Poll: Personal Issue with Batman: Arkham City
- Thread starter WindScar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I apologise.WindScar said:Oh yeah, I'm sorry about that, I figured everyone were getting it, you know, being a generalizing asshole and all(me, that is)
I wasn't trying to sound like an arse just putting across my annoyance that they put the game back a month for PC gamers and are releasing it around the same time as Skyrim.
I was quite looking forward to to the new Batman after the last one turned out better than I thought it would.
It would have been a must buy if not for the November release. Not that i'm saying it's a bad game in any way but I mod so will have my face implanted in Skyrim and it would be pointless buying Batman for it to gather dust.
Would be a damn shame to leave it sat around like that for all i've read/seen of Arkham City it does look really good.
Man i remember that!!!!MysticToast said:
i wanted Link
but i didn't have a gamecube, oh well hehatchi for me ^^
Depending on how long you wait out on the purchase you may well win in the end. Odds are Arkham City will have a GOTY edition made.
Wait until that sees the light of day next year (with launch of Wii-U version of the game I'd wager) and you'll get what day 1 buyers couldn't.
Wait until that sees the light of day next year (with launch of Wii-U version of the game I'd wager) and you'll get what day 1 buyers couldn't.
I already preordered it so it doesn't really concern me that much.
I DO hate it when different stores get different preorder bonuses but as long as it's not something that actually impacts gameplay (bonus weapons) or entire game modes I don't think it's a dealbreaker.
What they pulled with Catwoman IS kind of a dick move but like I said I already preordered so it doesn't affect me.
Besides Gamestop has said that they'll be giving out the codes for Catwoman to used buyers. Just buy from them.
I DO hate it when different stores get different preorder bonuses but as long as it's not something that actually impacts gameplay (bonus weapons) or entire game modes I don't think it's a dealbreaker.
What they pulled with Catwoman IS kind of a dick move but like I said I already preordered so it doesn't affect me.
Besides Gamestop has said that they'll be giving out the codes for Catwoman to used buyers. Just buy from them.
Then supplementing that cash with DLC and pre-order bonuses to make more money to make better games with larger budgets?Mordereth said:
Glad to hear itRawne1980 said:I apologise.WindScar said:Oh yeah, I'm sorry about that, I figured everyone were getting it, you know, being a generalizing asshole and all
I wasn't trying to sound like an arse just putting across my annoyance that they put the game back a month for PC gamers and are releasing it around the same time as Skyrim.
I was quite looking forward to to the new Batman after the last one turned out better than I thought it would.
It would have been a must buy if not for the November release. Not that i'm saying it's a bad game in any way but I mod so will have my face implanted in Skyrim and it would be pointless buying Batman for it to gather dust.
Would be a damn shame to leave it sat around like that for all i've read/seen of Arkham City it does look really good.
Because milking that one so much last time is what got them the chance to replace Asylum with City and pop another one out with everything turned up to 11?NotSoLoneWanderer said:
I'm sorry, but unless you're actually a video game developer\someone with industry inside information, I wouldn't be so quick to suggest DLC/pre-order bonuses are so lucrative and important in being able to create sequels.
As you can see, they simply piss off actual fans who'd keep buying the games after they were the "shinniest newest and bestest thing" because they actually rather liked the series. Trying to nickle-and-dime people isn't a business model that makes you any friends, and you're bold to imply it's necessary.
More money for new original IP's and it's not necessary. Not at all and I love being an L4D player meaning i get free DLC and yeah I'm not an industry insider, But I like extra content. Not day 1 content but something to expand the story or add new side stories like with Fallout 3 I don't like what Arkham itself is doing but I was defending DLC in general. Back to the original topic of Arkham only, i hate it. If the content is available day one then I call bull but if it is new content made after a games release then I'm all for it except map packs, Give me a black ops level editor and leave me alone. Again though I'm not an industry insider at least I know that if I had some extra cash flowing around I'd make a new IP but yes that would not the be mindset of most companies...Mordereth said:
I agree with the OP, but it might be in part because I have slightly OCD/completionist tendencies. And also that I really want to be able to play as the BTAS and DKR versions of Batman and don't particularly want to buy two copies of the game from seperate retailers in order to do so, so I am slightly vexed.
I also have issues with this because, well, I love old games. And I love buying old consoles off eBay and playing old games. And I realise that the new games of today are the old games of the future.
Why is this relevant? Because 10 years from now someone is gonna buy an old 360 and a used copy of Arkham City off eBay. And they're gonna try to play the game and realise that a big chuck of the content (I'm thinking the Catwoman levels here) is locked behind a dlc pay-wall that is no-longer maintained, and that content will be lost.
And this will be the death of games.
I'm not even kidding. This may seem a valid and understandable business model now, but in the long term it only reinforces the idea that games are disposable, transient and lacking in worth. The trend is to decrease backward compatibility (see the new Wii U) and any attempts at archival are squashed by companies wanting to push their new product and scared of competition from the old one (Goldeneye 077 [the good one] is not resurfacing any time soon).
With publishers deliberately suppressing old games, and sabotaging new ones for further generations, the value of games as entertainment or artistic expression is reduced, and this will unfortunately lead to games never becoming the transcendent medium it so obviously could be.
People still pick up and enjoy old classic books a hundred years later. In a hundred years will anyone pick up and enjoy Arkham City? No. Because you won't be able to play as fucking Catwoman.
I also have issues with this because, well, I love old games. And I love buying old consoles off eBay and playing old games. And I realise that the new games of today are the old games of the future.
Why is this relevant? Because 10 years from now someone is gonna buy an old 360 and a used copy of Arkham City off eBay. And they're gonna try to play the game and realise that a big chuck of the content (I'm thinking the Catwoman levels here) is locked behind a dlc pay-wall that is no-longer maintained, and that content will be lost.
And this will be the death of games.
I'm not even kidding. This may seem a valid and understandable business model now, but in the long term it only reinforces the idea that games are disposable, transient and lacking in worth. The trend is to decrease backward compatibility (see the new Wii U) and any attempts at archival are squashed by companies wanting to push their new product and scared of competition from the old one (Goldeneye 077 [the good one] is not resurfacing any time soon).
With publishers deliberately suppressing old games, and sabotaging new ones for further generations, the value of games as entertainment or artistic expression is reduced, and this will unfortunately lead to games never becoming the transcendent medium it so obviously could be.
People still pick up and enjoy old classic books a hundred years later. In a hundred years will anyone pick up and enjoy Arkham City? No. Because you won't be able to play as fucking Catwoman.
I do find the way they are handling stuff like this now annoying. But, it won't stop me from getting an otherwise excellent game. I feel by boycotting games for this reason pointless and all it really punishes is me missing out on a good game. Like mentioned before it is all aesthetics and not a major part of the game, so I will just choose not to fork over the cash for the optional skins and stuff I could care less about.
It's going to be awesome so i'm getting it. Also the dlc skins will be available later on psn/xbla
Unless you're willing to pose that argument against ALL other second hand sales or loans then, yeah, that's all they deserve, because that's all they sold.Kopikatsu said:
Let's say I buy a power drill for a project I'm working on. I finish the project, and then loan it to my neighbor to use on his. Then another neighbor needs it, and I let him borrow it, too. Eventually, most of the neighborhood has used the drill. I don't have a use for it anymore, so I sell it on eBay to someone who may or may not do the same thing. Would you really argue that DeWalt or Craftsman deserve a chunk of money because of how many people temporarily benefited from their product?
Or, lets say my friend an I want to get some beer for the evening. A twelve pack of our favorite beer costs 15.99, or 8.99 per six pack. We decide to just split a twelve pack. Would you honestly argue that, since we're not technically paying for what we purchased (6 beers each), the brewery deserves more money from us?
I hate everyone who buys DLC's for costumes or hats.
Its the same deal with spam, all it takes is 1% of the 99% of the userbase buying whatever is being sold and companies will continue to release something it took a single game designer acouple of hours to knock together.
edit: PREEMPTIVE STRIKE! Yes children, I know it takes them more than acouple of hours for some of the more detailed DLC's [That also add no gameplay features and are totally cosmetic only], so don't bother complaining.
Its the same deal with spam, all it takes is 1% of the 99% of the userbase buying whatever is being sold and companies will continue to release something it took a single game designer acouple of hours to knock together.
edit: PREEMPTIVE STRIKE! Yes children, I know it takes them more than acouple of hours for some of the more detailed DLC's [That also add no gameplay features and are totally cosmetic only], so don't bother complaining.
I understand the OP's reasoning and I agree with it almost in full. In this case however, I just want to play the fackin game when it comes out so I've already pre-paid my PC copy off. I did get it from GreenManGaming with a discount coupon, a total of $30...that's my FUCK YOU right there. At least I'm not paying anywhere near full price for it. I could hardly give two shits about having all 73 little outfits, fuck that I just want to beat the shit out of the bad guys on the streets.
At least mine will come with Catwoman too, really no big deal not to have the extra outfits.
At least mine will come with Catwoman too, really no big deal not to have the extra outfits.
I don't see this as "CASH NOW, DO EVERYTHING TO GET IT". DLC and "extras" aren't stuff that's been removed & held hostage to squeeze you for extra cash. They're extra: things that most studios never would have bothered spending the money to develop in the days before DLC. And they don't cost you extra - big-name games are pretty much $60 USD no matter what. Buy the game from them and there's absolutely no down-side whatsoever.
The only people this hurts are:
A) Completionists who MUST have every costume.
B) Used game buyers
"A" are enough of a psycho minority type that they can be either ignored or courted with high-margin "collector's editions". "B" are not their customers.
I'll repeat that: If you buy Arkham City used, you're not a customer of Rocksteady or Square Enix. It doesn't make you a bad person or anything - it's fine that you bought it used. But they saw jack squat of your money, so they just don't care about you. Best thing they can do is try to win a few people over who were thinking about buying it used, but "oh hell after I buy the DLC it'll be the same price anyway, why not just grab it now so I can chat about it with my friends & score that extra costume".
Every single one of those people is a new customer for the studio. I'd put money on more people moving used->new to grab free stuff than moving new->used because they have a personal issue with the way free stuff is distributed.
Edit: removed quote, I kinda got off-topic from what I was quoting...
The only people this hurts are:
A) Completionists who MUST have every costume.
B) Used game buyers
"A" are enough of a psycho minority type that they can be either ignored or courted with high-margin "collector's editions". "B" are not their customers.
I'll repeat that: If you buy Arkham City used, you're not a customer of Rocksteady or Square Enix. It doesn't make you a bad person or anything - it's fine that you bought it used. But they saw jack squat of your money, so they just don't care about you. Best thing they can do is try to win a few people over who were thinking about buying it used, but "oh hell after I buy the DLC it'll be the same price anyway, why not just grab it now so I can chat about it with my friends & score that extra costume".
Every single one of those people is a new customer for the studio. I'd put money on more people moving used->new to grab free stuff than moving new->used because they have a personal issue with the way free stuff is distributed.
Edit: removed quote, I kinda got off-topic from what I was quoting...
