Online Pass Required to Play as Arkham City's Catwoman

[Zach of Fables]

You sound like an elitist douchebag. Not everyone can afford every game brand new. Especially now when there are multiple huge releases coming out. A lot of gamers are young and don't have tons of money. Others actually have other bills to pay, like mortgage, electric, gas, heat, car payment, college, pets, kids, and other hobbies. If I can't afford a brand new car I buy a used one. It still comes with everything it came with new. People who think gaming HAS to be an expensive hobby are just sheep doing what they're told.

And that is exactly the situation I am in. I am working at a relatively low paying job, take the bus instead of having a car, and have to keep track of my spending. So you know what I do? Not buy every single new game that comes out. I prioritize. I would certainly like to buy Gears of War 3, MW3 and Arkham City, but I'm only going to buy Arkham City because that's the one I value the most. And if I end up getting it used instead, I'm not going to complain that I can't play as Catwoman because I will be spending less anyway.

Fine, if you can't afford to buy new games all the time I get it. But then don't expect the developers to accommodate you. A car is a necessity, as are gas and heating. Video games are not. That's all I am saying.

My point is, and I've said this on many forums, is that there is a difference between rewarding people who buy new, and punishing people who buy used. Give people who buy new DLC for free or reduced price. Giving people who buy new the content the developers planned to release is not a reward. It's spiteful and ridiculous to cut content for used copies. You find me one other industry that does that. Especially to cut content that they've marketed like crazy is just juvenile. People have been buying and selling used games forever, and the games industry and stronger than ever. It hasn't destroyed the industry and to act like it will is asinine. Punishing people who want to play your game just doesn't make sense. It won't make them want to buy your products new in the future.

I would agree up to the point that depending on when you buy the game, you can still save money. For instance, the game now is 60. But if you buy it used, it's 40. Then you add the Catwoman content, it's 45. You've still saved 15.

In some ways it's actually better for people who are short on cash because you ask yourself "is the Catwoman content really worth the extra money to me?" and decide accordingly. That being said, I am against this decision and I agree with you that they should be encouraging people to buy new not pushing those who buy used. I think they should have drawn the line at the preorder skins. It's already annoying me that I can't just unlock the skins like in days of old.

 

[rje5]

You sound like an elitist douchebag. Not everyone can afford every game brand new. Especially now when there are multiple huge releases coming out. A lot of gamers are young and don't have tons of money. Others actually have other bills to pay, like mortgage, electric, gas, heat, car payment, college, pets, kids, and other hobbies. If I can't afford a brand new car I buy a used one. It still comes with everything it came with new. People who think gaming HAS to be an expensive hobby are just sheep doing what they're told.

And that is exactly the situation I am in. I am working at a relatively low paying job, take the bus instead of having a car, and have to keep track of my spending. So you know what I do? Not buy every single new game that comes out. I prioritize. I would certainly like to buy Gears of War 3, MW3 and Arkham City, but I'm only going to buy Arkham City because that's the one I value the most. And if I end up getting it used instead, I'm not going to complain that I can't play as Catwoman because I will be spending less anyway.

Fine, if you can't afford to buy new games all the time I get it. But then don't expect the developers to accommodate you. A car is a necessity, as are gas and heating. Video games are not. That's all I am saying.

My point is, and I've said this on many forums, is that there is a difference between rewarding people who buy new, and punishing people who buy used. Give people who buy new DLC for free or reduced price. Giving people who buy new the content the developers planned to release is not a reward. It's spiteful and ridiculous to cut content for used copies. You find me one other industry that does that. Especially to cut content that they've marketed like crazy is just juvenile. People have been buying and selling used games forever, and the games industry and stronger than ever. It hasn't destroyed the industry and to act like it will is asinine. Punishing people who want to play your game just doesn't make sense. It won't make them want to buy your products new in the future.

I would agree up to the point that depending on when you buy the game, you can still save money. For instance, the game now is 60. But if you buy it used, it's 40. Then you add the Catwoman content, it's 45. You've still saved 15.

In some ways it's actually better for people who are short on cash because you ask yourself "is the Catwoman content really worth the extra money to me?" and decide accordingly. That being said, I am against this decision and I agree with you that they should be encouraging people to buy new not pushing those who buy used. I think they should have drawn the line at the preorder skins. It's already annoying me that I can't just unlock the skins like in days of old.

Yeah maybe I would still save money if I waited long enough and paid for Catwoman. But my point still stands. It's on the disc. It was a major marketing focus. It's not DLC. I shouldn't have to make a choice to buy the game, and them buy more of the game. This should be considered false advertising. They don't put commercials out for DLC and act like it comes with the game.

Some people make excuses for DLC saying they didn't have time to fit it into the final product, but they can have it ready for day 1 download. I find that argument to be garbage, but at least it's an attempt at an argument for DLC. This has no argument. It's finished. It's on the disc. It's ready to be played. It was marketed like crazy. Then they decided after the fact, "we could make a killing selling this content after the fact". It's evil, deceitful, childish, and greedy.

I will never support a company like that, and I personally find it a little troublesome how some people are willing to spend more money for the same content that would've gotten 2 years ago. Today games are including less out of the box and charging the same price. Then they have the gall to charge to play online, or to get all the content that already exists.

 

[rje5]

Sorry there was a double post.

 

[Zach of Fables]

Yeah maybe I would still save money if I waited long enough and paid for Catwoman. But my point still stands. It's on the disc. It was a major marketing focus. It's not DLC. I shouldn't have to make a choice to buy the game, and them buy more of the game. This should be considered false advertising. They don't put commercials out for DLC and act like it comes with the game.

It's not false advertising because it is part of the game. If you walk into a store, anywhere, and buy it the Catwoman content will be included. You only have to make a choice whether or not to buy it if you are buying the game used or borrowing it from a friend, so it's not really the same. If you buy Rock Band track packs used, you can't download them to your hard drive but can still play off the disc. It's not entirely the same thing but there is precedent.

Some people make excuses for DLC saying they didn't have time to fit it into the final product, but they can have it ready for day 1 download. I find that argument to be garbage, but at least it's an attempt at an argument for DLC. This has no argument. It's finished. It's on the disc. It's ready to be played. It was marketed like crazy. Then they decided after the fact, "we could make a killing selling this content after the fact". It's evil, deceitful, childish, and greedy.

But they aren't selling this content after the fact. The game's price has not changed, and the content hasn't changed either. The only thing that has changed is that people who seek to save money are getting smacked around a little bit. That's greedy, and probably childish too. But it's hardly evil or deceitful.

I will never support a company like that, and I personally find it a little troublesome how some people are willing to spend more money for the same content that would've gotten 2 years ago. Today games are including less out of the box and charging the same price. Then they have the gall to charge to play online, or to get all the content that already exists.

I get you.

 

[MrPanafonic]

lol Only reason i preordered was becuase i got a free onlive system with the game... then sold the system for a profit

 

[rje5]

It's not fault advertising because it is part of the game. If you walk into a store, anywhere, and buy it the Catwoman content will be included. You only have to make a choice whether or not to buy it if you are buying the game used or borrowing it from a friend, so it's not really the same. If you buy Rock Band track packs used, you can't download them to your hard drive but can still play off the disc. It's not entirely the same thing but there is precedent.

Agree to disagree. I can walk into Gamestop (not that I do because I hate Gamestop, but that's another argument) and see two copies, one for 60, one for 50. In theory, they are the same game. They have the same content. In this messed up reality publishers are trying to throw on us, they are completely DIFFERENT games. One has 10% more content. It's not the same as DLC that you always have to download. To a subjective point of view, why should I have to pay $10 more for the same content? Oh that's right because the publishers lock it. That's bullshit. That's greedy.

And the truly sad part is, people are accepting this. A world where my friend wants to come over and play a game, and I put in my game, and he can't play the same game as me is truly messed up. Remember the good old days where you could unlock everything by just playing the game? And then your friends would come over and play the game with everything unlocked? You were the cool friend who was good at that game. You don't have that anymore. It's all "I paid more, so I get more". I see the logic, I just don't understand or agree with it. And personally I don't see how anyone could. Maybe some people don't remember how it used to be, and yes that makes me sound old and preachy about the good ole days but it's true.

 

[aba1]

I'll admit this is similar to what Rage did with the sewers, where it doesn't remove a core important part of the game like say the entire freaking multiplayer portion. However, I still think these codes are a dick move in general. They're really annoying to enter with a freaking controller right after I just gave you 60 fucking dollars. I'm really getting the feeling that this may be the last generation of consoles I even buy. Between the indie revolution on PC and the ridiculous Steam sales, and this kind of douchebaggery, consoles are just becoming out of date PCs with worse hardware now...

I feel the same way I mean I just want to sit back with a few buddies and play some games but now thats not enough now we all have own our own systems our own tv's and our own copy of the game then you have to pay to be online just so that we can play games together and we have to do it all online now so we can't even hang out not to mention that if one person buys dlc we all have to and now they are trying to make me pay extra for stuff that should be in the games already I'm sorry but this whole thing is little tiring

 

[Zac Smith]

Honestly who actually cares about being able to play as Catwoman anyway? Last time I checked the title it said "Batman: Arkham City"

its a whole fairly large gameplay segment with entirely different gameplay and its own plot developments. Its a fairly big part.

Aside from all that, im fine with it. People SHOULD buy new anyway, used games dont support the industry end of.

Not everyone can afford to buy every single game they want new. It's a never ending debate

 

[squid5580]

Yay now I will get to spend even more time inputting codes before I get to play it. Pre order bonus code, online pass code, there has got to be a better way.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

1. I don't mean to sound rude, but did you even read my post? Gamestop buys all those used games, and the credit is spent on NEW items with 75% of the money. That's $750 MILLION dollars being pumped back towards NEW sales. NEW!

2. Devs STILL get shut down by publishers sometimes, even if their game sells. So this whole "Pwese help the paww devs" argument doesn't really stand.

3. Again, no other industry on earth needs to fund itself every time an item changes hands. No other industry.

1: No you clearly dont get it. When you sell it it to game stop for 20% of it its value and Gamestop sells it for 75% of its original value Gamestop. That means gamestop devalues the original game while drawing out capital. You are using an example where Gamestop doesn't sell the stock again. Ridicules.

2: no I am just saying that its a co dependent. We should be on both sides, one without the other means no AAA titles.

3: This is such a ridicules argument. Its essentially "it doesn't have an effect on other industries so it doesn't have one on this". Every factor of every industry affects it differently. Even within the same industry. Movies are effected by ticket sales to make profit that doesn't mean games are. Piracy is a bigger problem in the music industry than it is for automobile industry. Now Publishers know that used has an effect on sales. So they take measures to make sure that it gives the best profit.

But if you want to compare it with other industries you should be ok with this as well since used items will be inferior to new. Why have a problem with it now?

1. I'm showing that Gamestop is putting money towards NEW sales of things. $750 MILLION dollars worth. That's actual numbers. Publishers haven't actually given numbers towards how much games used have cost them, and they won't because it doesn't. I can pull up Gamestops fiscal report to also show that they sold nearly $4 BILLION dollars worth of new merchandise each year. Chew on that

2. And I'm saying that the whole "Oh, the poor devs" argument doesn't stand up

3. Every other industry on earth can handle second hand sales of whatever they make. Every other industry. That's called "Precedent". Look it up some time, dear reader

I have a problem with game companies MAKING something worth less by their own work. They are not allowing an item to be worth less by time, they are making it so it loses value if it ever changes hand by what is little more than sabotage. They are causing it to lose value by their OWN WORK. It's one thing to allow something to be worth less. It's quite another to cause it.

 

[Epona]

Oh no! They're locking out people that they would gain absolutely no revenue off otherwise! Shit, it must suck to have to deal with whingers who aren't currently their customers anyway, because this is the only person that it's going to effect. Morons.

Also, everyone needs to shut the fuck up about the used cars example. You don't buy a car, use it for a week then sell it off. You keep it for YEARS before you decide to use it, and by that time new iterations have come out if consumers to buy new. It's a stupid example people need to stop using to justify their stingyness.

well to go further than that the car company makes money aslong as some1 owns it as repairs/new parts will be need on mot's or when you crash regardless. So who owns it is less of an issue. (not to mention the large difference in income per unit sold)

Uh no, I may own a used Ford but I don't buy my parts directly from the dealership, that's insane as the prices are too high. I buy third party parts and yet the car companies aren't whining about it.

In fact, this is where DLC comes in. I can't buy Skyrim DLC from anywhere except from Bethesda, for example, so game companies really have nothing to complain about.

 

[Epona]

-snip-

Now rather than going into your arguments one by one, ill just stick with this.

You have the fundamental right to sell crap that you own.

If you truely believe this then you have no problem with the online passes. You know why?
Because they own the game!
You have not bought it.
And they can do whatever they want with it. They can rent it to you or throw it in a river. They can give it to people and sell it to others. Its theirs.

You do not have a right to buy it. They have a right to sell it.

Practise as you preach.

Yes, they could rent the game to you but they don't. They SELL it to you at FULL PRICE and then they want to claim you don't own it. I can go to a video store and rent the game for $1 a day or I can go to Wal Mart and BUY it for $60.

The difference between renting and owning is clear and you aren't renting video games for $60, you are buying them.

 

[MeTheMe]

I want to rage about this. I want to get angry and swear up and down about this. I'm gonna try not to though.

They've BOASTED and shown her off for a LONG TIME, a VERY LONG TIME, showing off her attacks, talking about what she can do, saying she'd be a PLAYABLE CHARACTER. Trailers show her off like she's going be bigger than Batman himself. Interviews with people on the project talk about how great it's going to be to play as her! AND NOW, JUST NOW, DAYS BEFORE RELEASE, we learn she's only going to be playable if BUY THE GAME NEW OR PAY!

I'm horrified, I'm utterly and completely pissed off that they'd do this. It wouldn't even be that bad if they'd told us she was actually what amounts to day one DLC in the beginning, but they talked about her the whole time! They made it sound great to play as her! Now, 4 days before we can go out and spend money on their game that we want to play, they choose to inform us she's not free. I don't want to buy the game now, merely on a moral standing that their stupid system is terrible. I want to buy it because it'll be good... this is INFURIATING.

 

[Cormyre]

The sad price

-snip-

Now rather than going into your arguments one by one, ill just stick with this.

You have the fundamental right to sell crap that you own.

If you truely believe this then you have no problem with the online passes. You know why?
Because they own the game!
You have not bought it.
And they can do whatever they want with it. They can rent it to you or throw it in a river. They can give it to people and sell it to others. Its theirs.

You do not have a right to buy it. They have a right to sell it.

Practise as you preach.

Yes, they could rent the game to you but they don't. They SELL it to you at FULL PRICE and then they want to claim you don't own it. I can go to a video store and rent the game for $1 a day or I can go to Wal Mart and BUY it for $60.

The difference between renting and owning is clear and you aren't renting video games for $60, you are buying them.

BUT they are selling you several pieces of plastic and paper for that $60, not a game, you are merely purchasing the medium, the container and a license to use the software.

Not that I like the above answer and I am pissed about this stupid move, but that's the correct answer. YOU do not OWN the game.

 

[Epona]

The sad price

-snip-

Now rather than going into your arguments one by one, ill just stick with this.

You have the fundamental right to sell crap that you own.

If you truely believe this then you have no problem with the online passes. You know why?
Because they own the game!
You have not bought it.
And they can do whatever they want with it. They can rent it to you or throw it in a river. They can give it to people and sell it to others. Its theirs.

You do not have a right to buy it. They have a right to sell it.

Practise as you preach.

Yes, they could rent the game to you but they don't. They SELL it to you at FULL PRICE and then they want to claim you don't own it. I can go to a video store and rent the game for $1 a day or I can go to Wal Mart and BUY it for $60.

The difference between renting and owning is clear and you aren't renting video games for $60, you are buying them.

BUT they are selling you several pieces of plastic and paper for that $60, not a game, you are merely purchasing the medium, the container and a license to use the software.

Not that I like the above answer and I am pissed about this stupid move, but that's the correct answer. YOU do not OWN the game.

You own that copy of the game and can do with it as you see fit, including selling it someone else. Seriously, if you believe that people don't own their games, then how is Gamestop still in business? How could they legally buy games from people who don't really own them?

You own your games and that is why you can resell them, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[rje5]

The sad price

-snip-

Now rather than going into your arguments one by one, ill just stick with this.

You have the fundamental right to sell crap that you own.

If you truely believe this then you have no problem with the online passes. You know why?
Because they own the game!
You have not bought it.
And they can do whatever they want with it. They can rent it to you or throw it in a river. They can give it to people and sell it to others. Its theirs.

You do not have a right to buy it. They have a right to sell it.

Practise as you preach.

Yes, they could rent the game to you but they don't. They SELL it to you at FULL PRICE and then they want to claim you don't own it. I can go to a video store and rent the game for $1 a day or I can go to Wal Mart and BUY it for $60.

The difference between renting and owning is clear and you aren't renting video games for $60, you are buying them.

BUT they are selling you several pieces of plastic and paper for that $60, not a game, you are merely purchasing the medium, the container and a license to use the software.

Not that I like the above answer and I am pissed about this stupid move, but that's the correct answer. YOU do not OWN the game.

You own that copy of the game and can do with it as you see fit, including selling it someone else. Seriously, if you believe that people don't own their games, then how is Gamestop still in business? How could they legally buy games from people who don't really own them?

You own your games and that is why you can resell them, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

No as much as I hate to say this he's right. You don't own the actual game. You own the disc and the right the play what's on it. The bullshit part comes in where they put something on the disc, and refuse to let you use it until you pay more money. That's what people are upset about, me included.