Many of us have come to terms to this “Online Pass” business which has been in circulation for well over a year now. However, Warner Bros. triggered another outcry when it announced that Batman: Arkham City, a completely singleplayer experience, will crackdown on second-hand gamers by shutting out the Catwoman content to anyone who doesn’t activate their code, provided only with new copies (or downloadable at an extortionate fee via PSN, XBL.)
Aran: It’s outrageous; 10% of a game locked out if someone doesn’t have internet or buys Arkham City 2nd hand? I mean if I lend the game to a friend to try out then they’ll miss out on the full experience. I’d understand if Catwoman was post-launch DLC (fine, charge away) but considering how much her gameplay sections have been mentioned this is a bit of a dirty trick.
[drop]Kris: This hasn’t really angered me that much, I’ve been getting far too angry about things on the internet this week so I’m trying to cut back, but it does seem distinctly unfair. I can almost get on board with locking out 10% of the content as a business decision. It’s not a great one for consumers, online passes rarely are, but really it’s the fact it’s for single player content that makes me uneasy. Whether or not you consider the “paying for servers” argument flawed, it really doesn’t apply here and that’s what makes me uncomfortable.Beyond that they’re locking poor Selena Kyle away from those who don’t have their consoles hooked up to the internet. That is, pure and simple, punishing a pretty significant chunk of the market because they might resell the game. At least when you’re locking away online content it doesn’t effect those that haven’t got their consoles online, this particular side effect of single use codes becomes a non-issue. However, locking away offline content is unfair and a very aggressive move from Warner.
What makes this even more interesting to me though is that Gamestop will be giving codes for Catwoman to those who buy the game pre-owned. Seemingly Warner and the retailer have managed to come to terms, and hopefully we’ll see more publishers taking this route. If they do, it seems a much better decision, then single use codes may have just been the catalyst needed to get retailers and publishers to hammer out terms on pre-owned.
Jim: For online titles it seems fair game to include online passes nowadays but to subtract singleplayer content just seems like a low blow. If Batman: Arkham Ayslum wasn’t as insanely popular as it was back in 2009, would Warner still be cordoning a portion of the sequel to tackle the second-hand market?
On the other-hand, online passes seem to be making an impact on retailer’s pre-owned sales, it has to be, or Gamestop wouldn’t have teamed up with Warner to provide Catwoman codes for all second-hand copies of Arkham City sold. The developers will presumably be getting a cut of pre-owned sales, but if this trend continues I’m pretty sure that prices on re-sold games will grow and consumers will simply look elsewhere for a better deal.
hazelam
that mass effect 3 artwork, remind me of something from the demotivational poster thread in the forums.
don’t worry it’s safe.
http://i.imgur.com/gTyeH.jpg
makes me wonder what bioware where thinking about when they made the decision to include multiplayer. >_>
with the multiplayer though, who chooses who gets to be shepard and who are the sidekicks?
or will there be mutliple shepards running around.
if shepard is the only person who can save the galaxy why not clone an army of shepards?
who’s the poor sod that’s got to be mordin?
Jim H [Teabags]
I think no one plays as Shepard. You create your own character (including race and class.)
Starman
I think EA said at a corporate event a while back that all there games had to have multiplayer. Doubt it was biowares decision to make.
MayContainEvil
Just a year ago I was singing EA’s praises as compared to Acti they seemed to be of much more interest to me. That notion is quite dead, I think EA will be the death of Bioware, in my eyes at least. I can’t believe they would try to stuff multiplayer into everything but their actions seem to speak for themselves.
The whole Catwoman online pass thing was absolute bullshit, though Gamestop seems to have emerged an unlikely saviour.
tonycawley
They sent me an email. You don’t play as shepard or any of the main story characters, you’re all generic marine types fighting “galactic battles”. The outcome of your battle will influence events in the main story.
bacon_nuts
I’m just hoping Kris is right when he says about Warner and Gamestop teaming up, It’d be great if it all went that way, so that it charged the retailers, as opposed to the Gamers, as it always should have.
I do however, think that the single player catwoman pass is a total dick move anyway.
Darth Newdar
I agree with your comments on Batman – very unfair to people who haven’t got an Internet connection. Online Passes, I can understand; locking out parts of a single-player only game is just wrong.
Mind you, when your game’s sitting happily on a Metascore of 95, maybe it doesn’t matter.
wuntunzee
I think this is a very entitled view, not just you Darth, but when people think they will be “missing out” on part of a game because of an Online Pass or 1st Purchaser Code.
It’s their game, only they get to say who can have more or less. It’s not unfair when you tell people beforehand that these are the conditions for purchase.
This is an evolving market. Games makers are adapting to change. The want to reward 1st purchasers because they are better for business.
That’s my view anyway.
Starman
I wouldn’t say they’re adapting to change. They’re making the change themselves, and purely for themselves. Preowned has been around since the master system days!
Jakster123x
Woo, Renegade Ops. I won it off of the PlayStation Blog last week. XD