‘1st Purchaser’ Code Needed to Unlock Catwoman in Arkham City

It is being reported that the Catwoman missions in Batman: Arkham City, which apparently make up 10% of the game, are locked unless you enter a ‘1st Purchaser’ code, which is included with new copies of the game.

This code will also unlock Catwoman as a playable character in challenge mode

– ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW –

Second hand buyers will have to purchase a code. If you don’t have a code, Catwoman will still appear as part of the story, you’ll just not be able to play as her.

This echoes the sort of online pass issues we mentioned last night with regards to Mass Effect 3.

Update: this has been confirmed. The code will cost second hand buyers 800 MSP / £7.99.

Source: Eurogamer /ArkhamCity.co.uk

– PAGE CONTINUES BELOW –

189 Comments

  1. Tsk – I had such respect for Rocksteady before this news.

  2. Eh.. no, I prefer Starfire…

    Don’t know about Batman..Couldn’t play the games in long plays so I guess the cheap would be the same fate for AC…

  3. Can we not blame Rocksteady for this? Developers typically don’t make these choices.

    • Aye, this is own to Warner Bros.

      I’d be interested to see how much money developers actually get from online passes. I’d bet my house that most, if not all, of the revenue goes to the publisher.

  4. So, online passes finally leak into single player games properly. This gen, eh? =(

  5. What the hell!? So if i buy it preowned, 10% of the game is locked off. Did i forget the annoucement of B:AC getting MP or is it a single player game. I mean, it’s s freaking single player game. This is shoehorning it in for no reason. What’s next, a code just to get the game to boot up? I hate online passes.

  6. I’m in favor of online passes and stuff like that…but this is taking it a little too far. DiRT 3 had it for certain cars yes, but they were nickle and diming where they could.

    I don’t agree with forcing people to buy a pass for SP aspects of games.

  7. I think people are being WAY to critical of this online pass stuff. Yes… It’s annoying for multiple account users. BUT the aim of game developers is to make money. The sales of pre-owned games only benefit retailers rather than the developers, so this will ensure more money goes to where it should (the developers) as opposed to places like Gamestation as it will put people of buying things pre-owned. I’m surprised this wasn’t implemented long ago… Also, I don’t know how those of us on PS3 are even entitled to grumble when PSN is a free service in the first place.

    • It’s not free. It’s subsidised. (PSN)
      So, is the next logical step to block the Buy It sell it thread here? No-one makes money but the sellers. How do they combat that?

    • “The sales of pre-owned games only benefit retailers”

      i’ve heard that hackneyed line so many times, firstly, and most importantly, it is not, has never been, and never will be, true.

      the biggest clue why that statement is so false is right there.
      pre-OWNED.
      the previous owner sells the game, as they have a legal right to do, that benefits them as they get money for something they might no longer have any use for, then we get onto the somewhat debatable benefits that actually apply to the publisher in that most of these trade ins are made to fund new game purchases.
      add to that the preowned profits subsidising stores selling new games at less than their rrp and the publishers will find they’d be selling a lot less games than thhey are without the preowned market.

      do i have to mention the chance to sell more than one set of dlc per game?

      and secondly, just suppose we live in some retarded bizarro world where that statement had even the merest semblance of accuracy.
      in that case it would merely be irrelevant.
      funnily enough though, it’s that same word again.
      pre-OWNED.

      the game is the property of the person who bought it, whether that’s the original buyer, the store who bought it off that person or the person who buys the preowned copy from the store.
      so long as ownership of the game is transferred legally the publisher has fuck all say in what we do with that copy and even less rights to any profit from it if we decide to sell it on.

      if i’ve bought a game, that copy is my property.
      if i want to make a few quid selling it on that’s my right, who the fuck are these dickholes that they think they deserve a cut of my money.

      they got what they were entitled to when the game was bought new.
      the greeed in this industry that makes them believe they’re entitled more than that is just fucking disgusting.

      • Hey Hazel,
        I was reading your comments about the ownership of the game and just thought I’d add, I don’t think the game is expressly under the ownership of the buyer. Which would mean they didn’t have a legal right to resale.

        In order to support this, the nearest games to me are FIFA 12 and Dead Island, both of which have (in small print on the back of the case) a message saying “RESALE AND RENTAL ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY SCEE”. I’m not entirely educated on this subject and just thought I’d bring this to your attention, but wouldn’t this mean that in order to “legally” trade a game in you have to ask SCEE?

        I must admit I’m a little confused by this as the pre-owned market doesn’t seem to be illegal or anything so perhaps there are loopholes or whatever, I was just looking this up quickly because there are many instances where your purchase of a product doesn’t make you 100% owner of everything to do with it. As another quick search of a phrase that came to mind, Intellectual Property on Wikipedia says in the opening paragraph “Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs.” I believe this might come under this category.

        Also just as a personal opinion, I’m not completely against the use of ‘first-time buyer codes’ by the publishers. Sure it seems like a greedy move by them, but it does seem unfair given the amount of work and the budgets available to games today that someone can buy their game second hand without them receiving any sort of reward for their work whilst the pre-owned purchaser reaps all the rewards. They’re not exactly locking you out of the entire game, which they might be entitled to do to be honest, just making sure they at least recoup some of their hard work in the form of reward.

        Anyways, this might be my first post on this site, I’m not sure I might have posted a while ago, mostly I’m just a reader. Hopefully it doesn’t go wrong!

      • but if those labels were legally binding store across the country would be getting raided on a daily basis.

        big companies always put labels on their products they know have no basis in law, because for the most part people won’t challenge it.

        and if it scares a few people into not trading in or lending it out or whatever it’ll be worth it as far as they’re concerned.

        there have been numerous cases where those warnings have not only been declared unenforcable, but also illegal.

        you know those signs in pay car parks that state they accept no responsibility for any damage on the property, those aren’t even legal.

        they’re making a false statement so it’s not legal.

        the same with those warnings.

        the trouble is not enough people know that, and if they do there’s no way they could ever challenge a multinational company that employs teams of laywers.

        that’s why i found that recent no class action suit thing by sony recently, particularly despicable.

    • Hazelam… I appreciate your wonderfully detailed point but you’ve gone way past the simplicity of the statement. The re-sale of a game only benefits the re-seller… NOT the developers. So…. They’d benefit greater if the person who bought the pre-owned game bought a new copy as that would count as another sale and boost revenue. Basically… Devs would rather people buy everything new… So this online pass stuff puts people off buying pre-owned stuff and having to cough up for funds to go to the developer… As the game retailer is less likely to buy more copies if the store is already filled with pre-owned versions (which people wont sell due to the fact the pass renders most games as near-enough worthless).

      • and if the original owners couldn’t sell their games they wouldn’t buy as many new games.

        and frankly, who gives a stuff what the devs want if they think they can violate my rights to get it.
        that’s what this comes down to, nopt whether they think they’re entitled to it, but whether the law says they are, and the laws says they’re not.

        THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE
        The physical ownership of an item, such as a book or a CD, is not the same as owning the copyright to the work embodied in that item.

        Under the first sale doctrine (section 109 of the Copyright Act), ownership of a physical copy of a copyright-protected work permits lending, reselling, disposing, etc. of the item, but it does not permit reproducing the material, publicly displaying or performing it, or otherwise engaging in any of the acts reserved for the copyright holder, because the transfer of the physical copy does not include transfer of the copyright rights to the work.

      • You do realise they can STILL sell their old games, right?
        The online pass is for the next person to buy the game to worry about, not the seller.

      • To be fair hazelam, nobody is stopping you from buying the game second hand and the Dev is not responsible for the condition of the game after the resale. So if you look at the pre-owned market in general and you buy something, it’s possible that the functionality of that product has been reduced by 10% due to the use of the previous owner. So it’s not that different if a portion of a game has been locked out because someone used it before you.

      • Hazelam. I think you’re still missing the point completely bro… And other users seem to be picking up on that. Throwing irrelevant acts at me is not going to do a great deal. People really to need to stop complaining though… We all have it so good in this country, and in terms of gaming, a free online service is also provided… Yet people STILL moan and whine about developers trying to maximize their profits through online passes (despite the fact developers are obviously out to make money). It’s crazy that people even feel it’s justified to act so ungratefully and in such a fussy manner; it really, really angers me.

      • The act Hazel quoted was entirely relevant.

        I have a very different understanding of the consumer/supplier relationship. For me, gratefulness doesn’t enter into it, it’s a purely financial relationship. I don’t need to be grateful for something I’m paying money for. I mean no disrespect in saying that, it’s purely my take on it.

  8. Its only a matter of time before every single game has one, so are they just gently easing us in?

  9. Definitely a second-hand purchase for me in that case.

  10. Ooooooh I see a rage strike coming…

Comments are now closed for this post.