Online Pass Required to Play as Arkham City's Catwoman

[Whytewulf]

Why is it so hard to buy new? Why is it called cut content? I would think it's more of thank you for buying a new copy here is extra content? Glass half full type of view maybe. I understand the developers dilema, they don't want to, or can't stop the used market, but in the end, they don't receive any additional pay once it hits the used market. Unlike books, people don't often keep games once they complete them. This may not be perfect, but I have seen worse and could think of worse. What kind of advantage would you prefer them use to incent you to buy new?

 

[DaMan1500]

Okay, I probably wouldn't be upset about this were it not for the fact that Catwoman was announced at the SAME FUCKING TIME as the rest of the game, and was marketed as a crucial part of the story (she's even in the goddamned banner add for the game at the bottom of this page). I'm not inherently opposed to giving folks who bought the game new extra stuff, but promising that something's going to be in a game and than taking it out is bullshit.

 

[docSpitfire]

The funny thing is; if they weren't giving Catwoman free to new buyers, the argument here wouldn't be HALF as long >.>
It would be day 1 DLC, not a 'used games' thing, and no-one (sans a few trolls and pirates) would care. But because they're offering this DLC as a bonus to new buyers, the flamewagon started rolling already...

It might be 3/4 as long because they've been advertising the catwoman section as a part of the actual game (including at least one, maybe 2 entire trailers dedicated to it.)

I know at least one person who the Catwoman segments were the feature that ultimately helped her decide she was going to get the game eventually.

If the Catwoman segments had been like the Robin stuff (i.e. you can only play Robin in the Challenge missions and not any actual single player plot segments) then I you're probably right.

 

[Mister Linton]

The main issue I see is that Catwoman was touted long ago as a big part of the main game, not a small bonus feature (like the Robin Best Buy thing). Seems like a fairly significant cut for those who don't have online access (more people than you think). She should have been promoted as a bonus feature to new release copies from the get go, that would seem less... shitty.

 

[tweedpol]

This is all a problem of perception, just like when Odeon changed their 3D charging:
How they did it was 'Yay! 3d tickets have gone down in price by a pound! but now you have to buy glasses if you haven't brought any with you, for a pound.'
Compare '3d tickets are the same price, but now you get a £1 discount if you bring your own glasses from last time'
The first made me boil with rage until I realised it was functionally the same as the 2nd, which is good.

Similarly, compare 'Check it out! as a reward for buying new you get this free DLC with more missions where you can play as honest-to-goodness CATWOMAN!'
with
'YAY YOU CAN PLAY AS CATWOMAN YAY LOOK AT THIS TRAILER WHERE YOU PLAY AS CATWOMAN YAY ITS GOING TO BE A HUGE PART OF THE GAME! PS only if you buy new. you fucking peasants.'

You can't make something you've built up to be a huge thing only for new buyers, that's called being a dick. Additionally, I bought Asylum years after its release for like 8 or 10 pounds, who's going to double their outlay for being poor and having to wait? I just wouldn't have bought it. Gr.

EDIT: i've realised lots of people have made the same point. But mine includes an unnecessary dig at cinemas! (They're too expensive, aren't they too expensive? and 3D too. Gr.'

 

[SoulSalmon]

The funny thing is; if they weren't giving Catwoman free to new buyers, the argument here wouldn't be HALF as long >.>
It would be day 1 DLC, not a 'used games' thing, and no-one (sans a few trolls and pirates) would care. But because they're offering this DLC as a bonus to new buyers, the flamewagon started rolling already...

It might be 3/4 as long because they've been advertising the catwoman section as a part of the actual game (including at least one, maybe 2 entire trailers dedicated to it.)

I know at least one person who the Catwoman segments were the feature that ultimately helped her decide she was going to get the game eventually.

If the Catwoman segments had been like the Robin stuff (i.e. you can only play Robin in the Challenge missions and not any actual single player plot segments) then I you're probably right.

Hmm, fair enough.
I only read the first few pages and saw nothing but QQ so I didn't know she was advertised as a part of the game from the start.

But we agree that this topic would have been shorter if she wasn't free to new buyers though, that was still my point. This knee jerk reaction to particular wording is not a good indicator...

 

[tweedpol]

Here's another thing: I've seen in these 'used games' related threads that in the USA gamestop seems to sell used games a/ very soon after release and b/ for about $5 less than new. Is that true (we don't have gamestop in the UK)?
If so, buy it new. Come on. If you MUST have a game straight away, and you can afford $55, you can afford $60. I assumed most used game sales would be like 18 months after release for more like $20, which is obviously different. The latter is allowing yourself to game on a tight budget, the former is just being tight, and would genuinely hurt the industry.

 

[radioactive lemur]

Here's another thing: I've seen in these 'used games' related threads that in the USA gamestop seems to sell used games a/ very soon after release and b/ for about $5 less than new. Is that true (we don't have gamestop in the UK)?
If so, buy it new. Come on. If you MUST have a game straight away, and you can afford $55, you can afford $60. I assumed most used game sales would be like 18 months after release for more like $20, which is obviously different. The latter is allowing yourself to game on a tight budget, the former is just being tight, and would genuinely hurt the industry.

Hell, I have seen used games at Gamestop literally the day after release for $5 less. However, if you have a power card, it's actually more like $10 less. I'm almost positive they open the games themselves, and then sell them used like this just to boost their own sales.

 

[Inkidu]

You know. I feel like I'm in a relationship with a woman that hates my guts, but I'm too much of a putz to break it off. I just put down the money on an Arkham City pre-order, knowing full and well that the "incentives" are only available for people with high-speed internet and I don't really have that. I might be able to grab it up this time if it's an unlock and not some four-hundred plus meg download (yes, that's the allowance I work with 10 gig a month, whole family).

I shouldn't buy new, I should buy every game used. I can't have what they offer even if I buy new so why do it? Maybe I just believe in the industry as a whole... or maybe I'm just waiting for someone to sue the fuck out of someone else for discriminating against people without high-speed internet.

 

[Epona]

This cut content isn't free to anyone. The value of this cut content has been set and has been determined to be $10. So, you are buying a $50 game for $60 and if you have high speed internet, you can download the other $10 worth of content. If not, well, you're out $10 (your punishment for buying new).

That's the problem with online passes and project $10, they are pricing pieces of the game and sooner or later people will start asking for an option to buy only the $50 version. The publishers are shooting themselves in the foot.

If Gamestop were to offer people a chance to buy games without the online pass nonsense for $10 less, it would become clear just whose foot the bullet is in.

 

[ravensshade]

Yep. The precedent set is now an industry standard. Thank you everyone who said "I dont see why this is such a big deal"

This is also a reason why I typically wont preorder anything. Little bits like this like to come out right before launch. Had I not gotten my copy free with my video card and already had it applied via steam regrettably I would have to pass on this game for this.

wow seriously...? overreaction much?
this is not even day one dlc unless I'm reading it wrong... buy the game nothing is wrong. borrow someones game/buy someone else's old copy pay a lil bit to the developer to still get access to it. (the fact they like to charge you high prices for it is a different matter)
but to let such a fact switch a game from per-ordering/ buying to... forget it.. is just a bit silly

*prepares to get flamed*

 

[Epona]

Here's another thing: I've seen in these 'used games' related threads that in the USA gamestop seems to sell used games a/ very soon after release and b/ for about $5 less than new. Is that true (we don't have gamestop in the UK)?
If so, buy it new. Come on. If you MUST have a game straight away, and you can afford $55, you can afford $60. I assumed most used game sales would be like 18 months after release for more like $20, which is obviously different. The latter is allowing yourself to game on a tight budget, the former is just being tight, and would genuinely hurt the industry.

Hell, I have seen used games at Gamestop literally the day after release for $5 less. However, if you have a power card, it's actually more like $10 less. I'm almost positive they open the games themselves, and then sell them used like this just to boost their own sales.

How would that boost their sales? They paid for a new copy and if they open and sell it for $10 less, they are losing $10. They make money by buying used games from people and reselling them for more, not by paying $40 for a new game, opening it and only getting $50 in return.

 

[Epona]

Yep. The precedent set is now an industry standard. Thank you everyone who said "I dont see why this is such a big deal"

This is also a reason why I typically wont preorder anything. Little bits like this like to come out right before launch. Had I not gotten my copy free with my video card and already had it applied via steam regrettably I would have to pass on this game for this.

wow seriously...? overreaction much?
this is not even day one dlc unless I'm reading it wrong... buy the game nothing is wrong. borrow someones game/buy someone else's old copy pay a lil bit to the developer to still get access to it. (the fact they like to charge you high prices for it is a different matter)
but to let such a fact switch a game from per-ordering/ buying to... forget it.. is just a bit silly

*prepares to get flamed*

Why do people do this?

"Your reason isn't good enough to not/cancel your pre-order".

How about this, the post you quoted was 100% correct and your post was wrong in the first sent...er first few words.

Well, let's look at this. Buy it new and you have to type in a code. Buy it used and you have to type in a code but it's $10 less. Which option makes more sense?

 

[ravensshade]

Yep. The precedent set is now an industry standard. Thank you everyone who said "I dont see why this is such a big deal"

This is also a reason why I typically wont preorder anything. Little bits like this like to come out right before launch. Had I not gotten my copy free with my video card and already had it applied via steam regrettably I would have to pass on this game for this.

wow seriously...? overreaction much?
this is not even day one dlc unless I'm reading it wrong... buy the game nothing is wrong. borrow someones game/buy someone else's old copy pay a lil bit to the developer to still get access to it. (the fact they like to charge you high prices for it is a different matter)
but to let such a fact switch a game from per-ordering/ buying to... forget it.. is just a bit silly

*prepares to get flamed*

Why do people do this?

"Your reason isn't good enough to not/cancel your pre-order".

How about this, the post you quoted was 100% correct and your post was wrong in the first sent...er first few words.

Well, let's look at this. Buy it new and you have to type in a code. Buy it used and you have to type in a code but it's $10 less. Which option makes more sense?

if you want to buy a game why buy it used in the first place
and (the fact they like to charge you high prices for it is a different matter) the price is wrong but imo the PRINCIPLE is right
correct me if i'm wrong but if you buy used little to money get's sent to the developer right?

 

[Epona]

Yep. The precedent set is now an industry standard. Thank you everyone who said "I dont see why this is such a big deal"

This is also a reason why I typically wont preorder anything. Little bits like this like to come out right before launch. Had I not gotten my copy free with my video card and already had it applied via steam regrettably I would have to pass on this game for this.

wow seriously...? overreaction much?
this is not even day one dlc unless I'm reading it wrong... buy the game nothing is wrong. borrow someones game/buy someone else's old copy pay a lil bit to the developer to still get access to it. (the fact they like to charge you high prices for it is a different matter)
but to let such a fact switch a game from per-ordering/ buying to... forget it.. is just a bit silly

*prepares to get flamed*

Why do people do this?

"Your reason isn't good enough to not/cancel your pre-order".

How about this, the post you quoted was 100% correct and your post was wrong in the first sent...er first few words.

Well, let's look at this. Buy it new and you have to type in a code. Buy it used and you have to type in a code but it's $10 less. Which option makes more sense?

if you want to buy a game why buy it used in the first place
and (the fact they like to charge you high prices for it is a different matter) the price is wrong but imo the PRINCIPLE is right
correct me if i'm wrong but if you buy used little to money get's sent to the developer right?

I don't want to support developers who try to punish people for buying used. Buying used saves me $20 without the online pass and saves me $10 with it. Why would I want to fund more nonsense like this in the next game?

Before all this online pass nonsense I would always buy new if the difference was only $10, I was neutral and preferred the new product if the difference was small but I am tired of being treated like a criminal by game companies. I don't even need to deprive myself of the games I want to play. I can buy new releases on Day 2 for $10 cheaper and feel good knowing that I didn't fund more anti-consumer DRM and such.

 

[ravensshade]

Yep. The precedent set is now an industry standard. Thank you everyone who said "I dont see why this is such a big deal"

This is also a reason why I typically wont preorder anything. Little bits like this like to come out right before launch. Had I not gotten my copy free with my video card and already had it applied via steam regrettably I would have to pass on this game for this.

wow seriously...? overreaction much?
this is not even day one dlc unless I'm reading it wrong... buy the game nothing is wrong. borrow someones game/buy someone else's old copy pay a lil bit to the developer to still get access to it. (the fact they like to charge you high prices for it is a different matter)
but to let such a fact switch a game from per-ordering/ buying to... forget it.. is just a bit silly

*prepares to get flamed*

Why do people do this?

"Your reason isn't good enough to not/cancel your pre-order".

How about this, the post you quoted was 100% correct and your post was wrong in the first sent...er first few words.

Well, let's look at this. Buy it new and you have to type in a code. Buy it used and you have to type in a code but it's $10 less. Which option makes more sense?

if you want to buy a game why buy it used in the first place
and (the fact they like to charge you high prices for it is a different matter) the price is wrong but imo the PRINCIPLE is right
correct me if i'm wrong but if you buy used little to money get's sent to the developer right?

I don't want to support developers who try to punish people for buying used. Buying used saves me $20 without the online pass and saves me $10 with it. Why would I want to fund more nonsense like this in the next game?

Before all this online pass nonsense I would always buy new if the difference was only $10, I was neutral and preferred the new product if the difference was small but I am tired of being treated like a criminal by game companies. I don't even need to deprive myself of the games I want to play. I can buy new releases on Day 2 for $10 cheaper and feel good knowing that I didn't fund more anti-consumer DRM and such.

yeah this argument is going no-where
on Day 2 for $10 cheaper and feel good knowing that I didn't fund more anti-consumer DRM and such. which feeds to viscious cycle of these sort of schemes
but eh there's no discussion anymore

 

[Epona]

Yep. The precedent set is now an industry standard. Thank you everyone who said "I dont see why this is such a big deal"

This is also a reason why I typically wont preorder anything. Little bits like this like to come out right before launch. Had I not gotten my copy free with my video card and already had it applied via steam regrettably I would have to pass on this game for this.

wow seriously...? overreaction much?
this is not even day one dlc unless I'm reading it wrong... buy the game nothing is wrong. borrow someones game/buy someone else's old copy pay a lil bit to the developer to still get access to it. (the fact they like to charge you high prices for it is a different matter)
but to let such a fact switch a game from per-ordering/ buying to... forget it.. is just a bit silly

*prepares to get flamed*

Why do people do this?

"Your reason isn't good enough to not/cancel your pre-order".

How about this, the post you quoted was 100% correct and your post was wrong in the first sent...er first few words.

Well, let's look at this. Buy it new and you have to type in a code. Buy it used and you have to type in a code but it's $10 less. Which option makes more sense?

if you want to buy a game why buy it used in the first place
and (the fact they like to charge you high prices for it is a different matter) the price is wrong but imo the PRINCIPLE is right
correct me if i'm wrong but if you buy used little to money get's sent to the developer right?

I don't want to support developers who try to punish people for buying used. Buying used saves me $20 without the online pass and saves me $10 with it. Why would I want to fund more nonsense like this in the next game?

Before all this online pass nonsense I would always buy new if the difference was only $10, I was neutral and preferred the new product if the difference was small but I am tired of being treated like a criminal by game companies. I don't even need to deprive myself of the games I want to play. I can buy new releases on Day 2 for $10 cheaper and feel good knowing that I didn't fund more anti-consumer DRM and such.

yeah this argument is going no-where
on Day 2 for $10 cheaper and feel good knowing that I didn't fund more anti-consumer DRM and such. which feeds to viscious cycle of these sort of schemes
but eh there's no discussion anymore

What feeds the vicious cycle is giving money to the publishers who do things like this. Do you see indie devs doing things like this? They can't afford it in more than one way.