Catwoman Only Playable With Online Code in Batman Arkham City

[National Kato]

Originally Posted by Codicier

She's all over the marketing, but is now an "optional" part of the game?

Catwoman's missions will be like 'side-missions' you can choose to play or not play. They won't affect or interrupt the Batman portion - and main game - except, I believe, for one introductory sequence that's been in all the released vids.

Think of it as similar to Assassin's Creed guild or tomb side-quests.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by Heretic Machine

I disagree with this. I'm usually fine with this sort of thing when it is used to lock-out multiplayer, because if the game has been out long enough for you to be justified in buying it used (in my mind) the multiplayer community is probably dead. This is single-player content, though, and I don't like the idea of it being locked out for people who buy it used down the road; and yes, that is what this is for, if you pirate the game I'm sure there will be a hack to unlock Catwoman.

I'm buying it new on Tuesday, so it doesn't really affect me, but I still disapprove of this type of anti-used policy. I like the way Mortal Kombat went about it, with an online code that unlocked DLC down the road. I guess you could argue that this is similar, except we aren't even getting any DLC that will have content outside of challenge rooms. Just seems like a crappy thing to do.

I'd be more inclined to agree if it hurt the SP experience and actively took away from it, but I don't see that as being the case. Mind you, I could be colored in my judgement as I have no intentions of playing Catwoman until at least my second play-through so having her available or not doesn't matter to me in the slightest and won't ruin the story for me either.

If she actively lent something to the narrative that would be lost by not being able to use her then I'd absolutely agree but as it is, this doesn't strike me as being so.

BATEDIT: Are any of the trophies tied to her?

[Talanvor]

When EA introduced their "Project $10" or whatever it was I thought it was a good idea. Give the people who pay for it new something that they wouldn't if they had bought it used.

I don't think I like what's happened to that idea. It seems to have changed to you'll get the uncrippled version of the game if you buy new.

[Codicier]

Originally Posted by Talanvor

When EA introduced their "Project $10" or whatever it was I thought it was a good idea. Give the people who pay for it new something that they wouldn't if they had bought it used.

I don't think I like what's happened to that idea. It seems to have changed to you'll get the uncrippled version of the game if you buy new.

I think that's my issue with this, though I feel like it's primarily a marketing problem.

At the start this was cast as a bonus, now it's cast as a penalty if ignored. Probably because it induces more people to take action, because that feeling of loss is more powerful that the satisfaction of getting something extra. Hence they show you the goods almost from the start and only tell you it's new copies only just before launch. "Oh shit, better get it now." Ah psychological manipulation.

[Yeti2005]

Originally Posted by Talanvor

When EA introduced their "Project $10" or whatever it was I thought it was a good idea. Give the people who pay for it new something that they wouldn't if they had bought it used.

I don't think I like what's happened to that idea. It seems to have changed to you'll get the uncrippled version of the game if you buy new.

I think it's messed up that Gamestop didn't drop their used prices to compensate. Instead they don't tell the customer that they're not getting the full experience and they have to pay an additional $10. Buying a relatively new used game at Gamestop is $54 which is more ends up being more expensive if you decide to buy the $10 pass for the game late on.

[Blue]

I think if you're dumb enough to pay $55 for a used game when the new game is $60, you almost deserve to get boned.

[Codicier]

Originally Posted by Blue

I think if you're dumb enough to pay $55 for a used game when the new game is $60, you almost deserve to get boned.

Yeah, $5 off and you let EB/GS double dip and give the devs nothing? Skip your morning coffee twice or whatever if $5 is a clincher.

[OldJadedGamer]

Originally Posted by DoctorFinger

Unless you want to buy it used, or borrow it from a friend, or rent it.

I'm not saying that WBIE shouldn't do this, but it's not designed to stop pirates. Pirates can crack that shit in 5 seconds. It's to dissuade used buyers.

Because it's an online code, even people who buy it brand new but don't have their systems connected to the internet will miss out on the content.

So it's hurting even people who buy it new.

[MagGnome]

Originally Posted by Codicier

Yeah, $5 off and you let EB/GS double dip and give the devs nothing? Skip your morning coffee twice or whatever if $5 is a clincher.

It's not really fair to call it "double-dipping" when Gamestop and other retailers only get a few bucks from the sale of new copies. More and more retailers are carrying used copies of games because they can actually make money on them.

[Codicier]

Originally Posted by MagGnome

It's not really fair to call it "double-dipping" when Gamestop and other retailers only get a few bucks from the sale of new copies. More and more retailers are carrying used copies of games because they can actually make money on them.

It is double dipping though. They sell the same game multiple times and make a huge margin on all but the first sale, because they price it so close to new, since it was traded in like a week or two after the game came out in a lot of cases.

And people who would have bought the game new and kicked some money up to the creators instead give all of it to the retailer. To save $5.

They're hugely under-cutting sales of new games, which is why creators are so opposed to used game sales.

[Talanvor]

Originally Posted by Codicier

They're hugely under-cutting sales of new games, which is why creators are so opposed to used game sales.

I wonder what would happen if the publishers would lower their take a bit to give the retailers more margin. Stores really make almost nothing on game and console sales, that's why the employees are pushed to sell those "attachments".

[Widgetcraft]

Originally Posted by Codicier

It is double dipping though. They sell the same game multiple times and make a huge margin on all but the first sale, because they price it so close to new, since it was traded in like a week or two after the game came out in a lot of cases.

And people who would have bought the game new and kicked some money up to the creators instead give all of it to the retailer. To save $5.

They're hugely under-cutting sales of new games, which is why creators are so opposed to used game sales.

If people are trading in your game within a week of purchase, you have perhaps not made the sort of experience that merits $60 to begin with.

[Codicier]

Originally Posted by Heretic Machine

If people are trading in your game within a week of purchase, you have perhaps not made the sort of experience that merits $60 to begin with.

I knew this would come up. This argument still doesn't make under-cutting new games cool in my book. I'm sure there are trades of Dark Souls in EB/GS right now from people who didn't like it or something and those are getting sold for $55, right next to $55 copies of Rage, or similarly priced copies of some 7-8 hour shooter.

It's not like good games don't get traded in. In the same numbers? Maybe not, but the practice and principle are still the same.

[Blue]

I don't at all argue about the ridiculousness of a $55 used game and how it irritates me, though I will say that if you have the money to drop $60 on a game and then trade it in within a week, I'm less sympathetic to whomever just flushed that money.

I mean, I could probably buy a new full-priced game a month and be okay but that seems like a waste to me personally. So I limit myself to about 3 $60 games a year and wait to buy when they've dropped in price to around $30, but I still buy new. I can't for the life of me understand dropping $60 only to turn around and get rid of it. Just rent the game. Or better: use patience and just wait.

I'm with Heretic here in that $60 should not be spent lightly. At least research what you're purchasing first and if you see it's a 5 hour game, either rent or wait to make it worthwhile.

[SilentScreams]

Originally Posted by Heretic Machine

If people are trading in your game within a week of purchase, you have perhaps not made the sort of experience that merits $60 to begin with.

My local game store does special promotions, like when I traded in Gears 3 I got Dark Souls for £5. They always do it. Next week it'll be something like trade in Dark Souls and get Forza 4 for £5.
Clever on their part I suppose because I've traded in lots of games that I'd otherwise have kept just because it's a huge discount, and as others have said, they'll make a fortune of the used sales of these 1-2 week old games.

[Talanvor]

Originally Posted by SilentScreams

My local game store does special promotions, like when I traded in Gears 3 I got Dark Souls for £5. They always do it. Next week it'll be something like trade in Dark Souls and get Forza 4 for £5.

That's actually a lot more reasonable than what GameStop does. If you trade in a game with them that got released that week you're looking at ~$25-$30 unless they're running some goofball promotion that week.

[Mike Kelehan]

Originally Posted by Talanvor

When EA introduced their "Project $10" or whatever it was I thought it was a good idea. Give the people who pay for it new something that they wouldn't if they had bought it used.

I don't think I like what's happened to that idea. It seems to have changed to you'll get the uncrippled version of the game if you buy new.

This is the first game where I've had any objection to Project $10. Usually, it's for online passes, so you'd have to have an internet connection to use them anyway. Now, if you don't have your 360 hooked up to Live, you don't get Catwoman. Some people just don't live in areas where they can get broadband, or perhaps live with parents who don't think it's necessary, and this prevents them from enjoying this part of their single player game.

[JayK47]

Don't worry. You won't even notice large chunks of the game missing. I guess that means the catwoman parts are forgettable at best. I feel so assured right now, knowing how optional this shit is. You know what is optional? Buying this game.

Seeing as how I would normally buy this game new for PC anyways, I should be able to play as catwoman regardless. But I will have to put in a damn code just to do it. And if it is anything like Dragon Age, I may not be able to. I seriously hate unlock codes. Everybody should get the same game.

If used games are such a huge money pit, punish those retailers who sell used games. I can't figure out why these publishers crap all over used sales all the while selling their games at Gamestop. And to top it off, they tend to give Gamestop the best pre-order goodies. WTF??? As usual, the gamers gets the shaft, not big business.

[Blue]

Yeah, cause all the reviews coming in are talking about how awful the game is. Can we please get the *eye roll* back?

[MagGnome]

I've read JayK's post twice now and I can't find the spot where he said the game was awful. Where is it exactly?