Assassin's Creed III launches with $60+ worth of DLC

 @Thanatos2k  @THizzle7XU havent particularly payed attention , but the usual trend is , buy a game used you cant access multiplayer , though i  think its a slightly cheap thing , you get what you payed for Thanatos , you buy a game used then you dont get the whole thing , codes for multiplayer access are generally used by ppl who get the game new , same thing as ith as always been on PC games , though generally worse cause you cant trade those in =P   , so thanatos....yea , basically you want to buy something used then learn to deal with it or shut it. plain and simple ,  the fact is when you get a game used , its not like its parts have been through some wear and tar like a used car , its the same disc thats still the same thing , only thing that got used was the online pass t hat came with it new , so your getting it cheaper since its used , minues the online pass , you want to play online then you purchase the online pass.

 @Allerletzt  @Thanatos2k i disagree, i am pretty sure, that they could have put the missions in the game from the begining, like it was in ac brotherhood..why pay for "EXTRA" missions ?

 @Allerletzt  @Thanatos2k Expansion packs were often packaged goods, and very robust as well. These are neither physical nor robust. With DLC, you never own your contet, period.

@Allerletzt@Thanatos2k

An expansion pack that cost $40 off a $60 game typically added ~66% new content.

None of the DLC content passes the expansion pack cost/content ratio compared to the "full game."  It's all a rip off.

These are not expansion packs.  This is content removed from the game to be sold back to you at obscene mark ups.

How is what they did in AC2 irrelevant?  It's completely relevant.  You claimed we're getting the complete game, despite in AC2 you explicitly NOT getting the complete game.

I'm sorry I obliterated your feeble Ubisoft apologist defense.  I know it's hard coming up with nonsense arguments trying to defend the indefensible.

 @Thanatos2k You need to look up what expansion packs are? How long they've been around? And what AC2 did is irrelevant here as well. I guess if they throw out sequels that continue where one game left off you're not getting the entire game either because they've chosen to tear that part off and sell it to you later as an entirely new game, with that logic. Movies and books are also trying to nickel and dime us with their sequels and not putting all the content into the original books or movies. They're all out to get us and our money cus they didn't include every bit of content into the ONE game/movie/book/thing.

@Allerletzt@Thanatos2k

When you were playing Assassin's Creed 2 and the game jumped over MISSING CHAPTERS THAT WERE SOLD AS DLC did you think "Wow, this is definitely a complete game I just purchased.  They definitely did not take out this content to sell back to me."

The complete game is 100% of the content.  Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.  You are not getting 100% of the content for $60.  This is undeniable.

Are you some kind of PR shill?  Ubisoft damage control perhaps?

 @Thanatos2k Why aren't you getting the complete game for $60? Because they planned on adding DLC after the fact? Something that's gone on with PC for years, but it was called expansion packs, and people didn't whine, even though they often cost nearly as much as the game itself? It's really stupid to think that DLC is something new, other than the method we have it delivered to us and that it's now existent on console games. If you don't like getting additional content, then don't get it. But just because they plan on adding DLC doesn't mean you're not getting an entire game.

People need to stop equating DLC to taking parts out of the game to sell us later. It's not like they took out everything after the halfway point in the game and decided to charge more for it. I feel like I got an ENTIRE game. Does that mean it's all satisfying? No. Does that mean it's all good and can't improve? No. But that hardly means it's not an entire game.

But most people are reading just the title and whining about this DLC stuff even though nothing talked about in this is even DLC.

 @Thanatos2k  @Allerletzt  @philMcCrevis thanatos , the capcomesque would be your paying for stuff thats on the disk that you cant access at all otherwise , what you see here is paying to get access to the content early instead of unlocking it by playing the game , as Allerletzt said its EAesque.

 @Allerletzt  @philMcCrevis Paying to unlock things on the disk is the DEFINITION of Capcomesque.

 @Thanatos2k  @philMcCrevis Hardly. It's paying to unlock things early which can be obtained through normal gameplay means. If anything, it's EAesque seeing as EA did that with the older NFS titles and allowed you to pay MSP to unlock things through the game early without having to play through the game.

 @Allerletzt  @philMcCrevis Paying to unlock things on the disk is Capcomesque.

 @Allerletzt  @flammable_zeus Oh I know unlocking progression is not a new thing (I remember a Batman game I had on the Genesis would unlock a different skin for Batman once you completed the game... I'm sure there are even older examples).  What's new however is paying to unlock content that can otherwise be earned through regular gameplay,  Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my original post.  I was just waxing about who this content is for, as if you bought the game, wouldn't you want to play through it and collect the items yourself?  It just seems like the F2P model is slipping into paid console titles.

 @Allerletzt  @tonyrayo It's certainly not new, but it's really getting out of hand. I understand unlocking skins and stuff for a little extra fun. However, unlocking things like weapons and gadgets in a multiplayer mode for a game doesn't make sense. You didn't have to do that for Goldeneye and if you did, by the time I'd have unlocked everything I'd be sick of the game. I look at games like Battlefield 3 and am astonished that this fake progression has taken place of actually enjoying the game. I gave up on BF3 when they added the $50 queue-skipping and $40 become-useful extras. I already paid $80 for this game and I'm still getting charged just to be able to play it properly? That's just one example, and clearly Ubisoft is following these footsteps with AC3.

 @flammable_zeus  @tonyrayo You say this as if unlocking progression is a new thing in games? It's been done for years, and there's really nothing wrong with it. You progress, you unlock things. You know all the characters in Goldeneye? You still had to meet goals to unlock them, and the cheats, and whatever else too. Perfect Dark? Same thing. Don't act as if games are just now using unlockables as incentive to keep playing them.

 @flammable_zeus  @trodeback Yeah I don't think trodeback is in the minority.  I mean there are console-exclusive titles that will have a large online community (such as the Halo series; okay technically the first two games were ported to PC but it's best not to think about those =p) but for online play, I turn to the PC (mostly Steam at that).  The little bit of online console play I'm involved in takes place on my PS3 (love my 360, have enjoyed hundreds of hours of Rock Band via IRL parties; besides the fact that I don't want to pay for Xbox Live... I bought a year's membership once and online maybe a handful of times) and even then it's normally with IRL friends or people I've met online and can actually tolerate and enjoy their company =p.

I remember "Resistance 3" being one of the first games sold with the new "Online Pass".  I liked the first two titles but the multiplayer was pretty weak and I think the "Online Pass" introduction was a major turn-off.  It also happens to be the worst selling of the 3 PS3 titles in the trilogy - http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=resistance&platform=PS3 - unless the game is given away for free via PSN+ I doubt I will ever play it, I love Insomniac too, but I will receive no closure on this day =p.