Why no one should get Batman Arkham City (important)

[Psychotic Ninja]

First of all, ever sense I've first heard of Arkham City, and watched the trailer, I was hooked, I just beaten Arkham Asylum (got it used) and like everyone else, I've been waiting, and waiting, "Is it October yet?" I would ask myself. Today, I learned some troubling news, news that made me not want to get Arkham City, no matter what. The news that I learned is that you need an Online Pass to unlock part of the story. In other words, you won't have a complete copy of the game, even though you payed full price, unless you cough up another $10 per person (that wants to play on another account/system) just to get the full game. For more information, I recommend watching this youtube video.

 

 

FAd8ElGvobg

[Eedo Baba]

You get the Catwoman content for free with a new copy of the game, so yes, it IS included when paying full price. It's just there to discourage consumers from buying used copies.

[Scorpia]

You get the Catwoman content for free with a new copy of the game, so yes, it IS included when paying full price. It's just there to discourage consumers from buying used copies.

 

somebody's watched Extra Creditz

[Psychotic Ninja]

Also, people are claiming the Catwoman parts of the main story to be "DLC".

[Lord Sinister]

I was under the impression that this restriction only applied to used copies of the game. EA's had their $10 reactivation thing for used copies for a while now haven't they? I'm sure I read about a similar system before...I can't remember what it's called. I have a feeling it may be a console only thing for that last one. No idea what it's like with regards to Arkham City.

[Psychotic Ninja]

They claimed it's to enhance gaming, and only for used copies, but it's all been lies, hell the Catwoman bits are claimed "DLC" but when has real DLC came with the game?

[Lord Sinister]

Well apparently it comes with all new copies. ALL new copies. No restriction to special editions, collector's editions or what have you. It's an interesting way of making sure that people buy new copies rather than used copies. It may be DLC, but if it comes with all new copies, I honestly don't see the issue here.

[Obsidian]

This isn't that new. Mortal Kombat did a similar thing, except you got the code with the game upon purchase. You would have to purchase it separately if you bought it used and wanted to play online. However, from that video you posted, it looks like you get one code that you can redeem (not that it's much, but it doesn't necessitate the purchase of additional codes if you don't want to share the game). At least Gamestop isn't ripping open the boxes and removing the code before you buy it... or so I think. It wouldn't surprise me. I've stopped shopping at Gamestop ever since they refused to sell shrink-wraped copies of a new game (sorry, once that's gone, as far as I'm concerned, the game is no longer new).

[Psychotic Ninja]

Well apparently it comes with all new copies. ALL new copies. No restriction to special editions, collector's editions or what have you. It's an interesting way of making sure that people buy new copies rather than used copies. It may be DLC, but if it comes with all new copies, I honestly don't see the issue here.

 

The problem is, it's already in the game, it's not DLC, it's part of the main story, and you have to pay extra money to unlock that part of the main story. It's like this, let's say Half-Life was a brand new game today, and let's say you got it, you pay $60 on the first day, you get home, you put the disk in, you're playing, you're loving it, you go through the chapter "Blast Pit" (first boss fight), then all of all of a sudden the game pauses, and asks for another $10 to continue the story, how would you feel? Now let's say you pay up, you beat the game, now let's say a friend wants to borrow your copy, to see how good it is, or to see if there computer can run it, or what ever, or maybe your brother wants to borrow it, they get through "Blast Pit" and then the game pauses again, and asks for another $10, what then?

[Axeldeath]

I think of it more like, you get to Blast Pit, it pauses and then you can either pay up some cash or skip the chapter.

[Psychotic Ninja]

Either way, the problem/question still is "Why should I/someone pay extra for something they already have?"

[Lord Sinister]

I've found the game for around £25 on Amazon.co.uk. If it was around £6 less, then it would be roughly £19. £19 seems a little cheap for a game like this which is new. I don't think the price has been artificially inflated here based on the 'DLC'. I will admit though, I don't know if this DLC thing applies to PC copies as the game isn't out for PC yet, I'll have to check.

 

I will say though that DLC is just a word here. This seems to be literally 'new copy DLC' that is a part of the game that you only pay extra money for IF you buy a used copy.

[Axeldeath]

The thing is, they're are making you pay money for something that is part of game. You pay $10 to unlock part of the game because you had the audacity to buy the game used. It's ridiculous and I have no idea why people are defending the practice.

[Lord Sinister]

The thing is, they're are making you pay money for something that is part of game. You pay $10 to unlock part of the game because you had the audacity to buy the game used. It's ridiculous and I have no idea why people are defending the practice.

 

There's a good reason for doing that, if the game is purchased second-hand, usually in that scenario no money goes to the developer for that sale. Yes the sale of the original copy gave some money to the developer, however because that other person is buying it used, it's a potential new-copy sale that the developers don't get.

[Psychotic Ninja]

Which is true, but do they really need more money like that? Also, should someone who only buys used copies because they're on a tight (college) budget be punished like that?

[Axeldeath]

What right have the developers got that allows them to make more money off a product after they've been paid for it? A person has bought that game, they have the right to sell it once they have no use for it, why should the dev be allowed to devalue the product they're selling?

[Kirkreng]

Well I guess its THEIR product, they made it. Think about it this way, you spend lots of time and effort into making game. Then you wouldn't want other people to sell your game and stealing potential customers from you either. You make the game, so you should be the only one allowed to sell the game.

 

So I see where they are coming from, but I think this is the wrong way to go about it.

[Psychotic Ninja]

They're just hurting themselves by doing this though.

[Kirkreng]

Themselves and their customers.

[Lord Sinister]

To be honest, I don't see how they're hurting themselves here. Or their customers who buy new copies. The price doesn't appear to be higher than I'd expect it to be. It looks normal. You only pay extra if you buy second hand, which originally wouldn't have given the developers any sale money to begin with.