. Since the NES days developers have said that they had ideas that didn't make it into the final game due to memory or time restraints. DLC give you a way around those restrictions, yes some companies abuse it but their is a place for DLC. Look at it this way when a movie that you want is coming on DVD/BluRay do you buy the stand alone movie or spend the extra for all the gag reels, commentary plus extras. Do you refuse a going to a movie or get mad when the more expensive disk comes with deleted or extended scenes that were not in when you watched it in theaters? Of course not because like some developers there were time and budget issues.



WiiLovePeace said:

Dang, I wasn't going to buy this anyway. I just hope we still get DLC for watch_dogs but I guess if a huge release such as AC IV doesn't get DLC on Wii U then watch_dogs won't either



element187 said:

Looks like my wallet will set sail past AC4... Ubi, that only leaves 1 of our games I can buy this year... You are making it way too easy to save money. Watch Dogs, if anything gets cut, I'm out and will stick with first party this holiday season.



Jimonfire said:

I'm still buying it. That said, i really don't understand the strategies these devs are using. They all complain about their games will not sell well on the Wii u... Watered down versions of the game wont help that!!

Another example is call of duty ghost about "Clans - where players can now join a Clan with friends regardless of whether they play on Xbox, PlayStation or Windows PC, and level-up their Clan to earn exclusive unlocks and multiplayer XP bonuses." ... What about Wii U???

Also Batman Arkham Origins will not spport online gameplay only on Wii U...




Laxeybobby said:

Not surprised. This game has now moved from a 'must purchase' to 'if i get some spare cash purchase'
What I read from this statement is that dont expect anything different from Watchdogs either. If they wont support ACIV then the certainly wont support Watchdogs with any DLC.
I would guess their decision is that DLC hasn't sold well on AC 3 or Splintercell.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...