Prince of Persia DLC Not Coming to PC

The impending "Epilogue" downloadable level pack for Ubisoft Montreal's Prince of Persia will not heading to the PC, according to an Ubisoft representative.

"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.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    February 2, 2009 2:39 PM

    I don't see why people are complaining considering Ubisoft would make them pay for it and 90% of pc gamers wouldn't buy it.

    • reply
      February 2, 2009 2:46 PM

      Don't see why that's a problem. Plenty of PC gamers bought Anchorage recently.

      Mind you there is a vast difference in quality between the 2 games...

      • reply
        February 2, 2009 2:49 PM

        Yeah PoP is much better

        • reply
          February 2, 2009 2:54 PM

          I'll assume sarcasm there and not complete lack of taste?

          • reply
            February 2, 2009 3:34 PM

            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.

            • reply
              February 2, 2009 4:11 PM

              Those relate to the narrative, not good gameplay.

              • reply
                February 2, 2009 8:59 PM

                Narrative is a vital component of a good RPG.

            • reply
              February 2, 2009 5:52 PM

              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.

              • reply
                February 2, 2009 8:56 PM

                Yes, the dialogue was well-written. The character's weren't - I don't think I'd call them cliche, since their issue was more their inconsistency than anything else - but the quality of the writing itself was generally quite solid. Certainly leagues ahead of Fallout 3's.

            • reply
              February 2, 2009 7:24 PM

              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!

              • reply
                February 3, 2009 8:32 AM

                Yeah who needs a decent plot, character arc and meaningful choices in an RPG. Fuck that noise!

                Jesus Christ people, this is why you need to play FO1/2 before you bother with 3.

        • reply
          February 2, 2009 5:10 PM

          PoP > F3? Ha! What rubbish.

      • reply
        February 2, 2009 2:56 PM

        Ubisoft might also be considering the fact that it sold like crap and there aren't enough PCers to sell it to...

        • reply
          February 2, 2009 3:01 PM

          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.

          • reply
            February 2, 2009 3:15 PM

            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.

            • reply
              February 2, 2009 3:15 PM

              (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.)

          • reply
            February 2, 2009 3:34 PM

            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.

        • reply
          February 2, 2009 5:13 PM

          This is what I heard as well. If the console versions sold poorly to semi-okay then the PC version must have sold a fraction of that. DLC for the PC doesn't make any business sense in this case.

    • reply
      February 2, 2009 3:02 PM

      It's a problem for the %10 of us who would. Besides, not everyone on the console versions is going to buy it either.

      • reply
        February 2, 2009 3:36 PM

        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.

        • reply
          February 2, 2009 3:52 PM

          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.

          • reply
            February 2, 2009 5:20 PM

            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)

            • reply
              February 3, 2009 3:09 AM

              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! =)

          • reply
            February 3, 2009 1:40 PM

            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.

    • reply
      February 2, 2009 3:11 PM

      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.

Hello, Meet Lola