Why no one should get Batman Arkham City (important)

[Kirkreng]

Well if you have to pay 10 bucks extra for something you already bought, you pay more. And that gives the company a bad/greedy image.

[Eedo Baba]

Well if you have to pay 10 bucks extra for something you already bought, you pay more. And that gives the company a bad/greedy image.

 

Just going to add that this almost certainly isn't a decision of Rocksteady (the developer). Warner Brothers (the publisher) probably (late in the process) demanded that they separate part of the game for this code system, so that customers are more likely to buy the game new. Generally, the creatives at the developer don't choose to do something like this. It comes from the accountants/marketing executives at the publisher.

[Lord Sinister]

Well if you have to pay 10 bucks extra for something you already bought, you pay more. And that gives the company a bad/greedy image.

 

But....it doesn't look like they're selling the game at an unusually expensive or inflated price? At least not the PC version.

[Kirkreng]

So you get this code with the game for the 60bucks you pay? If so then I think I misunderstood and it is actually not that bad.

[Axeldeath]

Well a lot of people didn't.

[Lord Sinister]

Well a lot of people didn't.

 

Indeed, I read about this on Kotaku. Sounds like all people need to do if they didn't receive a code is to contact Warner Bros. customer services department. I assume they'll receive free replacement codes (as they were supposed to receive them in the first place) through some sort of verification process to check that the account the game is used on is the first to have that particular copy perhaps.

 

http://community.batmanarkhamcity.com/news/latest/item/200-message-from-warner-bros--catwoman#

 

I'd be quite surprised if they charged customers for this mistake.

[Axeldeath]

That's beside the point anyway, Do movie companies release DVDs with a code to unlock the special features? The only reason they're doing this is because gamers are such apologists when it comes to defending stupid policies that will have negative effects on them.

[Lord Sinister]

That's beside the point anyway, Do movie companies release DVDs with a code to unlock the special features? The only reason they're doing this is because gamers are such apologists when it comes to defending stupid policies that will have negative effects on them.

 

I'd agree if it looked like they were actually charging more money for it with brand new copies.

[Axeldeath]

The publisher has already gotten money from a sale, why do you think they have the right to take back even more money after the sale? That's like going out and buying a Ford but when you sell it the buyer has to send Ford 10% of the original price? Why is that fair? Why would you defend such idiotic practices?

 

-edit- I've heard the excuse that second hand sales put companies out of business, well what about the retailers? Why do you feel such sympathy for the developers but then not give a thought to the retailers who's primary source of income is used sales?

[Lord Sinister]

The publisher has already gotten money from a sale, why do you think they have the right to take back even more money after the sale? That's like going out and buying a Ford but when you sell it the buyer has to send Ford 10% of the original price? Why is that fair? Why would you defend such idiotic practices?

 

-edit- I've heard the excuse that second hand sales put companies out of business, well what about the retailers? Why do you feel such sympathy for the developers but then not give a thought to the retailers who's primary source of income is used sales?

 

Because the retailers profit regardless of whether the sale is a used copy or a new copy, but they didn't make the game. If they sell a new copy, money goes to both the retailer and the developer, but if they sell a used copy, none of the money goes to the developer.

[Axeldeath]

Retailers get hardly any of the profit off of a game. If it weren't for used sales we wouldn't have large retail stores any more.

[Kirkreng]

The publisher has already gotten money from a sale, why do you think they have the right to take back even more money after the sale? That's like going out and buying a Ford but when you sell it the buyer has to send Ford 10% of the original price? Why is that fair? Why would you defend such idiotic practices?

 

-edit- I've heard the excuse that second hand sales put companies out of business, well what about the retailers? Why do you feel such sympathy for the developers but then not give a thought to the retailers who's primary source of income is used sales?

Because everyone who borrows a game or buys a game second hand is a lost customer for the Developer. And I don't care that much about retailers(probably because I buy everything online) because they only sell what other people made. The developers made the game, they put a lot of time, effort and energy in to making it. They deserve to profit from every sale their game makes. The retailer only sells it, why should they be the only one profiting from something they have not made(referring to second hand copies)?

[Axeldeath]

And I don't care that much about retailers(probably because I buy everything online) because they only sell what other people made.

 

Where would people buy games if there was nowhere that sells them? Steam is a retailer too y'know. If people couldn't buy something then how do the devs get anything? Do you also believe that Supermarkets don't deserve any money? How about Clothing shops? What about your local hardware store?

The fact of the matter is that the retailer has bought a product from the developer, they own that game and can do whatever they like with it. The dev HAS profited, by your logic the retailer should give any money it makes from selling the game onto the developer.

 

They deserve to profit from every sale their game makes

 

Seriously, they do. they get money every time a retailer buys games off of them. A second hand sale is not a lost sale, it is merely a potential sale which is impossible to measure. Potential and actual are two different things, the dev deserves every actual sale that the game gets. They do not however deserve potential sales because that is just plain silly.

[Kirkreng]

And I don't care that much about retailers(probably because I buy everything online) because they only sell what other people made.

 

Where would people buy games if there was nowhere that sells them? Steam is a retailer too y'know. If people couldn't buy something then how do the devs get anything? Do you also believe that Supermarkets don't deserve any money? How about Clothing shops? What about your local hardware store?

The fact of the matter is that the retailer has bought a product from the developer, they own that game and can do whatever they like with it. The dev HAS profited, by your logic the retailer should give any money it makes from selling the game onto the developer.

I am not saying retailers don't deserve to make money. And like you said they bought the product and if they buy one copy they should be able to sell that copy once. And Steam is a completely different story, Steam doesn't sell games second hand.

 

They deserve to profit from every sale their game makes

 

Seriously, they do. they get money every time a retailer buys games off of them. A second hand sale is not a lost sale, it is merely a potential sale which is impossible to measure. Potential and actual are two different things, the dev deserves every actual sale that the game gets. They do not however deserve potential sales because that is just plain silly.

It is a lost sale for the developer. Because if someone buys a game second hand and play it through(a single player game anyway), said person will most likely not buy the game. However if they cannot buy the game second hand but they still want to play it they are forced to buy a new copy at full price and the developer receives the money they deserve.

[Psychotic Ninja]

First, I'm still against the $10 for Catwoman (some, or at least one person, is/are calling it "project ten dollars"). Second, I'm throwing a monkey wrench here: Console version of the game is $60 new (normal/average price nowadays), but pre-order it through Steam (coming in about 3 weeks) and it'll cost you $50 or $40 depending on if you already own Arkham Asylum (which I do) or LEGO Batman. The question now is "Is it still worth fighting when the Steam/PC version is a lot cheaper even if you don't own LEGO Batman or Arkham Asylum?"

[Kirkreng]

I still don't think it needs to be fought 60$ or not :/

[Psychotic Ninja]

So, long story short, I was at Best Buy debating about Arkham City's Catwoman "DLC", one thing lead to another, and he thinks that sidequests should cost extra.

[Pinkie Pie]

I pre ordered it so I got the Catwoman stuff. I don't think it's a good idea, but Catwomans actually not that essential to the story anyway. Only about 10% of the game is played with her. More importantly, I'm pissed that the UK gets a metal case when they pre order the game at their GameStop, AND they got all the better DLC deals.

 

Also, they're more than likely gonna sell the Catwoman episodes on XBLA and PSN anyway.

[Axeldeath]

Only 10%

[Psychotic Ninja]

I pre ordered it so I got the Catwoman stuff. I don't think it's a good idea, but Catwomans actually not that essential to the story anyway. Only about 10% of the game is played with her. More importantly, I'm pissed that the UK gets a metal case when they pre order the game at their GameStop, AND they got all the better DLC deals.

 

Also, they're more than likely gonna sell the Catwoman episodes on XBLA and PSN anyway.

 

 

She's still part of the main story, true, you still can beat the game without her, but did you truly beat the game? I'm going to bring up Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy 7 (O.K. sequel to Final Fantasy 7 staring Vincent), there's a small portion of the game where you control Cait Sith, it doesn't add much to the main story, but it's still part of the main story, not "DLC" or a sidequest (I was told that the Catwoman part of the main story is a sidequest), and most importantly, it did not cost extra, even if bought used (which I did). This is no different than with Catwoman being in Arkham City.