Arkham City's Online Pass: Our Worst Fears Realized
by Jake Weston, posted on 14 October 2011 / 12,789 Views
Back in August, I wrote an editorial in response to Rage's use of an online pass, which locked out hidden, single-player areas for players who bought the game used. While I wasn't completely opposed to the idea, I wrote about how this practice could lead to even more strict implementations for online passes, perhaps even forcing us to pay extra for extra single-player portions of our games.
Well, it looks like this is happening sooner that expected. Batman: Arkham City's online pass locks out Catwoman as a playable character for used purchasers, meaning they must pay extra if they wish to play as her. Not only is this locking her out of the challenge maps, but her sections of the single-player campaign as well. Normally, I wouldn't be too against this idea, if Catwoman hadn't already been advertised as a huge part of the single-player campaign for over a year now.
From the very beginning of Arkham City's public reveal, it has been made apparent that Catwoman is one of the central characters of Arkham City's single-player mode. More than a simple side-character, Catwoman's presence is essential to the plot of the game. Now, I have yet to play the Arkham City, but I'm assuming that fairly important details of the plot will be missing for players who have not redeemed (or can not redeem) the code that unlocks Catwoman. If she is such a central character to the story, as Rocksteady has made us assume, then players who do not have access to her may miss very large chunks of important plot information.
Another valid point already brought up by annoyed gamers is that even players who buy the game new won't be able to access the Catwoman content if they do not have an online connection. While the vast majority of console players already have their consoles online, there are still a large percentage of those who don't. I myself have one of the older Xbox 360's, which has no built in wi-fi, and is currently too far away from a modem to get it connected. These players, who show their loyalty and dedication by buying the game on day one, will not get rewarded.
I appreciate that Rocksteady and Warner Bros. are trying to incentivise new game purchases, but this is not the way to do it. Gamers aren't being rewarded, theyr'e being punished. Already considering both Robin and Nightwing will only be available as DLC characters (for $6.99, or 560 Microsoft points a piece), a lot of people won't be getting the full Arkham City experience. Pre-ordering and buying new are no longer incentives, they're demands.
This is only one character away from locking out entire main single-player portions for used players. Can you imagine if they had locked out areas to play as Batman if you bought Arkham City used? For another example, what if the infamous "No Russian" level from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 had been locked out for used purchasers? This is the direction we are heading folks, and it's looking like there isn't much we can do to stop it. We have to try. There are good ways to reward players for buying games new (Rage being a recent example), but locking out already promised content is not the way. We can't stand for this, and we have to let publishers know that.
Related Articles
54 Comments
Only makes it easier to wait for the goty edition or a steam sale with dlc and pre-order content included. There are plenty of other things to play atm.
It's what I have been doing even before all the online pass crap. I am too lazy to buy off ebay, and refuse to give gamestop another dime. Plus when I pay the 20 dollars for the reduced price version, the devs still get my money, rather than some shitty company that runs off of screwing consumers and developers alike.
- 0
So, my thoughts: 1) it doesn't look good for this site to go from titles like "Arkham City Online Pass Unlocks Catwoman" to "Arkham City: Our Worst Fears Realized"!!!11!1! I mean, I don't like it either, but c'mon, it just looks embarrassing. 2) I view this as all poor business practice that shows where the heart of these companies are at: $$$ (I know I know, you are all saying "no duh!") when a company should really make you feel rewarded and as if you are getting more value from them than anybody else (even though they are still making a big haul off you). Whatever happened to treating people with respect as opposed to blaming the consumer and all but giving them the finger? I still largely avoid games with DLC because I disagree with the idea of it. I feel like I'm from a dying breed. Well, at least my work field still knows what it means to respect our clientele...even though we often aren't respected back.
This is total bullshit. How can anything called "ONLINE pass" lock out anything that's not ONLINE! I couldn't care less about multiplayer because I don't play multiplayer, but I've always hated the idea of online pass. It's nothing but a way to screw people out of money and stomp all over people's ownership rights. But now they're locking out portions of the single player game unless you pay for an online pass? What's next, full game codes that make games worthless in the secondary market? Sadly I can see this happening soon and there's nothing we can do about it. Pretty soon we won't own any games we buy, it will be like paying for the privilege of playing the game and once we're done with it we won't be able to sell it or even let a friend barrow it. It's bullshit.
The only thing we can do about it is to speak with our dollars and be as vocal as possible with our distaste in the online pass practice. What gets me riled up is what's worse, soon we won't see very many online passes, but rather season passes that don't unlock things permanently, but temporarily, meaning you'll have to renew your pass in order to access the locked content. This is essentially what most eastern MMO's are adopting and what will most likely become very popular in the west(due to how much of a rip off it is to consumers and how much publishers can increase revenue).
- +1
@ IceHedge
I'm all for speaking out to publishers and using our money to express our opinion. But for every gamer that is pissed off and willing to do act there are probably a thousand gamers who don't care or don't know and who will buy these games without a peep. That's the sad Truth. No matter how much it pisses us off, there is little consequence to the publishers. Even those who are pissed off will probably break down and buy the game or the online pass. In the end gamers want to play great games regardless of the cost of an online pass and the publishers know it.
- +1
Don't really have much to say but AFAIK they're calling it the "VIP Pass", not "Online Pass".
- 0
This practice should be illegal, and anyone who supports it is a traitor to their interests as a consumer, and a traitor to their fellow consumers.
This really sucks. I want to play this game but I just can't get behind this kind of crap, so I am going to skip it.
I was just coming to say that it's moments like this when I hate my fellow gamers... But I saw surprisingly few defenders of this horrible practice and I changed my mind about what I was going to say. I may actually have some faith left in my fellow gamers after all. Publishers don't need you to defends their interests, they have more than enough money and influence to do that themselves. Publishers don't care about your interests, you shouldn't care about theirs either.
Likely going to rent the game down the road, so I must say that while the online pass may be good in the short run, you must keep in mind aftermarket values. Think about it: eventually all online servers for a given console will cease to function, it has for the Xbox and Dreamcast already, with PS2 probably following in the next year or so. This means that any online content will be inaccessible, and I don't think developers will want to find a workaround because of the obsolete nature of the console. Solely online content is acceptable, but it would be a nightmare for single player content. Could you imagine that, maybe four or five years later, Catwoman would never be playable in Arkham City, even though you did purchase it new down the road? That exposition would just be lost in a sea of oblivion because you couldn't download a key, and not because you didn't want to, but because it didn't exist anymore?
wow... i can understand making used purchasers pay a fee to access online play...after all servers are not free. But, off-line content is just bullshit. I usually buy my games off of Ebay to save cash and now I have to figure in the cost of this one time code too? ugh.
The sad thing is, most games use p2p-based solutions anyway and they're practically free. And whatever other costs there may be involved, I think the publisher should be ready to pay for the upkeep if they are willing to make multiplayer a selling point. If you aren't willing to pay for multiplayer upkeep, don't put it in the game in the first place.
- 0
why? because studios realize that they can penny and dime you for every content if they can. sooner or later, you will get the most bareboned single experience for 60 dollars, and have to pay through the nose for everything else.... oh wait, it's already happening, look at Age of Empire. frankly, the industry just didn't learn the lesson from the last collapse, time to weed out them again.
Fuck these greedy corporations. They've been fucking with our games and with us for a while now.
nickel and dime baby, but I buy new so that doesn't bother me herp derp
The sounder approach would be an online pass for the full content of the game... reducing the value of pre owned to the value of the disc itself... basically selling players an online activated licence and not a portion of the game. Digital copies are the same price as as store copies, so I really don't see what would be wrong there... it'll just eradicate the preowned market. (then again, lending games to friends is part of the experience too... same as bringing it over to play... and not having to configure your account to their machine ^^)
I want to take a stand against this because I think it's bullshit but......it's Batman. IT'S BATMAN!! I'm powerless to resist.
It's a step too far if online pass locks you out of story mode core elements. My personal view of online pass is that it's fine to have it for content that requires the publisher to maintain a particular service (online co-op / multi player for instance). Stuff that is played offline should be off limits for online pass (online pass is a misnomer). I bought AA used, I rate it 7.5/10. I was probably going to buy AC used too. Now it'll be even cheaper used because it's re-sale value has been massively slashed. I won't be paying the catwoman ransom either. The game will stand or fall on its merits playing as Batman. If the game is broken without Catwoman then I'll probably give it a miss. Lots of other great games out there that I want to buy new.
@Jake Weston How are the annoyed gamers voicing out their displeasure if they don't have internet?.... They have internet and they are the problem.
Wonderful. Just wonderful. I think it's crap that used copies won't have the full game but what's really annoying is that you'll have to be online the whole damn time! I don't know what universe some live in but not everyone is connected to the internet 24/7...And if I want to take my laptop with me and play the game outside, in our summer house, on a vacation etc. I guess I'll have to get a mobile broadband...
Oh and for the record all these whiners claiming they won't be getting the game were likely buying the game used...guess what, the developer doesn't care, you were never going to give them a SINGLE PENNY to begin with. Cya later kids, have fun staring at your TV screen while everyone enjoys what is likely to be an amazing game.
The developer and publisher should care. What if fewer people purchase knowing that the game effectively has no value used? This system is immoral and should be illegal, and any developer who supports it is anti-consumer. You are anti-consumer, and your business will suffer for it if these attitudes are allowed to prevail.
- +1
There are many games out there that get my money cause they dont uses shitty practices like this. Bought Dark Souls new cause it didnt have a gay ass online pass. I buy most of my games new and the ones buy used are the ones that are old. You shouldnt have to be forced to have an internet connection to unlock part of the game you spent 60 dollars on. Thanks to sheep like you we will continue to be milked and used.
- 0
Lame. Guess I'm not getting Batman now too. I won't buy games when devs who pull these lame publicity stunts. However the practice is all too common. If you want people to buy your game new, just make it so good people buy it at launch. Simple as that. This is why games like Halo, Uncharted, Gears, Zelda, and Forza sell well. Want to lock stuff out, lock minimal stuff out for limited edition owners. Don't penalize, reward!
Oh well, Add this game to the "Download it on my jailbroken console for free" list.
I buy a lot of games and movies because I like to support the industry, but the game industry, like the music industry, should realize they are competing with "free".
- -6
Why aren't you getting Batman? So far it is better than most of the games on your 'list of good games' ... It is better than Halo, better than Forza, that is for sure. Since this game is better than those, shouldn't YOU be buying this new? Although, guess what kiddo. The fact that you were most likely going to buy this used anyways, you passing on it now means the Developer losses absolutely nothing. You buy it used, they get nothing. You don't but it at all, they get nothing. In the end, YOU lose due to your arrogance and ignorance.
- 0
Why aren't you getting Batman? So far it is better than most of the games on your 'list of good games' ... It is better than Halo, better than Forza, that is for sure. Since this game is better than those, shouldn't YOU be buying this new? Although, guess what kiddo. The fact that you were most likely going to buy this used anyways, you passing on it now means the Developer losses absolutely nothing. You buy it used, they get nothing. You don't but it at all, they get nothing. In the end, YOU lose due to your arrogance and ignorance.
- 0
Well, I can sympathize with the publisher but I don't think this is going to go over well. People raged about the lack of being able to delete high scores in that RE DS game.
http://www.petitionduweb.com/Petition_annulation_du_pass_solo_pour_batman_arkham_city-10085.html PLEASE SIGN FOR THE Cancellation of pass solo Batman Arkham City
HEY I MADE A COMMENT ON THE WEB. I HOPE THE DEVELOPER READS THIS AND CHANGES HIS MIND ABOUT IT!! I'LL BE WAITING!!
STOP PIRATING GAMES! oh wait... that's not gonna happen... SO INSTEAD LETS BOYCOTT!! ... oh wait... we're not united... SO INSTEAD LETS BUY THE GAME LATER ON WHEN PRICES DROP... oh wait we're not patient... OH NO THE EVIL DEVELOPER WHO JUST WANTS TO MAKE OUR FAVORITE GAME IS GOING TO WIN! OH NO! So just don't play it and shut up. They're going to keep trying to make money, and gamers are going to pirate and be cheapskates. It's a vicious cycle.
Sigh, other than out of print games, why would anyone by used? It is just not worth. The used game business really needs to go away as it is destroying the industry.
Sigh, other than out of print games, why would anyone by used? It is just not worth. The used game business really needs to go away as it is destroying the industry.
There is actually a way to avoid all this: not buying games that use pesky DRM systems.
A week after Gears of War 3 came out, there were two full rows of used copies of Gears of War 3 for $54.99 at my local GameStop. I know more than a few gamers who will beat a game and sell it within a month because that is when they get the most in resale value. If the game developers are doing this "online pass" then they have done their homework and are telling GameStop that the used market may not be used as much if they (game developers) don't get a cut for the product they made, which GameStop has the honor to sell. Think about it, every sale of a used game means 100% of that money goes to the retailer. I cannot blame game developers for doing this. They are only looking out for their bottom line, which is to turn a profit on the products they make so they can continue making them for our entertainment.
I really don't mind things like this. People buy used games all the time from some ripoff store, and don't realize it's often cheaper to buy new on Amazon or some other site like that. It pisses me off because I'll see a friend who buys a game for $20 used at GameStop, and it's $15 on Amazon (this happened with Borderlands just a couple weeks ago). What happens: no money goes to the people who make the games, so they don't have that extra bit of resources to make another great game. Then my friend gets ripped off, and who profits? The used game store that provides absolutely no value in a situation like this. Seriously, most games are slightly overproduced so they don't run out in order to maximize sales. Better to have some extra copies out there than lose sales. This results in steep discounts after a period of time. Example: Right now, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is $20 on Amazon for a brand new copy. It's $35 for a used copy at GameStop. This is why I think we would all benefit from these used game sales dying out. A store like Gamers is nice because you can go find an old, rare game for pocket change. Sorry about the rant. Just really hate companies that are based completely off of BS.
Gamestop is destroying the industry; this is the aftermath of used game sales. Heavy rain has sold an equal amount new and used and the publisher only got to see 50% of revenues which is BS. I buy my PS3 games new (unless I discover a very old title where new is not possible) so this doesn't impact me.
if the industry is being so hurt by Gamestop, than they should just stop letting gamestop sell their games new. Not screw over the consumers.
- -1
if the industry is being so hurt by Gamestop, than they should just stop letting gamestop sell their games new. Not screw over the consumers.
- -1
Iveyboi, I feel offended by the implication that all PS3 owners are loners. Apparently something like playing a game on a friend's console or borrowing it to play it on your own console doesn't exist anymore.
- 0
how about create a better game, so i actually want to keep it and play from time to time?
you don't see me selling Mario Kart or GTAIV
- 0
I have to really, really, really know that I will love a game to buy it at launch nowadays. And it's not about the initial price tag. With such a huge catalog out there, there's plenty I haven't played, and it's way easier to wait for the GOTY editions of games and get the whole package at a good rate. Still buying new, but just later. Occasionally there's a Skyrim that I just can't wait it out for, but for most of these games, I'll just chill and play older games and wait it out.
'We can't stand for this, and we have to let publishers know that. '...yeah and the only way we can do this is by boycotting their products. Unfortunately every hungry fanboy is gonna rush out day one and purchase this game regardless because that's just what geeks do. Publishers think they can get away with this shit because we let them, then we bitch about it online and think we're making a stand.
This is all about protecting early sales and I am in favor. By the time the game and the online pass is much cheaper used Rocksteady will already have gotten good value for the game.
This is just ridiculous, and very annoying. I will probably still get the game, but as I have to spend most of my time without internet on my consoles (at least for half of the next year) I will not be getting this until Christmas, and then not at full price @kain_kusanagi, while I totally agree with your sentiment on this matter, I am not quite sure how an online pass stomps over people's ownership rights. Ultimately, when you are playing an online game, you are using a service not a product, so the developers should certainly be getting some money for you using their service and you can't really own a service
I think this is a good incentive to get people to buy the full game. They are not cutting out anything from the game, just a character. Of course this game does not have to worry about selling well either, so not sure why they did this for this game.
No matter how this ends up, basically you can thank pirates for this. It's only a matter of time before every game must always 100% be online to play, with a unique passcode. Used games will be obsolete, and stuff like this will be remembered as the 'good old days'. And all because pirates were too lazy/cheap to just buy a new game.
Pirates didn't make this decision, game companies did. This won't stop pirates, because they will find a way around it and will be able to enjoy the full game without annoying restrictions while the actual customers will suffer.
Like any sort of DRM, it won't make pirates suddenly go out and actually buy the games. But it will make actual customers choose another game. Of course game companies will see this as a reason to add even more stupid restrictions, because all those lost sales must be caused by piracy.
- +2
I think Runa accurately represents the thought process of many developers, but I think Rol spoke the truth of the situation very well!
- +1
cry me a river. Sheesh, the whining these days. Personally I do not care as I buy 100% of my games new and yes I think it makes sense I get more content than people buying used games as my money is actually going to the developers.............
I bought warhawk used and they saw money from me. It was called DLC packs.
- -2
I think this has nothing to do with the resale market... Does Toyota come and charge you a fee for buying a used car from a local dealer? in fact, does any other industry try to govern what you want to do with a product you bought? This is what I am going to say to studios.... make a game that has great replayability, and we will KEEP. and no more excuse for sucking us dry please, the game itself is 60 bucks
- -1
Car has mileage parts failiure rate is intrinsic to the car price... game can be passed on and on... if resell value was accounted you'd pay them a fortune first hand.
- -1
I dont know but I do think you're an idiot. Games such as call of duty, nba, madden all have high replayability but what happens to those games when a new one is released. they either sit on your shelf untouched, the game disc becoms a coaster, or you resale at gamestop or craigslist. all games become obsolete no matter what their fun factors or replaybilities are. As a consumer we want everything to last forever and tend to forget that games have a beginning, middle, and an ending we just need to get that through out thick skull. If games are too expensive for you then you're in the wrong hobby.
- -2
If 60$ or so a month is "sucking you dry" you really need to find a new hobby. Gaming can be expensive. For the developers and publishers it is a business. To make this thing called money. Games bought used give ZERO to the game developers. If you Love gaming or are a gamer, support gaming, buy new. You buy used for 40$ but refuse to buy brand new for 60$? You can't afford 20$? Pathetic.
- +1
If 60$ or so a month is "sucking you dry" you really need to find a new hobby. Gaming can be expensive. For the developers and publishers it is a business. To make this thing called money. Games bought used give ZERO to the game developers. If you Love gaming or are a gamer, support gaming, buy new. You buy used for 40$ but refuse to buy brand new for 60$? You can't afford 20$? Pathetic.
- +1
This means no day one for me. Will buy this title when it's much cheaper.
If the main part of the game is Batman, but you get more of the story from the Catwoman side, so be it that you can't access Catwoman if you buy the game used, or pay them extra for it. Well, I do hope that the market does reach a common ground regarding the used game market, that compensates everyone fairly.
Will have to wait and see how much this actually affects the game, but as I plan on renting the game, i can't see myself paying for the online pass or the DLC. It really doesn't matter to me what characters I get (put it this way, I don;t know who Nightwing is). If it turns out locking out Catwoman does wreck the plot, then most likely Warner Bros will lose the royalty they would have otherwise got through my rental. That said, I think Rocksteady will have made so it doesn't mess up the plot of the game.
You do realize that publishers get no royalties from rentals or used game sales, which is why they are implementing this system.
- +2
Maybe I'm confusing things with the film rental market, but I assume they have some sort of licensing agreement which is what retail copies always say 'Not for rental' on them.
- -2
You do realize that publishers get no royalties from rentals or used game sales, which is why they are implementing this system.
- +2
Sigh, other than out of print games, why would anyone by used? It is just not worth. The used game business really needs to go away as it is destroying the industry.
Really? This is what you guys want to complain about? I applaud developers that decide to try and actually get their share of a product they spent years creating. Gods forbid that a company wants to make money on the product they created. To whine and complain about this crap is ridiculous! The game is $60. If you do not want to pay that then expect to wait for a price drop. If you prefer to get it used, then prepare to pay a little bit extra if you want the full game. And those that do not have their game console connected to the Internet should be used to not having the full functionality of a game. It is rare that a title is released these days that does not require an update to correct various issues within just the first few days of release. To bitch about this is absolutely pathetic. Rocksteady has done nothing wrong here and I hope more developers continue this trend.
Yeah! The only reason to hate stuff like this is if you're a cheap loser who only buys used! It's not like it's an annoying extra hoop to hop through to play your $60 game. It's also not like any gamer lives in a rural area that can't get broadband. Those hillbillies probably don't even know what electricity is, let alone a video game! Even if they did somehow have a video game console, and got it play without electricity, they'd probably be too stupid to follow a plot properly anyways, so missing huge chunks of a narrative won't affect them! I see no valid reason to be irritated by this strategy at all!
@kingofwale You're completely living in your own world comparing games to used cars. Can you buy a used car for $5 cheaper that is completely functional and guaranteed to work EXACTLY like the new car in every single way? No you can't. Horrible comparison. I guarantee you're just a young college kid who actually cares about saving 5 bucks so you buy some shitty gamestop game with ugly stickers plastered all over it. Sad. As a developer in the industry for many years I can definitely say this online pass is a good thing for us DEVELOPERS. America is built on this ponzi scheme middle man concept bull@$*t. You want to give 100% of the money to the middle man and 0% to the artist so you can save a few pennies. When you grow up one day and start working yourself you'll realize what a tool you are. Some developers like to nickel and dime you, mainly EA and Activision published games try to do this. Rocksteady and their publisher WB Games don't have a history of charging 15 bucks for crappy map packs. Protecting their product with an online pass is completely to do with the resale market.
That would be great if it was an online pass, but it isn't. Its affecting the single player campaign, and you may feel its good for you "developers" now, but all it will do is allow some other developer with a better product to take your customers who dont want to be nickel and dimed as you put it yourself. did you even read the article or are just trying to secure your pay check? You dont have to develop games its your choice. I will not feel bad for one of the biggest industries out there. much
- +1
Sorry and don't care if you were a developer or not. This idea applies to all areas of a consumers life. Where does this end? We as consumers will have to give a cut to the makers of everything we sell or trade second hand, B***S***.
Oh and boo hoo to the poor developers and publishers who already upped new game costs 20% at the start of this generation.
I am tired of supporting these dudes anymore, from now on I am for the consumer. Screww this greed crap and idea of how we can sell our game a second time.
- +1
...hmmm, so you're a developer in the industry for many years, huh? Well maybe you're a little too far in (or too far lost) for these words of advice to help but maybe they will. At the heart, this is a case of very poor business practices: eek out the most money with the least effort--consumer be damned. This in no way affects me in the case of this game (or even Rage), however I feel really poorly for the gamer who buys this new (or receives it new as a gift) and is unable to redeem his content. These behaviors (there are better solutions, but they aren't as quick of cash grabs) show ill will toward the consumer. The company should--and probably will--reap the results of a portion of consumers no longer liking/trusting them. Even you, as a developer, with your language and attitude here show a distaste toward potential clients, and if I knew who you were and who you "develop" for then I would be very wary of supporting your product. And before you try to insult me by writing me off as some little kid without money (which has less to do with the issues then you suggest), at least think about what I said and try to show a little more maturity. And p.s. the comparison to used cars isn't exact, but that's just it: it's a comparison, and yes it does work. I'll send you a PM about my thoughts on that. Bottom line: learn a little respect toward your customers, and use hard work and (honest business practice) ingenuity to earn more money instead of trying to nickle and dime a consumer. Try to make the customer feel like you are actually giving him more than he deserves and you'll both do better financially and sleep better at night.
- +1
Totally agree with you that Developers are getting screwed on the sale of used games. However it is not the consumers who screwing the developers. We as consumers are forking out the money to buy games may it be use or brand new the money came out of our pockets to pay for your product. I like the idea of online passes but the problem with this one is that it is not an online pass per say. You are punishing the comsumers for what the "middleman" doing. I think the only solution here is to cut the "middleman" (gamestop, bestbuy, etc...). If you were to sale your own game at a lower cost, you will benifit 100 %of your profits. Do what gamestop is doing to you have a buy back program for used games and resale it for a decent price. If delevlopers have online stores to sell thier games new or used, gamestop will but shut down soon enough.
- +3
Ah yes, gamers moaning that they actually have to pay full price to get the full experience. Boo hoo. If I produce a game, I have a right to decide what features go in it. Period. It's then up to the consumer to decide whether that game is worth their money. The only people complaining about this new policy are those who intended on buying it used anyway, so why should publishers care about these consumers protestations, publishers don't benefit from used game sales. These publishers are simply protecting their investment, so fair play.
Actually I'm not going to buy Uncharted 3 new despite initially planning to do so - just because of online pass. I hate the practice and I'm not going to support it, even if I'm 100% sure I'd love the game.
- 0
I disagree, Gamestop is destroying the industry, and this is a way to help publishers create more income. Rather then increasing gamestop's bottom line.
hardly, is it the consumer's fault that some games have minimal re-playability after the first play-through??? Why should I have it sitting there on the shelf?
if publisher wants people to buy new copies, then make the game more attractive to re-visit.
- 0
Then don't buy the game then if you don't think its worth the money. Used copies just take monies away from the industry, causing a smaller variety of games to be created in favor of squeals.
- 0
Income? Developers sell games for 60$ at gamestop and 60$ on steam now. Guess which one cost them less to produce and sell? The steam version. EA is even worst. They sell their games for 60$ new on their website (which means no resale fees) I apologize, but developers shouldn't be allowed to use prebaked engines (Example:Unreal 3 engine) and sell their games for full price using a 3 year old engine. Maybe if you develop a new engine (which is why I'm more lenient on battlefield 3.) you have the right to sell your game for full price, but when you sell a short game, with very little replay value, on an engine that has been out for 3 years and want full price for it compared to say Fallout3/NV (which I can get for 20$ new now and both have offered me hours upon hours of actual gameplay) I think developers are killing themselves. You're giving developers an excuse to release a bad game and force people to buy it new, where as if they cannot do this BS then maybe they'll release a game worth buying new... The problem is, it isn't gamestop that is doing this to people, if people want to buy the game used they obviously weren't gonna buy it new so how is anyone losing profit? I wouldn't buy certain games new, but I would buy them used and even if I didn't have the option to buy them used I wouldn't buy them all due to developers greediness.
- -1
Having a used game market combats that $60 price tag. If it wasnt for used games we would all be paying $60 for Halo 3 today. Why do people want to be milked and defend this bullshit. Pretty soon console games are gonna be worthless like PC games. One time use codes and done. I wonder if you keep your old car when you are done with it or do you trade it in for dealer credit? If you do that you are a hypocrite.
- -1
Having a used game market combats that $60 price tag. If it wasnt for used games we would all be paying $60 for Halo 3 today. Why do people want to be milked and defend this bullshit. Pretty soon console games are gonna be worthless like PC games. One time use codes and done. I wonder if you keep your old car when you are done with it or do you trade it in for dealer credit? If you do that you are a hypocrite.
- 0
Sigh, other than out of print games, why would anyone by used? It is just not worth. The used game business really needs to go away as it is destroying the industry.
Comments below voting threshold
"Another valid point already brought up by annoyed gamers is that even players who buy the game new won't be able to access the Catwoman content if they do not have an online connection. While the vast majority of console players already have their consoles online, there are still a large percentage of those who don't. I myself have one of the older Xbox 360's, which has no built in wi-fi, and is currently too far away from a modem to get it connected. These players, who show their loyalty and dedication by buying the game on day one, will not get rewarded. " I would say the percentage of people who play video games that DO NOT have an internet connection is less than 0.00001%. Seriously, you know this game is called Batman Arkham City and not Catwoman Arkham City for a reason.
- -5
@ The Online Pass Nay Sayers... If you buy NEW this really doesn't effect you. If you buy NEW the publisher and developer get the profits they deserve. If you buy used the publisher and developer do not get profits, so what motivations do publishers and developers have to keep people buying used games happy? NONE. Someone has already said this but it is worth repeating. Used games (virtual goods on a physical disc). Are a pretty special case, you can't compare them to used cars, because there are clearly differences. A used car does not come with the same guarantees as a new car also the useful lifespan of the product is directly proportional to what you pay (in an ideal sense). You can't compare used games to used CDs or Vinyl either. Any music act these days makes the lion share of their profits performing. Game developers have no way to take their act live. Developers and Publishers are not doing as well as they used to, the marketplace is changing and they are trying to keep up. For large AAA style games you have very large budgets. These days gamers expect dramatic, well produced cut-scenes as well as full voice over. In many games we expect authentic weaponry which licenses must be purchased from the arms manufacturers to feature the likeness of their weapons in the game. Various other royalties and licenses have to be paid for soundtrack and for a game like Batman -- all the wonderful voice-over work you have come to love about the first game. All of this costs mondo cash. Money you or I won't earn in our lifetimes. Money your children likely won't earn in their lifetimes. Money your entire family could not earn in it's lifetime. This puts the publisher at a huge risk, it's a very large financial exposure. The online pass is just a mechanism to differentiate a BRAND NEW product from a USED product. A developer and publisher have every right to grant whatever features they want in their game. They have every right (and a duty to the survival of their studio and their stock holders) to limit features to someone who has purchased a game that usurps their sales channel which they draw no profits from. This is the day and age we are living in people. Used game sales is no longer a Flea Market industry, this is a MultiMillion dollar a year business. Developers are putting out games and gamers are starting to develop a Bargain Hunter mentality because they know the used supply of games will start ticking up a week or so after release. The developer and publisher deserve a cut of profits for their work, they lay out far too much money to allow a secondary sales channel undercut their hard work with no return on their investment. This is really simple economics if you find this practice to be wrong than you are naive to what is going on in this industry. If Online Passes do not work, the only other avenue for Developers and Publishers would be an OnLive style system where you don't really own your games. They are in the cloud (no used sales, no lending to friends). So what would you prefer? Buying a used game (valued $60 new) for $30 and paying $10 for an online pass (and still saving $20). Or would you prefer that all games are streamed via your internet where the publisher can have FULL control and one day turn the game off for everyone. The marketplace will find a solution for this, I prefer an online pass system as I get to keep my game.
- -5
actually a used car still has the the manufacturer warranty if you buy used.
Developers already saw money from that used game. They just want more. If they added content to keep the gamer from selling the game that would benefit them better that milking the shit out of people.
These online passes are the foot stepping in for digital distribution. Once they see that the sheep will buy anything they will continue to push further. If you stop buying this online pass they might come to their senses.
Also this isnt an online pass. You are required to have an internet connection to unlock part of the game you bought brand new. Why in the fuck would people defend this shit. Do you people not have a brain?
Since when is it a crime to sell the stuff you own? I paid for this game and I'm done with it. I gave my money to the people who made it and I'm done. Selling it or handing it off to someone is like them buying the game. I am no longer playing that game and someone else is taking my torch.
STOP BEING SHEEP AND STAND UP FOR YOURSELVES! Dont give into this.
- +2
If the industry leaders are going to treat people like criminals and take away their rights, the video game industry deserves to fail, and hard. I don't need this shit.
- 0
If the industry leaders are going to treat people like criminals and take away their rights, the video game industry deserves to fail, and hard. I don't need this shit.
- 0
Although you have some good points, I disagree with others. Still, that's not why I decided to post. I wanted to talk about your examples of all the costs of the AAA titles. You use it as a justification of why they should milk customers for money. I say it's a clear example that those behaviors simply don't work, and until "AAA" "loss-leader" developers grow up and start being more wise with resources they will crash and fail. Make the game fun so it will sell, and add as many bells and whistles that ADD to the FUN (and desirability) of the experience (because it can). Don't just assume that high production costs somehow automatically make it a better game. If enough of the industry keeps up these arrogant and foolish business choices it will lead to a crash of the large portion of the industry, which will be a shame and cost many people their careers and livelyhoods. :-( And I do believe that treating customers poorly will hasten a collapse. It's the whole live hard, party like a rockstar--(crash/die hard)--attitude.
- 0
You can compare with anything you want and it's still valid. Someone already paid the FULL price for it. Also cd's don't have an eternal lifespan. Digital distribution doesn't give you a warranty that you can forever download you might think it doesn't go with used cars because they wear down. well you can compare them with bicycles then I wonder when Giant will start charging 20% extra of the original price when you sell your bike to someone else.
Musicians need to keep making new albums else no one will go to their concerts. Also Musicians hardly earn cash from CD sales just the record label.
To make it better the gaming industry is the only one starting to demand money from the second hand market. THE ONLY ONE.
Whats next Microsoft demanding $60 when you sell your system or laptop? How about all the manufacturers of the components.
The system is just plain evil like DRM it has absolutely nothing to do with legality or any form of protection. It's nothing more than a way to earn extra cash from people.
Instead of pissing customers off why not make it more appealing to let them keep playing.
I don't care if it's for the second hand market only the fact is you need to activate your game now to even get a full SP experience going.It's ridiculous it has nothing to do with rewarding your customers anymore. It's just another way to drive them in the illegal circuit with these kind of measures.
- 0
Who cares buy the game new like you should and stop being a cheap bastard.
- -5
I tried doing that when I wanted to buy One Piece: Unlimited Adventure for the Wii. Didn't want to shell out 200 bucks for a copy (because that's how much it fetches on eBay and Amazon). Does that make me cheap? Not really, it's just a preference thing.
- 0
