Assassin’s Creed IV has three Aveline missions on PlayStation
posted on 07.29.13 at 07:06 PM EST by (@salromano)
Liberation protagonist returns in upcoming sequel.

Aveline de Grandpre of Assassin’s Creed III: Liberation will return to the Assassin’s Creed franchise in a series of missions found exclusively on the PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4 versions of Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag. Today, Ubisoft shared some details.

Aveline’s missions make up the game’s hour of PlayStation-exclusive content and pick up “ways after” her story in Liberation concludes, according to lead writer Darby McDevitt.

“It’s a ways forward so Aveline is a bit older,” McDevitt said on the UbiBlog. “It’s not directly related to the end of her story. If Assassin’s Creed IV is like a novel, Aveline’s missions are like a short story.”

There are three missions dedicated to Aveline, made possible thanks to Abstergo’s Animus upgrades. The company has been digging through the memories of the Assassins in search of good product

“The present-day is set in Abstergo Entertainment – which is this fun, hip company to work for… at first,” McDevitt said. “You are able to access the Aveline stuff because your coworkers are working on retrieving different genetic memories from all kinds of different people.”

Ubisoft hints that “there’s something darker at play.”

If you missed the E3 images of Aveline in Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag, see the set at the gallery.

  • DichaTesoro

    I usually get AC games on XBOX, only because I started it off with one I guess. I may just get this one for PS3…used though, because Ubisoft it being dumb lately.

    • Zackasaur

      … How?

      It seems to be that Ubisoft is the best they’ve ever been right now. Rayman Legends, Watch Dogs, Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag, The Division, and Watch Dogs are all on my to-buy list. Plus, they’ve done a great job with their Far Cry franchise, and they’ve funded some cool downloadable titles with their UbiArt engine. Oh, and Rayman Jungle Run is easily the best mobile adaptation of a console franchise ever.

      • DichaTesoro

        Good games, yeah, but the whole thing about only making games that will become major franchises is what bothered me. No one-off games unless they are sure it will be a huge success. Yeah, making money is important but it seems so…so passionless, I don’t know.
        How many games do we play that aren’t part of a franchise? My friend couldn’t even think of one she played that wasn’t. I named a few. No full stories or experimentation these days, just cash cows. But I’m just lame and think too much on dumb things.
        With that, I love the AC series and will probably be excited upon its release.

  • GetOffMy_Lawn

    Exclusive content for a multiplatform game is both stupid and absurd.

    • DrForbidden

      No, it’s not.

      • Willgaea

        Maybe Microsoft should release a handheld dedicated gaming device to get more exclusive deals. I’ve been wanting this since the original xbox 1 (which still works despite my 360).

        • DrForbidden

          Hmm. I don’t think they will. It’s too big a risk, to be honest. Handhelds seem to have lost a lot of the market since smartphones came into being. I know they cater to different segments of the population, but they might not even be able to recover their development costs. MS knows it can’t compete with Nintendo, and given the lackluster performance of the Vita, I doubt they’d be interested in going down the handheld route.

    • http://twitter.com/kazumalynx Zero

      I’m not so sure I would label it stupid and absurd.

      I think It can be frustrating. For sure. Especially when it never comes to other platforms. It seems to happen on all platforms.

      In this case, it kinda makes sense. Considering Liberation was only on the Vita. It’s likely that her character is exclusive to the PS platform, don’t you think?

      • Zackasaur

        Nailed it. Mind you, every console AC game excluding the first one has had exclusive content on PlayStation. It’s not just an Aveline case.

        We have to keep in mind that Sony partially funds the development of Assassin’s Creed and gets this content in return. It can be annoying to people who play on PC/360/Wii U, but the fact is that they’re playing a game which was partially funded by a competing brand.

      • GetOffMy_Lawn

        I respectfully disagree.

        I completely understand the motivation behind Aveline and her missions being exclusive to the Sony console
        versions of the game, but that doesn’t make this business practice “ok”.

        Batman: Arkham Origins is another multiplatform game that
        will be receiving exclusive content this fall on the PS3. One piece of this content is a skin based off of the popular Batman storyline, “Knightfall”. This is one of my personal favorite Batman stories, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way. The fanbase of “Knightfall” likely expands beyond just PS3 users; Those
        “Knightfall” fans who own only a 360/WiiU/PC will not be able to play as their favorite version of the Dark Knight. To those fans, this idea isn’t just “frustrating”,
        it’s downright unfair.

        The attitude of Warner Bros. with Arkham Origins is the same as Ubisoft’s with ACIV: that it’s perfectly acceptable to release a game across multiple platforms, yet withhold certain experiences from certain versions of the game. In essence, the 360/WiiU/PC/XboxOne versions of ACIV will only be “mostly complete” while the PS3/PS4 version will be “completely complete”. To me, this is completely unethical.

        Also, in reference to the point made below by Zackasaur
        about Sony partially funding the development of AC games: how is that any different than, say, Microsoft paying for exclusive Resident Evil 6 content? The money that Microsoft gives to Capcom in such an exchange could go toward development of future RE6 content. Aren’t they, then by this logic, entitled to said exclusive content? I think there is a double standard concerning Microsoft
        and Sony when it comes to the timed/exclusive content debate. No matter which company is participating in this business practice, the practice is still unfairand unethical.

        In all likelihood, the inclusion of Aveline exclusively on the Sony versions of the game probably won’t “infuriate” ACIV players on other platforms. But it’s the concept that is wrong. If you’re going to support one version of a multiplatform game more than the others, just make the game exclusive to that one platform, and thus avoid isolating the fans of the same game on other platforms.

        • http://twitter.com/kazumalynx Zero

          I did say it can be frustrating. I suppose I should have said very frustrating.

          Sure, it’s all about the money, exclusive deals that hopefully will boost sales of the game on that specific platform.

          I don’t think this practice is really going away anytime soon. We could try and pinpoint where it began and blame those involved, but that wouldn’t really mean anything.

          You can blame Microsoft and Sony. You can blame the publisher, but you also have to blame the customer.

          Yeah, not all of us, but many of us. Just like all DLC, if it wasn’t making profit, it would slowly stop happening. They would stop making exclusive content if it wasn’t helping boost sales.

          I own both 360 and PS3, but I didn’t always. At the very least, lots of exclusive content is only exclusive for a limited time. Of course, that isn’t always the case.

          I’ve had to resort to youtube videos for things in the past. It sucks, but at least we have it as a choice.

          It’s also worth mentioning retailer exclusives. Those are pretty frustrating as well. Sure, most of the time you can wait and purchase them separately, but that doesn’t mean anything if you finished the game, and then, 3 months later or something, they finally release that outfit you wanted.

          The retailers like those exclusive bonuses and such, it makes them feel better about ordering a huge stock of said game.

          Anyways –

          Back to why I said I wasn’t so sure I would label exclusive content stupid and absurd. I mean, the practice itself does make sense. We can see why it happens, and why it continues to happen. Unless something drastic changes, it will likely continue to happen.

          It sure can be frustrating. I fondly remember the days when everything was included in the game. If you wanted that special outfit, you just unlocked it in the game. On the flip side, good bonus story content didn’t really exist. The closest thing was expansion packs for PC games.

          What do you think it the solution to exclusive content? I’m curious is all. Should it all be timed exclusive content only? (That still doesn’t fix everything.)

          I’d like to read your opinion about this.

          • GetOffMy_Lawn

            Unfortunately, I don’t really see an immediate solution to this issue. There’s nothing to stop, say, Sony or Microsoft from throwing a few
            bucks Ubisoft’s way, or any other third party developer. The only way this could really stop is if these developers suddenly said, “No thanks, we don’t do exclusive content.” But that’s extremely unlikely to happen. These developers are companies after all, and their purpose is to make money. I think exclusive content and timed DLC is the downside of internet-capable video game consoles.

            While I prefer my multiplatform games to be the exact same experience across all platforms, I think there is a way to do exclusive content in a fair and equal manner. (I’m going to have to reference a game that’s a few years older, but I think you’ll get the idea) Take Soulcalibur II for example.
            While the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox versions were all basically the same, they each had one unique character; Playstation users had Heihachi, Xbox users had Spawn, and Gamecube players had Link. These characters were an early form of exclusive content, and it worked really well. No gamer – to my knowledge – felt as though they were getting an unfair or unequal experience with the game, while still managing to have a unique one compared to the other console versions.

            Soulcalibur IV added a more modern twist with the Star Wars characters. Initially, Yoda was exclusive to the Xbox 360 and Darth Vader was exclusive to the Playstation 3, while all versions had Starkiller. Each version had a unique character, but was later given DLC to make the missing character
            available for the appropriate game. While this is still a form of timed DLC, and may have upset some gamers with the wait, I still feel this was as “fair”
            as timed DLC gets.

            Unfortunately, this approach probably takes more time, effort, and money to carry out, and thus I don’t see many third party developers following in Namco Bandai’s footsteps. Still, I think this is an
            appropriate – and more appropriately, fair – approach when considering
            timed/exclusive content.

    • http://twitter.com/RaiuLyn Raiu

      While it sounds like it but Aveline only starred a game only on the Vita so far… If it was multiplatform, well it does sound stupid and absurd…

  • Elvick

    Awesome, glad to see more of Aveline.

    Now if only the PS Vita costume for Rayman: Legends was Aveline, instead of them putting that costume on Wii U for whatever reason.

  • Zackasaur

    I can’t wait to play this on PS4. c:

    ACIII: Liberation is great.

    • AnimusVox

      I’m torn between getting this on Ps3 or Ps4.

  • http://twitter.com/RaiuLyn Raiu

    Things like this are really nice ways to entice people to choose one particular platform over another… Can’t wait for Aveline and her comeback…

  • TheExile285

    This cool.

    I want another AC Vita though…

    • artemisthemp

      Wasn’t AC: Phoenix a AC for Vita?

      • TheExile285

        I hope it is but that is just a rumor right now