Batman: Arkham City's Singleplayer Catwoman Content Demands Buying New Or Buying A 'VIP Pass'

Want to play as Catwoman in Batman: Arkham City? You'll have to buy the game new or pay for the privilege to do so, publisher Warner Bros says. That's right, it's the on-disc singleplayer content that's being put behind an "online pass" style scheme.

Batman: Arkham City's VIP pass, the one-time use code required to unlock the playable Catwoman, will cost 800 Microsoft Points if you aren't an "original purchaser" of the game. Eurogamer confirmed with Warner Bros. that Catwoman, "a unique character with her own story, moves and weapons", is for those who buy the game new or pay for the unlock code.

Rocksteady's sequel to Batman: Arkham Asylum has two additional pay-to-play characters, Robin and Nightwing.

Batman: Arkham City comes to the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 next week, with the PC version arriving sometime in November.

Batman online pass unlocks Catwoman [Eurogamer]


    Hey that car you sold me second-hand, I can't use the air-conditioner until I pay the manufacturer $300.

    What's wrong with this picture?

      Nothing because you stupidly didn't realise that when buying second hand cars you always need to pay extra to get them fixed up. Stupid.

        I bought a book second hand, but the publisher tore out the last ten pages until I pay them more money then.

        Seriously, restrict access to extra content - don't take stuff away from the product.

          The developer spends money to make the game. You don't pay them any money buying it second hand.

          Seriously, they can restrict access to whatever they like — because you're not paying them anything.

            I'm not saying they can't literally do it. They can do anything they like. They made the game, so they can make me pay for it in sex if they want. Doesn't mean its good practice or is going to generate customer loyalty.

              Also - if they are going to make this optional content, maybe they should charge $50 for new and make everyone pay an extra $10 for the extra content. That way, they aren't detracting from my resale value.

              By the way, I say this as a rabid collector who has never traded in (and bought maybe two games second hand). I just don't like business strategies that undermine the value in what I've paid for.

     pretty much forces customer loyalty. Just sayin.

                No it doesn't. It arguably forces you to buy one game new. It doesn't endear loyalty to the IP or the developer.

                  So the other way of doing this shows

                  They develop a game. They get one sale (yay!). This guy then lends it to eight of his friends, who all play the full game. They totally love it and are "loyal".

                  Developer goes bankrupt because only one in nine players paid them anything.

                  Good business model. The only "loyalty" on show there is the eight people being loyal to not spending money.

                  On the other hand, if instead of 1 sale they get 9, they now have more money to higher more people and produce bigger and better games going forward.

            Punish the sellers and threaten to withhold stock until cut of profits dont punish the consumer. The stores and the makers get more money this way pure and simple.

        The car manufacturer actually spent time and money putting in a system that would damage the air conditioner after a while. Then they'll be happy to charge you to fix it.

    I don't have net access on my 360, so I won't get this single-player content, even though I'm getting the game new?


      What is this 1992?

      Not having your X360 hooked up to the internet is like having a bath without the aromatherapy candles. It gets the job done but, cmon!

        I didn't get internet access on my 4-year-old 360 until about 2 months ago, so Shane isn't the only one. I think this is a legitimate concern.

        If it is not possible to access the Catwoman material offline, this should be clearly disclosed on the box. Failure to do so could have negative repercussions under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

        I pre-ordered Arkham City a month ago, and I can't wait. However, I do feel this is a bit heavy handed. It's like the praise for deactivting glide on pirated copies of Arkham Asylum as gone to their heads. A step too far.

        Craig, before you open you mouth again, do some research.

        People do live in outback regions of Australia where the Internet sucks.

        Well I got the Kevin Butler referance, Craig. I laughed.

    Excellent idea to fight pre owned and if you can't afford 10 bucks then you should consider a career move.

      Execellent idea realy to withhold offline single player content. The gaming industry is on the way down and very fast and the sad thing is its callable consumers such as you that are allowing these practices to continue and get worse.

    I don't care about locked multi-player content,and this ddoesn't bother me as I almost always buy new, but can someone explain to them that not everyone has access to LIVE? Are they to miss out?

      Blame MS, not the publisher.

      Get a PS3.

      That free network isn't looking so bad now...

        Jesus Christ dude how about reading before you spew your fanboy rubbish. Firstly you can have access to Live features without paying, it's the silver version and it's default. Know thine enemy. Secondly, they are talking about not having internet access on their console for whatever reason. Not having their console hooked up.

        Obviously you have not heard about the hack in April this year.

    DRM, 'passes', developers removing LAN capabilities, etc, etc - what the hell is wrong with the industry?

    This makes me truly sad.

    @Husky and Shane,

    They mean it's like the online pass scheme not that it requires you to be online...

      But doesn't the console still need net access to redeem the code? If not, how does it work?

        You are absolutely right, my friend

        This means that if you don't have a connection to the internet on your console, you are well and truely screwed no matter which version you by.

        A real dog act if you ask...

        I mean, as said before - when it comes to multiplayer stuff - no problem - online pass it to the hilt - fine with me, but when you start doing it for singleplayer content, that's just plain wrong

        Same way cd keys work I assume.

          Not on consoles, i'm afraid.
          They have to be redeemed online to ensure that people aren't just handing them around to their mates, or distributing them online

    This makes me sick. From everything I've seen, Catwoman is an integrated part of the Single Player story. This is essentially removing a few levels from the campaign unless you pay extra money, and that is not good. I can almost see the justification for some multiplayer efforts with servers and the like, but not this. How long will it be, I wonder, before this sort of thing becomes 'optional', on the disc DLC that pops up during the single-player campaign?

    Not only that, but as a game collector, I've got to think about - what about when the game isn't new anymore and you can no longer buy the pass, eh? Doesn't that mean that no one will be able to play a chunk of the game? And that just seems horrible to me...In fact, how are they even working this? If it's a one-time code is it linked to your PSN/LIVE account, because then that means you'd need an internet connection, which is ridiculous for a single-player experience. If it isn't, then doesn't that mean you'll only ever be able to play this content on one console? *sigh* What are we doing gaming industry?

      Sucks for day-one buyers like me/us (and especially if you have no net access!), but all this crap will no doubt be in the GOTY edition that is sure to come out later.

      PS: This is just another iteration of a play from the Assassin Creed playbook, which removed entire memory segments from its games that you had to buy separately.

      Gone are the days when you could pull out a ten year old game and play everything as was again allover with access to all content. Who is to say these online practices are going to let you play that game ten years from now with full access to all content as we have seen so many times before with companies like sony and xbox cutting off onine activity when that game dies down or a sequal is released. And for those that say who will play a ten year old game, well lots of people just look such things as the HD remasters and backlock titles on the online stores not to mention aniverary editions and so forth.

      I was thinking of ordering a collector's edition of Arkham City. Now I'm rethinking buying it at all. Sure, it'll be fine for me when I play it, but if I want to introduce the game to a friend or one of my nephews, they have to pay? I assume that, even if they use my console, they won't have access to that part of the single player campaign. Quite frankly, it sucks.

    This is absolute bullshit. My friend who is an absolute Batman nut and has been looking forward to this game for so long doesn't have XBL and therefore has to miss out.

    I'm fucking tired of this industry.

      They should get a PS3. Free PSN, wifi out of the box.

      Complain about MS, not the publishers.

        If you are going to post, verify your research first.

    Noticed the story didn't mention the ps3. Is this only going to affect xbox gamers? I doubt it but it warrants the question

      It's both versions...

      Though Catwoman ISN'T required to finish the regular main game, it's just a minor "B type story"

      It sucks that it's a code to unlock content on the disc, but as someone that buys new and doesn't trade in anyway, this doesn't really effect me.

        Unless you decide you want to play the game after they've stopped supporting it with the online pass. Could be sooner than you think with the 720 rumors circulating.

          We are not at that point yet, but it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

          The main issue will be on games they are multiplayer focuses, like all the EA Sports games, these games generally have a server life of about 2 years at the moment, so buying a pass for that only to be shut down in a month would be abit of a pain in the ass, when the range of FIFA 13, Tiger 13 come around will be the first instance we will see if they look to keep the servers open, or how they will handle it.

          As for Batman though, it's a single player game, I can't see any developer/publisher looking to actively taking down this content anytime soon, regardless of new console platforms popping up. It's free money if people only pick up the game years after it's release.

          Besides, I think the major console players have worked themselves into a corner, by setting up these networks for content delivery, you get the feeling their next consoles will have to have a need to support the previous generation, look at Sony and PSN, the Vita can play PSone, Minis, PSP Games, can remote play (with some tinkering) PS3 Games and likely to be able to play the newly released digital PS2 Games also.

            I personally have big problem with these passes, because its entirely possible to lose access. I can't access the Cerberus network even though I bought new due to the cluster-xxxx that was EA online. They spread my content over two accounts, neither of which was tied to my x-box live account. Deeply frustrating.

              What? I don't understand this at all...

              To gain access to that content it was a code entry, you are specifically referring to that content being split over 2 accounts, none of which was your own Live account, so the assumption is that this is the 360 version... where did you redeem the code? Because you would have to be signed into an account to redeem the code in the first place.

              I have honestly never heard of an instance like this ever from anywhere on the internet.

                A few other people with unused live accounts had a similar problem. The game linked my code to an EA account that I believe was created when I bought DA: O. However, I was never able to access that account because in the interim my live email address was hacked and I had to change my live accounts email addresses an passwords.

                I spent three weeks back and forth between EA and Microsoft customer support pages and they were useless. I don't know whose fault it is - my point was merely that somewhere in their systems, my rightfully purchased content was locked away.

        Thats a sad comment to make that it doesn't effect me so what. Consumers like you are the cause of the industry going down hill.

          Buying new and full price is the reason why the industry is going downhill now? Sorry about that, I should stop then.

          I don't like DLC all that much either, but that's what started it, this online pass is just a byproduct of it. The content that it unlocks is non-essential to the rest of the game. It's like EA's $10 product, buy new and get the first map pack free or something.

          The issue has been raised before with other games, the content is on the disc, so the argument is that you should have access to it. I mean I paid for it! Unfortunately, the person who made it ultimately has the right in providing you with a license to what they want you to have access too.

          I guarantee that if this content wasn't on the disc and the code gave everyone this content for "free" to download when it was available on the PSN/Live/Steam/etc store then it would be a non-issue.

          But that's what DLC is now, sections of the game being held back for sale in the future.

          eg: Assassin's Creed II - Sequence 12 & 13 were mysteriously corrupted during your playthrough, oh look, DLC for each sequence!

          Other worse examples than what is happening here with Batman

          Resident Evil 5 - the online modes were on the disc, and you had to pay to unlock it, there was no Day 1 code, etc.

          Beautiful Katamari (360) - The game shipped as half a game really, but all the levels were on the disc already, then on the Marketplace they released (think) 7 content packs totalling ~$30-40 dollars to unlock the remaining levels on the disc.

          I agree that if the game is shipped with the content then I should have access to it, but that isn't my decision, but I would certainly prefer the model that WB is using than some other options.

          What I would personally like, is that Season Passes are becoming the rage (LA Noire, Gears 3, COD Elite), so give me a Collector's Edition that provides me with all the post release content included.

            The going down hill commment had nothing about buying new. It was about the comment that it wont effect me so that alright. Think of others.

    Get your console online, or miss out on part of the game you paid good money for. How the fuck are they allowed to get away with this?

    I've actually paid for my preorder on PS3, and I'm honestly debating cancelling it, even if this doesn't affect me. Start protesting with your wallets people, it's the only way they'll listen.

    Kill Bill Vol 2: 'Fuckin' with your cash is the only thing you kids seem to understand!'

      I'll just be the beacon of logic here; you canceling your pre-order will mean nothing. So many people will buy this game EA honestly couldn't care less that you protest.

      In fact, so many people have online in this day and age it's not an issue for buying the game new. I mean if you can't get your console online you can't even read this news. It's not hard; worst comes to worst you move your console to your router, hardwire it in and activate the code then moev it back. It's a complete non-issue.

      But in short, for every person who says they won't buy it in protest ten thousand will. That's just the way the wind is blowing, to refuse to buy it over this is cutting your nose off to spite the face; in the end you're the only loser in all this.

        True that my pre-order is probably going to be a drop in the pond in their sales - but I refuse to say 'Oh well, I won't make a difference, so I'll buy it anyway.' Even though I know this is wrong, and most likely a precursor to even worse behaviour of this type from developers.

        In much the same way as I'm boycotting Diablo 3 due to their 'online only' policy, I know I won't be a part of this. I'm surew there are people who are saying 'That's just the way the industry is going.' or 'You're over reacting.' Maybe, but the future implications are what bother me the most about this, as well as the fact people are willing to bend over and accept it.

          Do you honestly want to miss out on playing Arkham City in protest of soemthing that doesn't affect you? If get what you're trying to take a stand against, but that's just insane.

            I'll miss out an Arkham City. As someone who's been gaming for around 25 years, this reeks of wrong. That's just how strongly I feel about it - same with Diablo 3.

            I actually just phoned my local store and will be going in to cancel Arkham and move the funds to a Skyrim preorder. (I know, I haven't preordred Skyrim yet, I've been lazy)

              I'm contemplating the same. I was thinking of putting in a preorder this week. Now I'm seriously considering not buying the game at all.

              I've got plenty of other games to work through. That pile of shame isn't getting any smaller.

    I'm sorry to be the one to play devil's advocate; but how do people not have access to online in this day and age?

    Even if your console is nowhere near the internet in your house, or even if your house doesn't have it, why don't people just take their console to their nearest connection, use the code, and then go back to using it offline?

      I see what your saying, but its a massive pain in the A in my case, because I have to move a 32 inch TV too. The easier solution in my case is to cancel my 360 pre-order, and get the PS3 or PC version (due to having a wireless setup).

      Sure, most people have internet access these days - but it's the principle. Multiplayer 'passes' is one thing, but making single player content available ONLY with an internet connection is tantamount to bribery.

      I pay good money for games, and have an active internet connection - have done for the past 15 years. But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay full price for a game, only to have to go home and enter a code to download something that unlocks a feature that I've already paid for.

      If this is the sort of crap they're going to be pulling, just wait - we'll end up paying full price for a demo, and have to go home and unlock the game with a code.

      Sorry guys, no deal.

      I have a console, and I have the internet. Problem is my router is connected to our house's only phone port and it is all the way across the house.

      I haven't succumbed to the extortionate price of $70+ for a 360 wireless receiver, so have no other options.

      I would need to piggyback two 10m ethernet cables to reach my 360, and I am not going to do that because I have a dog that would eat it, and a toddler that would trip over it (and probably try to eat it too!) and a wife that would scream that it doesn't match the decor!

      I can't move the console closer, because the TV that comes with it is a staggering 40-something inch monster and there's nowhere to put it except where it currently resides.

      In short, I'm poop out of luck thanks to these ridiculous schemes where you only get 80% of a game out of the box.

        If you have a laptop and a wifi router, you can use internet connection sharing to hijack the laptop's wifi to connect the xbox to the interwebs.

          I might try this then. Its still annoying, but its better than my current option of getting 20meters of cable, or trailing 10 meters over my balcony.

            It works pretty well, surprisingly. I used it for a while before I got a wireless adapter. The only problem is that it restricts the NAT quite severely, so it makes multiplayer a bit of a problem if you were thinking of using it for that, too.

              Not really - I don't really game multi-player at all, which is why I would rather spend the $70 for a wireless router on another game instead.

    If you're buying pre-owned, then consider the $10 or 800 microsoft points your contribution to the developers, who otherwise wouldn't have ever gotten a sniff of the pure profits EB/JB/GameTraders/GAME would make from the trade-in.

    Also, if you have the energy to bitch about needing to put a code into your console, you have the energy to step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath, plug your ethernet cable into your console and redeem the damn code.

      Maybe read the other comments about why people don't have the net on their x-box. You'll sound more informed when you call people lazy.

        You can get really long Ethernet cables these days. True story.

          So buy the game new and then spend $10 on cable I wouldn't need otherwise. It's nice being a legitimate consumer. I'm sure pirates are buying Ethernet cables to play the full-game right now.

            Simply being a consumer does not give you the entitlement for every single little thing in an entertainment package to be tailored only for you. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Easy. But thousands of others will, and thousands of others won't mind redeeming a little code when they boot the game up.

              Your right, being a consumer doesn't mean I can expect them cater to my every whim. Their being a content producer doesn't mean their entitled to my purchase no matter how inconvenient they make it.

              I won't buy it until Steam has it on sale for $5 as a compromise. Maybe even wait for the GotY edition, which will hopefully have all the pre-order costumes (another pet-peeve).

                Also, you say I can't expect it to be tailored to me, but lets face it, its not tailored to anyone. It's just arguably less inconvenient for some people than others.

          Yes, and I hear those are excellent with hungry dogs and clumsy toddlers (and decor-conscious spouses)...

        Shouldn't you really be complaining here about how hard MS has made it to get your XBox online?

        Either you have to have a super long cable, or fork our $70 for a shitty wireless add-on.

        On the other hand, PS3 does wireless out of the box.

          I agree with this 100%, but until pretty recently it wasn't much of an issue because I don't really do multi-player. All of a sudden all these games are releasing online passes, forced installs, and patches and I'm wondering why I moved to consoles in the first place.

      PS: Are you saying the publishers don't get the same taste of the DLC that they do out of the game itself... and that Micro$oft/$ony don't take their own hefty cut out of digital sales?

      Proof, or I'll not believe you good sir.

        They may only get a taste of the profits, true, but it's much better than not getting anything from a pre-owned sale.

        I know which companies I would rather support.

      Peoples contribution as you call it are the original buyers who already payed for the lifetime of the item. The new users are simply replacing the old hence no extra people using the same copy. Why should the developers get money twice for the same item. Plus the new users might buy dlc or potentional sequals new if they like the game.

        Why should the retailers get the same money twice for the same item?

          Punish the retailer then. Threaten to withhold stock unless a cut of profits why punish the consumer.

            I'm a consumer. I'm fine with this. I'm not being punished at all.

              Yes you are because you no longer have full access to your content unless you have a online xbox. Also you can't sell in the future for full value and so on. Think of the larger picture of what these practices are doing to the industry and not just the here and now and yourself.

          You do realise that the retailer still has to pay for the game each time its traded in. They basically take a margin on the sale and resale. If developers offered the option (they could but won't), they could make the "double sale".

            Of course they wont they make more money this way. They sell psn credit cards etc at the stores and then the user buys the pass then has left over credit but not enough for something good so buys more credit from the stores to use online. Hence win win for stores and online psn store, xbox live etc thats why all those companies like these new passes pure and simple.

            I don't think it works like that.

            I think EB or GAME were recently advertising that if you returned your copy of RAGE within 7 days of launch, you could - wait for it - get 50% of it's value back.

            They then put it on the shelf as pre-owned for like $5 less.

            Maths time.

            New game is sold at $100.
            Is returned, costs EB $50
            Resold for $95
            Total profit: $145 for EB

            Assuming the game cost EB initially...what...$50? That's a $95 profit off a single game.

            If the game is returned 8, not 7 days later? Hell, they'll buy it for $30. Now that's a $115 profit off one game.

            So Developer gets $50 profit from EB. EB gets ($95) or $115 profit.

            OR! Everyone buys it new. Developer gets $100, EB gets $100.

            Gee, I wonder why developers are trying to make it so people buy it new, or give them $10 if it's second hand. It's a toughie.

              I'm pretty sure last time I checked, if you traded in the first week, you got closer to 80%. Not sure though as a I usually don't trade.

              In fact, I think EB has a returns policy of 1 week anyway, so couldn't you get 100% back?

                Maybe, but they're concerned with more stores than EB. If you add EB, GameTraders, JB, GAME, and then all the American outlets who do the same thing, you realise just how massive the lost profits are for developers because of this second hand business. (Even if you want to argue that they're potentially people who wouldn't buy it otherwise [a la the piracy argument] I'd bet at least 50% of those people would buy it first hand).

                Games should be cheaper, no argument here.

                But the second hand market is having a real effect on the entire industry, and I don't believe that any of it is good.

                  If they wanted to they could make a deal with the stores the just choose not too. There is to much money in this option.

    Easy: either the new game comes down to a price I'm willing to pay (over time, I don't mind waiting).

    Or I'll still get it used and don't play the extra characters.

    Most likely the second as the value of used games should decrease because of this.

    This sucks.

    What about the situation of having 2 PS3s with a different PSN on each in the one household? One guy buys the game and plays it, then other other guy plays it afterwoods.

    Are you saying that the 2nd guy can't access the entire game and Catwoman will be cut out?

    Utter bullshit if you ask me.

    This game is going to be a major success without fail. So now people aren't allowed to borrow games from their mates or family? Every single person in the world has to have a new copy or pay a fee to play the entire game?


    This industry and companies like EA are getting greedier and greedier.

      Devil's advocate here:

      Borrowing the game from a friend is the same as getting it via free rental, or buying second hand for $0.

      As far as they're concerned, this way, to access a non-essential part of the game but still a pretty shiny part, you pay your $10 to the developers. That way, while they didn't get you to fork out for a new game yourself (lost sale), they do get $10 from you.

        So everyone in a single household has to buy a new game or pay DLC $ to play the entire game?

        Gone are the days of buying a game for the household and everyone playing it with their own account huh?

        @oggob If its locked to your PSN, can another PSN account access the content even if PSN1 has downloaded it to the PS3? If that works, then its not that bad.
        Will have to try that.

          Yes... Main Account downloads content to Console 1, any other account on this console can use this content.

          Main Account added to Console 2, downloads same content, again anyone can use this content as long as the Main Account remains on that console.

          So two PS3 consoles in the same house is not an issue, same with game sharing if you trust the person, 2 examples...

          My brother purchased Child Of Eden on his PS3, I downloaded the game onto my PS3, play under my account with no issue, I haven't bought the game (although, I do plan too).

          "My Friend" purchased a refused classification game from New Zealand earlier this year, the code that was supplied didn't work for his Australian account, he then used the code on his New Zealand account and downloaded the content. He plays the game under his Australian account with no issues and has access to all that same downloaded content.

            But, there are instances where the downloaded content is locked only to that specific account.

            An example is Assassins Creed II. I bought the collector's edition, with came with some codes to unlock a few extra locations. My housemate could not access these locations via his own PSN account, even though he played it on my PS3.

            I thought it was a cheap shot then, and I still think so.

      On the subject of two consoles in the same house, this is a non issue for the PS3 as the person that purchases the game and redeems the code can simply create their same account on the second console, download the unlock key again and the 2nd person can play the content under their own account.

      I'm sure the same thing happens with the XBOX, as I've heard you can move your account from console to console if need be.

      Also, I've seen a few people mention EA in this, this has nothing to do with EA, the game is being distributed by Warner Bros.

        I don't know about PS3, but I can't recommend moving your account from one X-Box to another, as you'll lose access to all of your DLC content on the first machine. I tried doing it last year with Mass Effect 2 and Borderlands.

          You can transfer the content licences for DLC from one xbox to another from this page:

            This transfers all of your games DLC, not one specific title. And it is a transfer, you can't then use that content on both. I ended up having to call tech support to transfer it back.

    I was super excited about this game until this morning.

    Now I'm seriously considering just canceling my special edition pre-order and just getting the vanilla GOTY edition of the game sometime next year... or whenever...

    Not that it matters. This game is already getting 10/10 reviews. It's going to sell like hotcakes, and the developers could make the entire final act paid DLC and it would still make millions for them.

    This should be a null issue for Australians. Import from ozgameshop or the like and you'll save $40 off the SECONDHAND price in JB/EB. All the content, and the devs get something.

      It is not a null issue because some people do not have access on xbox due to no online ability with some xbox 360's. Second if your ok with this then whats to come next, think of the bigger picture.

    So much anger on this!

    If you can't afford the internet, why do you have a 360 and a huge tv?

    If you can't connect your console to the net for the five minutes it takes to apply the code (cables are cheap, even long ones) or can't afford a wireless adaptor, why are you buying collectors editions/day one releases?

    Is this the correct path to encourage people to buy retail copies of a high-profile, well-made AAA game?

    It's a damn sight better than always online DRM which can make the game unplayable, and the Catwoman missions are optional sidequests.

    It may be inconvenient for some people, but they are including as standard something that other developers would put in the collectors edition or a day-one add-on.

    And for those who choose to buy second-hand games, as with cars and books, you get what you pay for.

      What about the times when you could lend a game out to a mate when you finished it. For the past couple of years I've been giving my 14 yo nephew good single players games to have once I've finished them. Only holding to absolute faves or games I play multiplayer on. He has the internet but now has to pay these greedy pricks to get the complete single player experience. I've always bought games new and have never traded any in but I should be able to give/lend something I've bought to someone as it was intended.

        Stories like this make me think the industry is being incredibly short sighted. As a kid, I could only afford 2 or 3 games a year, and only if they were older discounted titles. If my mates and I hadn't swapped, I don't think we'd be the rabid consumers we are today - I purchase around 30 games a year (around 15 on release (that's not including Steam sales which I've only taken advantage of in the last year).


          Never bought a preowned title. I think I've rented one game my entire life...on PS1.
          Everything I buy is new. This game is going to make shitloads of money regardless. I have no problems with a small fee to play multiplayer, but for single player its a shortsighted view based on greed.

          Time to bring back cartridges and 26 character password saves.

      Your argument is because you can afford item A and B you should be able to buy item C really?

    What about people without online access? Are they second rate customers?

      No you are first rate like everyone else.

      The problem is most overlook the fact that there are people in regions of Australia that simply do not have acceptable Internet access. And I speak of those in outback regions.

      Yes, I know people like you exist where even statalite Internet can be problematic.

    Wait for the goty edition!
    Don't buy it on xbox 360 either, paying for online just encourages the money grubbing companies.

    BAA was a good game for its time, but BAC is hardly an improvement anyway, it looks like BAA 1.5.

    Maybe one day we'll get a more comprehensive batman game, where u can drive and fly around Gotham City (not a ridiculous arkham slum) in his vehicles, choose missions from the batcave, coop with mates, and maybe even play as some of the villains with batman going after you.

    After playing BAA a few times i can wait a year for the few extra combos and gadgets.

    If they want to reduce 2nd hand sales they should make interesting open world free roam games you can play with friends, and meaningful dlc every once in a while, e.g an improved RDR style game.

    Of course the pirated version will be superior, no DRM & all content unlocked.. thanks for teaching us that good guys finish last.

      You must have a short attention span; Rocksteady set up the first game so that if you pirated it then the game would detect it and deactivate Batman's ability to glide the first time you needed it to continue. So simply put pirates can't play the game because the game is designed to make itself unplayable if it's not a legitimate copy.

      So good guys finsh last and bad guys find their kneecaps removed two steps after the start.

        You know this strategy only stopped people for about 2hrs right? It was arguably effective because some people seemed to respond by going - how funny, screw it, I'll buy it. You can get playable versions from torrents right now.

        Yeah it worked as well as the "always online" DRM variant - briefly.

    These guys sure are milking it for all it's worh. Utter bs.

    When when publishers learn that second hand gaming is hear to stay.

    And I do wish people would stop playing the "think of the developer" card. Developers are paid *during* the construction of the game. If not, then there are grounds for legal action (so Team Bondai and Rockstar will get their just desearts - don't start with me about them).

    The fact which most over look (are simply do not want to know about) is that the majority of the cost of a game goes to the publisher - the entity that only advertises and has little to no hand in the construction.

    So this business of locking functionality if the game purchases second hand - it is only price gouging of the publisher, not the developer.

    Finally, a game is a form of good. Thus it is unacceptable to charge a fee if one buys it second hand. I do not do it with clothes, books or even my car so there is nothing I see that a game should be treated any different.

    In the end, it is just price gouging. There is no support for the developer.

    If I am wrong, go ahead, prove me wrong. Just do so with a serious source I and others can access and not just one's own word for it.

    This money still goes to the publisher/developers anyway. Retail doesn't work like they are insinuating it does. The stores buy however many copies of the games from the publishers and that's when they get paid.

    They don't send off $50 - $90 dollars every time somebody buys a developer's game at the store. These companies have made their money by the time you see it on the shelf.

    I just had another thought.

    If the publisher (or the developer at the same time) goes bust and getting the game second hand becomes the only option how is one suppose to unlock the restricted features?

      You don't. Same if you find a second hand copy of a game years later that you could not find when it came out etc. These online things can be shut down at any time by sony, xbox etc so whos say anybody will have acces to these contents in years to come.

    So how long till games go to a "pay $4.99 a minute" model with every single game?

    Hell i saw a game today that requires you to buy little figures to unlock the characters in game... wtf?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now