Prince of Persia DLC Not Coming to PC
"Unfortunately for business reasons we won't be seeing any PoP DLC appear [on the PC]," said Ubisoft community manager Chris "UbiRazz" Easton in a post found by BigDownload on the game's official forum.
"Sorry guys!" added Easton. Of course, "sorry" wasn't enough for PC fans of the game, who have already begun organizing a letter-writing campaign.
The Prince of Persia Epilogue DLC hits the PS3 and Xbox 360 on February 26.
-
M337ING
replyI don't see why people are complaining considering Ubisoft would make them pay for it and 90% of pc gamers wouldn't buy it.
-
-
-
-
Doubt it. At least PoP had:
a. A decent plot
b. Memorable Characters
c. Well written dialogue
d. Talented Voice Acting
Critical things Fallout 3 was missing that could have made it an amazing game. Fallout 3 is a fantastic artistic achievement, but a great game it is not.-
-
Pop had "well written dialogue?"
I saw - cliche characters
Tween-tastic Dialog
and nothing special in the voice dept.
-but both games have crappy endings set up solely so they can sell them to us later. -
And yet despite all those things, Fallout 3 is still fun as hell. Who needs memorable characters when you can kill them, chop them up, and scatter their remains across the wasteland? Would you like to visit my house and see my collection of the decapitated heads of all those forgettable characters? POP is a child's toy in comparison!
-
-
-
-
-
If you already have the content completed, and you sell it to 10 PC Gamers, it's still 10 * price profit you add to the profit from consoles.
Of course, some Ubi suits could be from the school of thought of that idiot from EndWar: "hey, if we release this DLC for PC, everybody will pirate it and nobody will buy it for consoles".
They don't understand the market. They deserve to go bankrupt. And when they do, of course the cause will be piracy and not the stupid decisions they made every effing year.-
They might not consider it worth the staff, time, and expenditure it would take to port the content and then do the extensive testing that is needed to ensure it works properly on all PC hardware.
-
(For the record I bought the PC version of this game so I would also be irritated if I had actually enjoyed the game enough to finish it.)
-
-
Except you completely ignored the cost of porting the content to PC and testing it. I doubt 10 sales would make up for that cost.
-
-
-
-
-
Look at how people balk at the idea of paying for DLC on PC in news comments here (ex GFWL) vs consoles where it's an established practice.
-
That's something I really don't get since mission packs existed on the PC long before they came to consoles, and PC users seem to love short, downloadable add-ons like the Half-Life episodes (rightly so!). (Okay, HL episodes can be bought standalone but I doubt that many people skip HL2 for the episodes... that would be silly as HL2 is great and starts the story.)
Yet somehow when it's called "DLC" instead of a "mission pack" or "episode", that short, inexpensive and instantly-downloaded dose of more of the game people liked becomes a bad thing, just from the name or the bogus association with consoles or something.
-
It makes no sense. I've had arguments with multiple long time posters who refuse to buy DLC because 'if it's downloadable it should be free' but if it were in a box as a standalone expansion it would be fine (and even if that expansion was on steam... Boggle)
-
I'm sure the infamous below-par Oblivion DLC by Bethesda didn't really help to refute the fact that additional content provided by the dev was not considered worth paying for over mods. This is especially problem on PC, where gamers have been accustomed to abbundance of free maps and mods.
And of course the fact that DLC has a long history, even on consoles. And it always has been free. We've become to recognize DLC as an indication of small downloads, that don't really add much to the overall experience, but simply enhance it a bit. Take CoD4 DLC for example. Nvidia paid for it, since no PC gamer would've ever considered paying for new maps, even though producing assets for graphically intensive new FPS like CoD4 has become much more complex than forking up new maps for CS, Q3 etc. People simply don't understand this.
Overally I think it's simply a problem with terminology. Anchorage shouldn't even be called as DLC imo, since it's a whole new episode, and not a fucking horse armor! =)
-
-
Well, the history of PC add-on packs is a bit richer than 1 hour long DLC gizmos.
Remember Xwing Vs Tie Fighter (and the games before them) - they had large add-ons that added new ships, missions, music - tons of stuff.
PoP DLC is just a mission that they cut to make a dead line and double dip the consumer wallet.
-
-
-
-
I don't see why just anybody can make posts on boards, considering 90% of people are idiots. Yeah, I can make up stats to troll, too.
-
