Google+

Available on: Xbox 360, PS3, PC

Assassin's Creed III 'Tyranny of King Washington' DLC announced

Season pass for five single and multiplayer DLC packs goes for $30

Words: on October 3, 2012
Back to Article

34 comments

  • Kartman013 - October 3, 2012 3:58 p.m.

    Gone are the days of buying a game complete. Modern gaming has become an exercise in patience. The patience to wait a year until you buy a used copy at half price, a game-of-the-year edition for nearly half the price (with all the DLC), or just borrow it from your buddy in a month. I just hope games companies can figure out a different strategy so that they don't implode from this type of crap.

  • ObliqueZombie - October 3, 2012 5:20 p.m.

    "Non-canonical." It's not even apart of the story--you'll be getting the full game. Out of the five DLCs to be released, two of them will be multiplayer add-ons (sorry they can't think of every map and character ever right off the bat) and the other three will be based around George Washington's fictional reign over the colonies. A season pass just means, "We have DLC that we plan to make and are already making, so you'll get them all for a much cheaper price."

  • ObliqueZombie - October 3, 2012 5:31 p.m.

    That was one of the big draws about this game... a whole new development team (still under Ubisoft, mind) has been working on this game for years. I'm not sure if it's three, but it hasn't been a standard two years I'm sure. In other words, they built it from the ground-up to have the mechanics accommodate this new setting--what with lower-hanging buildings, trees, etc. http://kotaku.com/5885377/assassins-creed-3-will-be-out-on-october-30 --> For the reference of development time http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1326914/assassins_creed_3_why_starting_from_scratch_has_been_worth_it_interview.html --> for the new engine and the whole "starting from scratch thing."

  • ObliqueZombie - October 3, 2012 5:32 p.m.

    "Oh noez, not Season Passes!" Wait, you mean they PLANNED out their game and subsequent DLCs BEFOREHAND?! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE?! Aaaaaand they made it cheaper for fans in the long run?! How DARE they!

  • ChiChiRocket - October 3, 2012 7:04 p.m.

    OMG! But George Washington is American hero! Liberal agenda!

  • Jesse1066 - October 3, 2012 8:30 p.m.

    It's also coming to PC. Not just Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 as stated in the article.

  • Shinn - October 4, 2012 5:56 a.m.

    Gah! I hate this season pass bs. I know I'll buy the dlc, but having to spend $120 on this game will mean I wont have a spare $40 to pre-purchase dlc. (Yay New Zealand!)

  • ParagonT - October 4, 2012 1:46 p.m.

    I don't blame them as a company, I blame consumers that buy into it. Fan or not, paying for unannounced or unmade DLC is a bad practice for consumers (of course if its made and shown off, then its practically a bundle, so no fault for those that do that). There are plenty of things that can go wrong such as not liking the dlc, unknown expectancy such as your comp. or console getting shot, and most importantly the developers/mother companies knowing that they can skimp out on content or polish because they already have your money. Consumer power is the key that I personally think is worth more than anything that you MAY save. It's a good deal for some, don't get me wrong, but paying for future DLC sounds like at some point it will screw consumers in the end/long haul, not to mention it's a gamble. So I don't mind consumers gambling on it per say, but I do mind the impact that it could have on all of us in the future.

  • ObliqueZombie - October 4, 2012 5:16 p.m.

    I see where you're coming from, and I completely understand. If I had bought a Season Pass for Fallout: New Vegas, I would've hated myself for that waste of $40 or so. Not only did I rank their first DLC pack Dead Money as my most hated DLC of all time, but after that I never bothered with the other DLC--though I heard at least the last two were pretty good. That said, it's no more a gamble as pre-buying a game a month or so beforehand. Sure, you're computer could get shot or your console suddenly die on you, but buying a Season Pass is no more risky than buying the game itself: you may not like the game, you may not be able to play it come release, it may crash, etc., etc.. Though I understand entirely about them kinda scrounging money from us consumers. Instead of working DLC close to or at release and seeing how customers feel about the core game, they work on the future DLC, well, right now. I might give ACIII the slip, though, because their Season Pass could be thought of as buying three continuous episodes beforehand at a cheaper price; plus, the idea and story sound cool. So who knows how the future looks? It may be bad, it may be good, but even though I defend the practice of Season Pass DLC, I don't like when EVERY game practices it. C'mon, does Darksiders II REALLY need a Season Pass, let alone that many DLC packs to begin with?

  • KingDjango - October 4, 2012 5:47 p.m.

    I heard he once held an opponents wives hand....in a jar of acid...at a party! Though it makes me wonder if you'll be forced to fight all of his dicks too

  • ParagonT - October 5, 2012 5:07 a.m.

    Season passes are a good deal for consumers, but in the long run, I feel like it could really start a bad practice that will be too late to fix. But just a point to make about pre-ordering a game. You can cancel your pre-order for quite some time before the game comes out. So it can give you time to look for reviews that journalists push out due to them getting the game early. Whereas the season pass, once you buy it there are no refunds, so your stuck with it. So yeah, as you said the future could be fine or worse, we'll never know. But how can any consumer know if the season pass is worth it? Because for all we know they didn't develop as much as they could have do to the fact that they have guaranteed cash. But that's just in the assumption that they did, but I wouldn't put it past a company, who's main goal is making a profitable franchise.

  • ChiChiRocket - October 8, 2012 9:01 p.m.

    You know.. Far be it from me to question where you get your information, but how do you know that this DLC is non-canon? You didn't quote anyone saying that it was; only what it is about. Maybe you have a review copy already and know for sure? It's just that the way I see it, I have no problem believing that Washington could be corrupted by the Apple, and I'm perfectly willing to accept it as part of the AC canon.

  • alex-roy-bristol - October 19, 2012 11:53 a.m.

    Fuck, sorry everyone, I was really tired, and also had just had an argument with another person about this on a different forum... Sorry you guys, I legit didn't mean to be a dick, my honest mistake. But I'll leave it up just as to not seem like even more of a dick, so you can see my apology. Sorry again m8s! x'O

  • Connor Sheridan - October 26, 2012 10:20 a.m.

    Sorry, just seeing your comment now! Ubisoft specifically called out the packs as depicting an "alternate history of the American Revolution." Since Assassin's Creed is already an alternate history of its own, this is a "Mirror, Mirror" sort of what-if situation.

Showing 21-34 of 34 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment
(HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

Connect with GamesRadar


Featured Guides

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.