Limited Edition + Language Pack (MULTi7)

English/German/French/Spanish/Italian/Russian/Japanese

Far Cry 4 will be released in the first half of 2015 and be set around the snowy mountain ranges of the Himalayas, Eurogamer can confirm.There's more to the region than just snow - it's expected that the game will feature a number of environments.
The switch in location marks a drastic change for the adventure series, which is usually more associated with sandy, tropical locales. But it will also pave the way for some new features - such as the ability to saddle up and ride elephants, people familiar with the project told Eurogamer.
Far Cry 4 is still some way away, but we understand that Ubisoft is currently aiming to release it during the next financial year (before the end of March 2015).
Our first official glimpse at Far Cry 4 will come much sooner, however - the title is set to be shown off in some form during Ubisoft's annual press conference at E3 in June, one source said. Expect PC, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions. We're unsure at this stage whether current-gen versions are also in the works.
A setting based around the Himalayas was first hinted at on Twitter last month by tipster Superannuation, who also suggested it would include some kind of monsters.
Far Cry 4's gameplay will remain similar to that in Far Cry 3 - presumably including a large focus on hunting local fauna. The world's map will be structured in a familiar fashion too, a separate source said, with outposts for you to liberate.
Far Cry 3 launched in November 2012 and was followed by the excellent retro spin-off Blood Dragon around six months later - suggesting that, when finished, Far Cry 4 will have had around two years of development time.
Ubisoft's E3 2014 press conference will also host other surprises - the publisher is apparently looking to build on the positive reception of reveals such as Watch Dogs at E3 2012 and Tom Clancy's The Division last year.

The Division will be shown off again, of course, alongside other likely attendees such as upcoming open world racer The Crew and the recently-leaked Assassin's Creed 5: Unity.My colleague Colin Moriarty has already written a thoughtful piece on the reaction to the box art. He has many valid points, and I couldn’t agree more with his assertion that “games have an incredible amount of power.” I also - somewhat irreverently - share his personal reactions to the art, in that I found it intriguing and was initially surprised that others saw it differently.
I do, however, want to offer you another perspective on those that voice concerns over potentially problematic material in games. One of the most frightening responses I saw to the contrary opinion that yes, the box art could be interpreted as racist, was a blanket dismissal of it as a part of a liberal agenda or political correctness run amok (or any other far more offensive statement of the same ilk, just check out the comments in the original news story).
I believe that the dismissal of those that challenge the status quo, or incite with contrary views, is to actively diminish the power of video games, rather than celebrate it.
Video games have increasingly become more sophisticated over the last ten years, and therefore more inclusive. They've become unafraid to show us characters who look like us, who fall outside of the muscle-bound, adolescent wish-fulfillment army guy; they've told stories with real emotional depth, and they've become increasingly exploratory. This hasn’t always been the case.  For years, nobody but white males who fell within a certain socioeconomic bracket saw themselves on game screens, or felt welcome in game communities.
These days, to argue that video games are an entertainment form made for guys who fall into that category only is becoming increasingly redundant. As video games become more complex, as developers learn to tell stories in different ways, as the lines blur between the indie scene and the triple A industry, they’re attracting an audience that is larger and more diverse then we’ve ever seen before. This doesn’t necessarily come down to some grand romantic shift in ideals, either. As The Stanley Parable creator Davey Wreden perfectly put it when I interviewed him last year: “if you've got people out there who want to play your game who actively feel alienated because of its content, aside even from moral reasons, you're leaving money on the table.”
As the numbers of people who play games grow, the games themselves are held up to more scrutiny than ever before. When controversial material is presented carelessly, developers are now called out on it. When an advertisement for a video game comes across as overly sexist, someone will challenge its marketing department. When an industry with a massive homosexual fanbase offers no representation of homosexuality, that fanbase will ask why. Muddled, misguided and irresponsible storytelling will be challenged by critics, because as Colin rightly said, video games have enormous power.

But there is also an important distinction to be made here between calling out irresponsible storytelling or marketing and actively looking to censor challenging material. No critic, to my knowledge, wants that, or indeed, has ever achieved that. Censorship-by-committee is one of the video game community’s biggest boogiemen – often feared but rarely seen.
“Provoking audiences with art is important, but all great art offers compelling reason for the provocation.
Because the truth is, we all want to see video games challenge us. Darker, more mature material is near uniformly embraced by those who genuinely love video games when presented in a carefully orchestrated manner. It is when writers and marketers are clumsy, when they throw in racism or homophobia or extreme physical and sexual violence with no narrative justification or broader context, as a means to only shock or shove in a cheap gag, that they will be subject to criticism. These subjects can be very painful for a great number of people. Provoking audiences with art is important, but all great art offers compelling reason for the provocation.
I think it’s crazy to suggest that we shouldn't challenge games outside of the predictable pillars of graphics and gameplay and bang-for-your-buck; that we shouldn't keep asking why. If we don’t acknowledge that nowadays this video game thing is much bigger than you, or I, or some vocal guy in a forum, games will stagnate, not grow. To tell those who see things in a different light to shut up is the real path to censorship; not the other way around.
There’s room for all of us here. We should try to look around more often and acknowledge that.