Online Pass Required to Play as Arkham City's Catwoman

[Justice4L]

Wait so they're taking parts out of the singleplayer? That is ridiculous. I was going to borrow it off a friend but now I guess I have to buy it.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Yet again only the legitimate user get's fucked, well played developers.

 

[Silenttalker22]

you mean they are offing a bonus to people who buy the game new? those evil evil people. they are clearly worse than hitler

Those bast... oh wait, I think it'll be awesome and pre-ordered it.
I wonder if people here will ever get tired about raging about stuff that isn't bad. It's hard to take seriously at this point. It was the same dumb thing with the Rage sewers.

Diablo 3 is one thing, but I'm all for incentives for new ownership as a way to push their angle. You buy it used, and you still get to play the entirety of an awesome game. You buy it new, and you get to play more, and since you paid more, why shouldn't you? Actually, I'd never thought about that before, and felt like emphasizing it. Why should you pay less and feel it's your right to get the same content as those who paid twice as much for it?

Stop crying over everything. Jeez

 

[b3nn3tt]

Wait so they're taking parts out of the singleplayer? That is ridiculous. I was going to borrow it off a friend but now I guess I have to buy it.

Nope, they're taking out some bonus missions where you play as Catwoman. None of the main game, where you play as Batman, will be affected.

 

[super_mumbles]

This just sounds like DLC...except only one account is able to access it.

 

[Justice4L]

Wait so they're taking parts out of the singleplayer? That is ridiculous. I was going to borrow it off a friend but now I guess I have to buy it.

Nope, they're taking out some bonus missions where you play as Catwoman. None of the main game, where you play as Batman, will be affected.

These were not advertised as bonus missions. These were advertised as a core experience in the singleplayer game.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Wait so they're taking parts out of the singleplayer? That is ridiculous. I was going to borrow it off a friend but now I guess I have to buy it.

Nope, they're taking out some bonus missions where you play as Catwoman. None of the main game, where you play as Batman, will be affected.

These were not advertised as bonus missions. These were advertised as a core experience in the singleplayer game.

I always got the impression that they would be extra, rather than crucial to the main story.

 

[Justice4L]

Wait so they're taking parts out of the singleplayer? That is ridiculous. I was going to borrow it off a friend but now I guess I have to buy it.

Nope, they're taking out some bonus missions where you play as Catwoman. None of the main game, where you play as Batman, will be affected.

These were not advertised as bonus missions. These were advertised as a core experience in the singleplayer game.

I always got the impression that they would be extra, rather than crucial to the main story.

Well, I guess it would be like cutting out the dragons in Skyrim. You could play the game without it, but we have been told that it wold be in the game so I expect it to be free of charge.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Wait so they're taking parts out of the singleplayer? That is ridiculous. I was going to borrow it off a friend but now I guess I have to buy it.

Nope, they're taking out some bonus missions where you play as Catwoman. None of the main game, where you play as Batman, will be affected.

These were not advertised as bonus missions. These were advertised as a core experience in the singleplayer game.

I always got the impression that they would be extra, rather than crucial to the main story.

Well, I guess it would be like cutting out the dragons in Skyrim. You could play the game without it, but we have been told that it wold be in the game so I expect it to be free of charge.

But by that logic any DLC that is announced ought to be free of charge. We've also been told that there are challenge maps that can be played as Robin and Nightwing, but they're not going to be free of charge either.

EDIT: I stand corrected, I was looking at Arkham City on Tesco's website, and the Catwoman section is included as one of the summary points of the single player, claiming that it fit seamlessly with the main Batman sections. So it was actually being heavily advertised as part of the game. So again, apologies.

 

[Justice4L]

C

Wait so they're taking parts out of the singleplayer? That is ridiculous. I was going to borrow it off a friend but now I guess I have to buy it.

Nope, they're taking out some bonus missions where you play as Catwoman. None of the main game, where you play as Batman, will be affected.

These were not advertised as bonus missions. These were advertised as a core experience in the singleplayer game.

I always got the impression that they would be extra, rather than crucial to the main story.

Well, I guess it would be like cutting out the dragons in Skyrim. You could play the game without it, but we have been told that it wold be in the game so I expect it to be free of charge.

But by that logic any DLC that is announced ought to be free of charge. We've also been told that there are challenge maps that can be played as Robin and Nightwing, but they're not going to be free of charge either.

Challenge maps aren't part of the singleplayer experience. In COD I don't expect to be given all the multiplayer maps without paying a little extra but I expect all the singleplayer missions.

 

[newdarkcloud]

People who be way less pissed if they didn't market Catwoman as vehemently as they did. Had they just revealed her, people wouldn't be as irritated.

 

[DracoSuave]

In order of the points
1) Nothing is preventing publishers from opening up their own second hand stores. I can find no law or regulation to prevent it. They could also buy back games themselves, and give you credit towards their own titles. But they won't, because that would require thinking.

2) I meant in terms of Publisher/Developer. They get more money, so the whole "Help the starving devs" argument doesn't really stand up

3) I don't doubt it's legal. It's stupid. I was saying you shouldn't feel sorry for the publishers

Allow me to quote a man over at Destructoid

Onered said
It comes down to one thing, regardless of argument: publishers have zero proof that used games cost them any money. None. Nada. It is all conjecture, and a fair amount of hubris. Again, publishers have zero proof used games cost them money, they are not even actively trying to prove it.

I can, however, prove that Gamestop alone buys $1 billion worth of murchandise from gamers a year, and according the their president, more than 75% of that is used on new product in the same visit, and more than 95% is used in the same visit on everything in general. In simple terms, Gamestop, the evil empire of games retail, adds $1billion to gamer's pockets anually, the vast majority of which is spent on new product before walking out of the store. Numbers.

Publishers cannot prove that used games cost the industry money, they don't want to try. I've said it before, when your weapon of choice is conjecture, you have to keep your image squeaky clean. If big publishers could prove anything, they would have. They know that the second they put the effort into doing just that, they lay waste to the image they've been perpetuating, as the actual numbers would be incapable of perpetuating it for them.

1: People really needs to understand that second hand purchase has an effect on the gaming industry. It makes them compete with themselves. They cannot setup a used games market because they will be fighting themselves for customers. Just stupid. If anything they would sell new stock as used taking huge losses because they are fighting the real used market where profit margins are a lot higher.

Now that Destro comment is really mind boggling.

They prove right there that used games sales hurts the value of a game by pumping in about a billions worth (using his word) dollars back into the system. The game itself gets devalued because a 3rd of the stock gets resold.

How the hell can you can you undermine your own argument and not see it a paragraph later?

2: Well true the Devs make money the second game launches. However they do lose their jobs if the game doesn't turn a profit for the publisher. Its a co dependant relationship. You cant say that you want to help the dev, but not the publisher the 2 need each other.

3: I dont feel sorry for publishers. I understand basic business. I understand that they dont ow me anything and they only like me because I pay them. I also understand they will do whatever it takes to ensure that they get as much money as possible for their investments, in the same way I want to get as much entertainment as possible for my money. No feeling involved.

1) The publishers do not lose ANYTHING from a used sale. Not a single dime. Nor does a car company lose ANYTHING from a used sale, or a movie production house lose ANYTHING from a used sale.

And if selling used versions of your product is bad, than why does it work so well for car companies? Why was Viacom able to sell used movies at Blockbusters for so long? If they're 'losing money' to something because they refuse to compete in that business, that's because they are refusing to compete in that business. Even TicketMaster is in the bought-ticket market.

And so what if they're competing with the secondary market? So what? That market has a fundamental right to exist. You have the fundamental right to sell crap that you own.

2) Yes, games need to be profitable in order to survive. This is no different than any other industry. The games industry is not some special snowflake that it requires a different distribution model in order to be profitable. It does not need to change or screw over basic consumer rights of porperty ownership in order to make a buck, because NO INDUSTRY WORTH A FUCK DOES.

You've identified the culprit yourself. The consumer is not screwing over the game company. it's the company that is using new-game advertisements to sell used games. That's the guy you go after as a publisher. You're coming out with the next big game? Instead of doing things that remove rights from the consumer, remove rights from GameStop. Make it so that distributors that sell used copies of your game can receive a ten dollar discount on new copies, provided they pay ten dollar royalty fees on old copies. Don't do online passes, don't do any of that stuff. Make the right to sell a AAA Title with billion dollar sales carry that caveat at the retail level.

Watch GameStop start pushing new copies.

3) If you understand basic business than you understand this: Publishers will fuck you up the ass if you pull your pants down and bend over for them. The fact that 'they want to do business' is not an apology, and is not good enough to justify the surrendering of my basic rights to own something I paid perfectly good money for. I bought it, it is mine, not the publishers, so they have ZERO right to tell me what I can do with that.

And that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do: They are trying to make games into a non-product, where you pay money and buy nothing. This is a bad thing for everyone.

 

[Trogdor1138]

Fuck you.

I was planning to borrow this off my brother after he finishes it through because I'm trying to save money at the moment despite really looking forward to this game. I was planning to buy the inevitable GOTY edition later anyway when that comes out for a good price.

I can understand the Multiplayer modes in games being a pass I guess, even though I'd prefer they just include it all as a nice package. But when you start cutting out shit (some pretty hyped up shit by the way, the extra Catwoman stuff was clearly a good incentive when they revealed it) from a single player game for the sake of a few dollars. That just pisses me off.

Thanks to all the people that made this project 10 dollar bullshit a success for greedy publishers. Pretty soon every game will force me to pay for the levels I already have.

PS: Sorry that I seem really annoyed, this just really gets to me.

 

[EvilPicnic]

I can understand how this is supposed to incentivise people to buy first day. But tbh, with me it has had the opposite effect.

I am now going to wait until a 'complete' or 'ultimate' edition is released- I don't want to risk missing out on content.

*sigh*

It seems only yesterday that when you bought a game it was a game, and you could play it, and play it to completion. And not a vehicle for them to sell you extra stuff.

 

[Chesterfield Snapdragon McFisticuffs]

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 sell 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.

 

[thahat]

What if you got this game free when you bought a nVidia GPU over the last few weeks will you get it then? Well they gave me steam code so I am hipefull but still in doubt.

steamcode = 'oh. so this game is for pc too'
meaning at least for pc gamers. there aint no problem. there is bound to be a hidden setting somewhere whenre you can just change a 0 to a 1 and bam, catwoman. its only software after all.