Arkham City's online pass locks out some of the main story for those without it.....

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.


While RAGE used a similar thing all it locked out was a small set of sidequests that bear no link to the storyline, this however is shocking and should be looked at deeply as I'm sure this must violate some terms of purchase along the lines of "Product not as advertised"

i was going to ask whether this will be made obvious on the packaging?

Hmmm I doubt it, RAGE didn't.....

Another case of this industry trying to find ways of getting you to buy a game new rather than second hand or rental. Which in itself isn't a bad thing but it's going to effect those on a budget or those using rentals.

Not sure Im too happy about this, and it isn't likely to sway me into buying a game new, it would more likely push me away from a game knowing it might be incomplete. I do have Arkham City on pre-order on my LF list, will probs keep it there although will be less excited now knowing the game won't be complete

Andy wrote:i was going to ask whether this will be made obvious on the packaging?

The packaging is effectively part of the games marketing/advertising, so surely there is some issue here??

but again surely the second hand/trade in market supports in turn the new games market?????

Andy wrote:but again surely the second hand/trade in market supports in turn the new games market?????

Exactly, there has been many a time that I would not have bought the new game had I not had a few to trade in!

Matt

i do beleive that by doing this sort of thing that the devs will damage the whole industry. its a short term money grab imo

FlukeyHeadshot wrote:

Andy wrote:but again surely the second hand/trade in market supports in turn the new games market?????

Exactly, there has been many a time that I would not have bought the new game had I not had a few to trade in!

Matt

I have actually moved away from buying second hand games, and have waited for games to drop in price. A really good recent example of a price drop is Deus Ex - Limited Edition, which can be found on Amazon here now only £16.99. I havent picked this up yet, but at this price its tempting. Rage and F1 2011 are both down to £32 now.

I do trade-in games I no longer need to offset against new purchases. My pre-order of BF3 has been paid for wholly by trade-in cash, and I almost have enough to pre-order MW3 without dipping into my own pocket.

Without trade-ins I would have had to fork out the money to pre-order BF3, which is probably the view the pubs/devs are taking. However, would I want to pay full price for this? or should I just wait for the price to drop, as in Deus Ex, and then the pick the game up at a massively discounted price?

So while the trade-in/second hand market seems to support new game purchases, the real problem for pubs/devs is that there isnt any longevity on the RRP price of games at £40, especially if a month or 2 after release they can be picked up for a fraction of that price. Very few games hold their price, COD being a good example.

As long as the pubs/devs release high quality games, that people want to buy new, and hold their price then they will make money. They shouldnt be hiding behind Online Passes and DLC to do this.

ah but remember shaun that you are a well paid professional so have a certain amount of freedom with cash wheras i would suspect that the majority of gamers earn far less than you do

This is quite stupid as alot people do wait to get games second hand as they dont want them as soon as they come out.

Andy wrote:ah but remember shaun that you are a well paid professional so have a certain amount of freedom with cash wheras i would suspect that the majority of gamers earn far less than you do

I wouldnt believe anything you here

well shaun, as it appears that you cannot use the correct pronunciation for `hear` i somewhat believe you

Fuck me, you have taken on the role of Plod

well some bugger has to keep you lot in check

I thought they had put a press release out stating that the cat woman parts were still in the single player but the relevant catwoman challenge and puzzle rooms were either available from new with code or with purchased code if bought pre-owned. But there are going to be others to pay for as there are the robin version from game, the joker version from tesco and nightwing as a future dlc.