RockSteady Responds To Batman: Arkham City’s VIP Pass Backlash; “Critical To The Entire Industry”

Joel Taveras writes, "The team over at Rocksteady Studios has been the target of some online scrutiny as of late. And while everyone is crying foul in regards to their inclusions of a VIP Pass which unlocks single player content, Rocksteady sees these costs as a way to continue to provide titles like the highly anticipated Batman: Arkham City. It’s pretty much the cost of doing business. Make sure to check out the full interview below to get a better understanding of the whole situation."

[taz8080]

VIP pass is all about business and making sure studios stay a float. Anyone who can't see that is blind. Video games are a big business now and they need to make a profit to continue on.

[Yi-Long]

... and this greed is going to be remembered by gamers and is going to bite these developers in the ass...

More and more, gamers are wising up and start to understand it's no use to buy a game for full price at launch, when the developers will be nickel-and-diming them 3 seconds after the game is released.

Just look at Capcom. Any gamer would be either the biggest fan in the world or the stupidest consumer in the world, to pick up Streetfighter vs. Tekken when it's released.
Why? Cause you already know that Capcom will be DLC-milking the game, and within 12 months there will be a 'Super' edition that's coming out which will have much more content for a much lower price!

You think Capcom won't feel that? Their days for selling games for 60 bucks on day 1 are numbered, cause gamers aren't having it anymore. Capcom screwed them too often.

Same thing now goes for Rocksteady. More and more gamers are announcing they would rather wait for a GOTY-edition instead of now paying close to 80-90 bucks to get the complete Arkham City experience!

I'm sure it won't affect these sales yet, but perhaps with their next release gamers will remember how Rocksteady treated them with Arkham City.

Am I going to buy Assassin's Creed Revelations when it comes out? Ofcourse not! I'll wait for the GOTY. Sam goes for Forza 4. Same goes for Mass Effect 3. Same goes for Skyrim. Etc etc etc.

Greedy DLC-milking/scamming developers has made me spend LESS on their games, not more. Instead of getting 50 or 60 bucks from me on release day, they'll now just be getting maybe 20 bucks when I buy their GOTY-edition. IF I'm even still interested in the game by then.

If developers want to battle the 2nd hand market, then keep supporting the game and keep the paying customers happy by providing some free DLC every few months orso, so we won't feel inclined to sell our game! It's that simple! Make sure people keep playing it and don't WANT to sell it!

[LOGICWINS]

Preach brutha preach!

[evrfighter]

vip pass is all about business you say?

keeping customers happy is even more important for business.

unless we're talking monopolies of course.

[hiredhelp]

wait wait.So hes saying they want you to buy the VIP pass so they can keep the games comming in a nut shell.
Funny batman arkham asylum never had VIP PASS yet we get arkham city?

[JohnColaw]

You say "gone are Capcom's days of $60 new games", and yet you couldn't be more wrong. You may personally do that: wait for the GOTY / "sequel" editions of games, and while everybody always voices up saying they will do that, 90% of people don't.

Everybody is going to buy SFxT, they'll buy the DLC, and then they'll buy SUPER. Ultimate MvC3 is going to sell like CRAZY, as will DLC for it.

[maniacmayhem]

@Yi-long

Agree, agree and agree. I especially will not be picking up SF vs. TEKKEN because i fear they will be coming out with a Super/Ultimate version 4 months down the line.

@taz
It is a big business and believe it or not they are making money hands over fist. EA, Sony, Activision, MS, Nintendo are making millions. Don't get confused about this online pass being put in games trying to help the devs. All it is is more money so devs can get the extra bonus check to take to the Bahamas or Pango Pango.

[rodellison]

I don't necessarily wait until GOTY comes out, but I have wised up to the fact that this industry RELIES on the fact that there is a market mentality of "have it now, the instant it's released". Until that mentality changes, the game companies will continue this sorry Day one DLC pattern as they know today, people will buy it. By simply waiting 2 to 3 weeks after release, almost all of these new titles will be reduced via sale at one store or another (Best Buy, Walmart, Amazon, Target, etc.) down to 39 to 49 bucks as those stores do not want the surplus on the shelf. IMO.. why not target the used market itself. Find a way to sell new games for a little less at launch, so MORE people will buy at launch and won't want to buy used.. and put a dent in the used market altogether. These games have been $59 for going on 10 years. Maybe that needs to change.

[littletad]

Well said mate :)

[jetlian]

proof capcom can make another sfxt!!! unless both teams signed a deal for more than 1 game capcom won't have 2 before namco gets 1

[NukaCola]

I disagree about Rocksteady. They gave away every bit of Arkham Aslyum DLC for free to everyone (PS3 had the Joker maps for free too) except one and only charged for that DLC pack $3. They have never milked anything, never tried to screw the gamer, and their GOTY edition was only the convienience of their free DLC added to the disc and sold for less than $50 brand new. They are great developers who don't deserve flack like this.

Everything else, Capcom especially can eat a bag of wangs. I completely agree with you there. Well said, just leave Rocksteady out of this. They haven't shown us they intend at all to screw anyone.

[Yi-Long]

... after seeing how they handled Arkham Asylum.

I won't be making that same mistake with their next game. Day 1 DLC that's already finished and an Online Pass that excludes part of the SP, means greed and screwing paying customers as far as I'm concerned.

What if next hear there's a new Xbox or Playstation!? Will my VIP-content still work? Will my DLC still work? What about only being allowed 1 active account? Do I then first have to 'transfer' my existing 360 account to a new console? What happens to all my games and DLC-content on my 360? Same goes for PS3...

It's customer-unfriendly BS, so now the friendship is over.

[SilentNegotiator]

Passes limit the number of accounts/systems that you can get the "additional" content on.

New buyers get screwed, used buyers get screwed, and people who want to play it in the semi-distant future will need to get a system with the content installed. Not to mention, it makes our copy of the game lose at LEAST $10 of its value. No one wins except for greedy publishers who want to control the used market, making money off of something they have no right to (eg, the game YOU PURCHASED).

[Yukicore]

Their path ahead looks bright and colorful, but if they get rich, they get lazy and make worse games. But this developer really seems a nice guy, and they are making really good top quality games, i think this VIP pass has fucked one corner of their ship, but i believe their games will be made faster and less accurately, but it's a story of all gaming industries, but Rockstar, these guys really make top games and don't mess with fame.

[vortis]

Yeah because Flower needed the VIP pass to stay afloat...and so did Wii Fit, and Mario Galaxy, and Red Orchestra 2, and Forza Motorsport.

Ugh, you guys need to learn to troll better.

There was a time when gaming was popular because gamers supported companies who made fun games without ANY of the BS. By the way, piracy was about 1000% easier back in the 90s than it is today (you didn't even need cracks, you'd just goto Altavista and type in "Warez" and the name of the game).

Nowadays gamers are conditioned to supporting BS no matter how ridiculous it is.

Pretty soon you'll also believe (and justify) that games should cost $100 at retail because of exorbitant development costs, even though the cost of ALL middleware is dropping significantly and many triple-A engines and design software is available for free with many publisher support programs available to get high-end games out to the market for under $1 million (which is the same it cost to make games back during the 90s).

[hilyou]

i do agree... BUT! arkham city's so called "VIP" pass is stupid. i mean why couldn't the catwoman missions be on disc! u hav 2 download it. some people do hav internet but cant download! For some people with slow internet connections it might take them a whole day 2 download the missions! It just should have BEEN on disc!

[Yi-Long]

... what if you use the VIP code and after a few weeks/months, you lose your account or something? Or your console breaks down? Or you have a brother/sister/partner who likes to play the game as well on your console with their account?

What if next year the next Xbox or Playstation get's released and it's backwards compatible, but you're VIP code isn't!?

It's just stupid. Not only that, but it's actually screwing up multiplayer in some games, cause not everyone who buys it 2nd hand is going to buy an Online Pass, thus once the first seller leaves the game and thus the MP, you might not get anyone in return back online! Thus limiting the life of the online community, thus also limiting the potential sales of extra MP map-packs.

I'll say it again: If you want to fight the 2nd hand market and if you want gamers to spend money on your product, and possibly DLC, and stay loyal to your product, you shouldn't nickel-and-dime them!

Offer them true value for money. There are still old PC games that get played online by masses of people, and that's partly because they have gotten free DLC to keep them happy all these years!

[StraightPath]

VIP pass taking single player content is a terrible idea , and hope whoever idea was this suffer with low sales and pirated game lol Gamers are not amused. Soon we will be locked out of levels weapons characters options whole lot... The whole online pass is a terrible idea.

[Mr_Lu_Kim]

I am going to pirate it for this reason so that's one lost sale.

You sure as hell know that the SKIDROW version will have ALL the missions and no online DRM crap either.

[dark-hollow]

Well... F**k that business if it's based off ripping and milking the consumers wallets.

[Abriael]

Personally I think that a company providing a product wanting to actually get a revenue from that product has nothing to do with "ripping and milking".

It's simply reality and logic.

They provide a product, and you pay them for it. Paying someone else for that product doesn't make the slightest sense, and publishers are defending themselves against it. It's that simple.

[Godmars290]

This is about getting a piece of the used game market and nothing else. Unfortunately, it also punishes/effects people w/o online access, ones just borrowing games and rentals.

The one thing this tread is sure to kill is the game rental business. Otherwise if some concession is made to allow rentals, its only going to bleed over to piracy putting everything right back where it started.

[Awesome-Xanto]

I can see this both ways really...

Should these companies get paid for making these games? Absolutely!

But at the same time, what about companies that sell movies, music, tools, computers, or any other physical item in this word? Why should it be okay for gaming to cut content because of reselling and not any other company. Where do we draw the line? Granted I realize that reselling of games is a lot more mainstream thanks to companies like GameStop then many other other things, but the facts still remain.

The way I see it they got paid for that game, and its not morally correct to cut content because that person may want to resell that product at some point. Rather you agree with it or not the truth is they want to double dip, by getting more money for something they have already been paid for.

They don't need to resort to Online passes to sell games new, the truth of the matter is most games now days aren't worth buying at $60 and that games now days are so short or bare boned that gamers are done with them after a couple of days because these developers are not taking enough to time to create satisfying experiences that last a while. If more games were created like Skyrim, Fallout, GTA, or Read Dead Redemption... gamers would have reason to hold on to them for months or even years before selling.

If there not creating experience that last longer than a week... that is there problem and not something that needs to be taking out on gamers buying used.

Great games with lots of content will sell themselves, and great games with lots of content will rarely find themselves thrown in the used bin after a few days....

[TBM]

my copy is paid in full, but i know it probably sucks for others.

[LastDance]

I didn't realise that the video games industry is the only industry that can't survive the sale of second-hand products.

[Abriael]

In most industries second hand products have less value because they're also worn off by use. A physical copy of a videogame is exactly the same whether you buy it new or preowned. The comparison with other industries doesn't stand.

[kramun]

I can buy a used music album cd, and it will be exactly the same as the brand new cd. I could also buy a used book that has been kept immaculate, and therefore will be just as good as a new one.

It's not much different at all Abriael, many items you buy second hand can be just as good as new.

[tickticktick]

greed

[xyxzor]

Bullshit. The video game industry is not strapping for cash. Even in these economic conditions people are buying games, so this whole online pass debate is such crap. Bottom line is customers are the only one's being hurt by this.

[ArabianKnight01]

And what about rental co. like gamefly who buy thousands of copies "NEW" in order to supply us gamers who cant afford every badass game that is coming out, w/o such a service we would miss out on a lot, add extras for "new" purchase extra costumes extra playable characters etc... its Batman for goodness sake there is a ton of fan service they could have given the "loyal new buyers" but dont take away from the main campaign thats just pathetic, I for one hope there sales suffer just enough to have them wise up and offer that portion of the main campaign free and not repeat there offense if future games!

[Heartnet]

Theve been doing very well without them for quite a while.. why do they suddenly need to start adding VIP passes and online passes now?

[Impaler]

This pass is just like all the others and targeted at people who buy the game used or rent it. I don't see what the big deal is if you are ALREADY BUYING THE DAMN GAME!

It isn't all greed driving these factors. These people need to live and eat so this is what WE AS CONSUMERS did to the industry.

Used games sales that WE AS CONSUMERS kept buying, turned the industry into what it is today.

I've bought used, I don't care. I am getting this on Gamefly and buying the pass because I am a cheap ass and I have other things and bills that are far more important than shelling out $60 on a video game I will only play until it is completed and then it will sit and collect dust.

So, I want the full game experience, so I will buy the pass for $10 and still save money in my pocket, everybody wins.

And unless my knowledge of the game industry is incorrect, the developers are already paid for making the game, the sales of the game in turn go to the publishers of the game.

So turn your GREED RAGE towards the publishers like EA, Activision, WB etc. They determine the prices on all this, the developers usually do not. They get paid to makes games and products for consumers and that is what they do. The publishers handle the rest.

[WhiteLightning]

You can figure out a clever way to justify multiplayer VIP/Online passes but you can't justify single player passes....you just can't. It's ridiculous how much DLC this game has gotten when it hasn't even been released in most places yet, not to mention you only get Catwoman if you buy the game new and let's not forget that even if you pay more for the collectors edition it dosen't even entitle you to all the DLC/pre order stuff for the game.

Please Rocksteady...if it was an online game then fair enough but you can never justify single player passes, it's just wrong.

[MasterD919]

You know...I actually agree with your post. It's not a massive deal to me as I'm buying it new but the DLC for this game already is scattered like road kill while a lot of it should be housed in on the disc already.

I find it funny that here is a game that hasn't even arrived yet but there is DLC announced and planned already down to the price points even!

I don't think DLC is the problem. I think paying for DLC is the problem. What ever happened to free DLC? It used to be there...now its all gone. Funny...

[WhiteLightning]

You know it wouldn't be as bad if they released it after the game was released or even announced it after....I mean we would still have our suspicious but the backlash wouldn't be as bad.

Look at the Gears of War 3 DLC coming out for example. You get some improvments to Horde Mode (4 fortifications), you get 3 characters (one of them is Bernie), Two Weapon Skin Sets and some maps.....now I believe in my opinion that the DLC is basicaly cut content they've saved for later. I just can't believe that a character like Bernie who even appears in the Gears of War 3 campaign was not picked to be a character in the online from the start, Hoffman is there right down to characters like Superstar Cole and even Unarmored Marcus but your telling me that Epic didn't include a character like Bernie or even these "new" editions to Horde Mode......Bull...Crap. Anyway the point of this is, are people calling out on Epic for this obvious DLC plan they have......nope, want to know why because they didn't announce it before the game was released while on the other hand Rocksteady has been dishing details out here and there about game and even the DLC. It's their own fault at the end of the day.

As I said multiplayer DLC/online passes can be justified but not Single player.....if people pay for a game you should be getting the most out of your single player.

[JoelT]

The devs aren't the enemy here. It's all the used game sales. I think sooner than later the industry will be going mostly digital to cut out the middle man who's really responsible for price gouging and double dipping.

[radphil]

"The devs aren't the enemy here. It's all the used game sales."

Actually the devs can be the bad guy. One major factor in that is service to customers.

If you treat customers more to criminals, and the fact that some forms of DRM hurts legit customers more than pirates, some devs understand that. Other ones continue to go on that schtick.

It's been at least 20+ years when gaming has been around. Passes have been "initialized" around for only 3 years, and they're playing the violin as if this was a glaring issue, when the industry was on the road for IMPROVING.

All this is, is in all honesty trying to get a bit more money out of the average consumer. Does it help the dev out? Possibly. But it's no more than it helping out marketing for games in that aspect too.

Some of them are going to the lengths that you don't even own the physical copy of a game anymore, to the point that even lending a game to a friend is "bad" according to them.

[Pintheshadows]

I can't see this changing anytime soon. It's, if anything, going to get worse before it improves and I doubt the normal consumer will notice enough to make a difference.

Also rather than blaming the developers blame the publisher. They will be pushing for this practice more and more.

[MrBeatdown]

I don't mind online passes. I think developers do have a legitimate claim to sales made on the second hand market, and as much as people would like to bring up publisher greed, as much, if not more of the blame lies on the likes of GameStop and now Best Buy for pushing used games so heavily. It's a deliberate attempt to cut into the profits of the content creators. I've actually asked for a new game at GameStop before and been handed a used copy. That to me, is the far greater evil here, and one that I feel publishers have a right to fight back against.

But this pass is different. I can support it when it's online content only. Anyone who wants to, and has the ability to play online can redeem the online pass.

But limiting single player content impacts those without an internet connection. It's not fair to those players.

[NicSage]

I'll buy then game when it drops by the price of the VIP Pass.

[Reborn]

I'll buy it once, and that's it. I haven't ever purchased DLC, and I don't intend to start now. Not as long as this dodgy practice continues.

[Pintheshadows]

I rarely buy DLC either. I tend to play the game as it is and once the DLC is out i've moved on to other things. I do have an exception. Mass Effect 2 Lair of the Shadow Broker. It was totally worth it.

[DARK WITNESS]

I am sorry but what a crock of shit...

if you want to keep making games, just keep making them good and keep giving gamers what they want and we will be happy to buy.

GTA, Halo, GOW, Unchated, GT the list is endless, these are all great games from this gen and last that have sold millions and made millions for the dev's and publishers and they did it with a second hand market and did it without an online pass.

when you start shafting your customers thats when you can start to worry about if you ware going to get to make a next game or not.

very disappointed with them very...

while usualy I blame publishers more for this stort of stuff. but it's still annoying hearing the dev's talk like that.

why is it from the moment this game was revealed to us, we got all this talk about playing as catwoman blah blah and they never mentioned it would be locked?

Funny thing is the more dev's do the less supportive I feel towards them.

so they can carry on making great games my ass! I have no intention of buying any dlc for this game now at all.

[JohnColaw]

Here's my thing personally: I get what they're doing with an Online Pass. I GET IT. It sucks to have a sale lost like that and know how huge of a market it is.

However the same market exists for every other medium out there (music, movies, comics, books, etc) and none of those have the nerve to charge $60 a pop for their product.

I get what they're doing, but I'm not convinced it's the right move yet.

[cyclonus007]

Other form of media don't have the replayability or consume the resources that games do.

A CD is maybe 45 minutes of music.
A movie is 90-120 minutes, give or take.
Even books are a few hundred pages.
For all of these, the experience is exactly the same every time.

A game today is expected to be 5-7 hours of play with a multiplayer component (co-op or competitive) that is expected to be always accessible and provided by the publisher.

As far back as I can remember, games were $50 and didn't have anywhere near the features that games have now. I know I'll get disagrees for this but I think we've actually caught up to the point where games are actually worth their price tag.

[Brownghost]

rpgs are worth their price tag with 100s of hours played on and so are massive sandbox games:eg fallout 3 and just cause 2

[cyclonus007]

That proves my point.

When I go see a movie, it costs at least $10.

If I can expect to spend more than 12 hours on a game, is it not fair to pay $60?

[Brownghost]

exactly cause why do game companies overcharge their games for $60. I mean look at movie tie ins their $60 and look at mirrors edge, it was $60 for 5 hours of gameplay. Basically i want developers to make short games for 5-7 hours into $15-$20 arcade games, look at section 8 prejudice

[Deadpool616]

I miss in-game unlockables. :(

[dgonza40]

*sigh* me too..

[unknownhero1123]

I'll third that and no, I do not count concept art as an unlockable. That is actually a pet peeve of mine.

[JonDiskonected]

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! devellopers actually want to get paid for making games, HOW WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree that some companies sell a lot of overpriced cheap dlc, but still if you buy used they dont see a dime on that sale, so yeah its their job, of course they want to get paid, making games isnt volunteer work

[Tony P]

Of course they deserve pay. No one's saying they don't.

It's the method that people have a problem with.

[Abriael]

And what other method they have?

[LastDance]

they get paid when people buy the game new? What's the problem?

[JoelT]

Well said. Bubbles sir!

[dragon82]

They get paid when the FIRST person buys a a NEW copy of a game. Once that game is traded in and then sold to the SECOND person, it becomes a lost sale. Doesn't sound like much but it does add up over time.

That being said, I think there should always be a used games market. It is our right as consumers to sell the products we purchase once we get tired of them.

[LastDance]

It's not their property anymore.

[ArabianKnight01]

well did you forget those who buy new trade that game in for credit and buy another NEW game, which i have done and will continue to do, im not rich unlike the publishers and game makers as a whole at least in comparison!

[ZBlacktt]

That's double dipping on the same already sold game. Why should they make twice as much for one game that was already sold? If I bought the game, it's mine to do whatever I want. They are blocking my games resell value. So now I get ripped off trying to sell it or trade it in once I've beaten the game. So everyone loses but them and their greed.

[Grimhammer00]

It's a fine line. How as consumers can we be assured that the dlc held back for this online pass is actually additional content?

See how I worded that?

So, the real question is....how can devs create a game so it's worth to a gamer is more to keep it than trade it?

[DARK WITNESS]

thank you.

they should be looking at how they can add more value to it, not breakup it's value.

[cyclonus007]

The argument against online passes in this particular instance is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You wanted to buy Arkham City new but now you don't because of a free one time pass that unlocks additional single player content? And some are going to use that as an excuse to pirate the game thus validating the publisher for using online passes in the first place?

People are ridiculous.

You don't want to pay the standard price for a new game, fine.
You want to wait until the price goes down, ok.
You prefer to wait until a GOTY edition with all the DLC, great.

But to not get a game because you have to redeem a code is incredibly stupid.

[jetlian]

people don't like paying for stuff and still going through hoops. If I buy new why am I penalized I don't like having to enter codes.

Another reason is if something happens to your account. Another is what if I have more than one system. Again maybe a friends wants to play.

Pirates and hackers don't even deal with this crap which makes it worse.

[Kostchtchie]

exactly, this crap just hurts legit gamers, same as drm rubbish, hurts everyone but the people they are trying to stop

[jack_burt0n]

Whats also interesting is that while AA reviewed well, and had a fair share of buzz it was also released @ the end of a pretty dead august and had a massive day 1 discount in the UK u could get it for £24 and if i remember correctly there was the same in canada, and parts of NA too.

That gave it a massive boost into gamers awareness at the time. They seem to have reversed the trend lol.

[BitbyDeath]

I don't understand why people are so vocal about paying developers to get online (if you buy secondhand) yet have no trouble paying MS to get online?

If anyone deserves the money it is the developers so give them a break.

[DARK WITNESS]

well that's part of the issue, we all know that most of this money is not going to them, it's going to the publishers.

[Grimhammer00]

To be clear...I'm good with online codes for 1st time purchases of online mp games. But, this holding content back from single player games I don't feel is the direction us as gamers will benefit. We'll suffer for it.
Publishers should be creating a buisness environment with trade stores that allows the publisher a cut of used sales. Of course the trade shop needs a benefit too.

Piracy is pure 100% unacceptable.

Keep in mind that devs get paid "x".....it's the publisher that loses on trade sales.
Unless the dev is self publishing. Of course, if the publisher feels it is not meeting it's financial expectations, they'll impose dlc models on the dev.

In the end....you look at publishers posting record $ , and it's difficult to see this dlc and other types of dlc models as anything but greedy. I'd say, ideally...publishers should foster a model that makes gamers want to keep their games.

Would you trade mw3 if elite sub was free to all 1st time buyers?
No.

So, rather than make catwoman dlc free to 1st buyers.....make all dlc free to 1st buyers! But big corps greedy sent them down the path we see today.

I'll play bats out until I feel it's done. Then trade to the next big title.

[InTheLab]

Anyone that is "ok" with online passes of any kind is either a fool or relatively new to gaming. The used game market is as old as the industry itself, but the industry continues to grow. All of these starving artists reports are complete bulls***. How many studios have been fired because of the used game market that's been around since gaming began? Now how many have been fired for making a s***ty game that failed commercially? All online passes do is remove most of the risks associated with making games and place that risk in the hands of the consumer.

In the States, we had a wonderful place called Funcoland (which eventually turned into GameStop), where you could sell your old games and get a fare price, or you could buy used games that you were on the fence about when they were full price.

Funcoland is the reason why I became a gamer. I grew up poor and was unable to drop $65 (yes...they cost that much back then...) on a new game. What sustained me over the years was being able to buy a used game at a fraction of the cost, or simply trade with a friend. Now that's out the window, so the new generation of gamers either have to pony up $60 or read a book. You can't borrow a game from a buddy because games are now locked to a single console. They've been pulling this s*** on us for years and there's nothing we can do about it aside from abandoning the hobby we love.

Now, I personally never buy used games. It has nothing to do with lining the already fat pockets of publishers and devs ($3 skins anyone?), but more to do with how I am with anything that's been in another person's possession. But what happens if PSN/Live goes down or I live in a rural area? I can't play the content that I've already paid for. What about that kid that can't afford a new game? What happens if I get boned out of $60 (Medal of Honor) and can't trade it in because Online pass has devalued the game?

Online passes are a direct assault on your rights. Your right to trade, rent, or borrow. If you support s*** like this, then you support publishers taking a piss on your rights. Imagine if other industries tried to pull a stunt like this? You go to buy a car at a used lot, drive it for a week before you realize you must send in 17% of that cars value to Ford in order to unlock your gas tank. It's the same s*** people. Gamers need to wake up...

[Brownghost]

i am still surprised that activison isnt doing this with cod yet and their knwon as the most greedy company in gaming and that ea has been doing it for a while.

[cyclonus007]

Activision is charging $50 a year for early access to new CoD maps and bonus content.

I think that's worse.

[Brownghost]

so thats really an optional thing and you can still play the online for free

[ZBlacktt]

Sure makes the resell value for the game near nothing, lol.

[JoelT]

I think that's part of the plan all along.

[de5gravity]

Can't we just agree this is a business practice that is needed now? Games are more and more expensive to make, partly because our expectations keep going up too. We need to suck it up and either buy it new, or buy it used and buy an online pass which probably would not even reach the new price. What is the issue here?

[spektical]

if cars had some sort of chip in them to only work on first time buyers, you would see an amazing backlash from the community... possibly illegal, and would see many lawsuits.

[Kostchtchie]

i had the game pre-ordered on ps3, but after this vip sp lockout crap, the game will just be ripped for my pc instead, i will NOT support this bs or any other drm, this is what happens when your company gets greedy trying screw over gamers, some will buy new others will buy 2nd hand, you still got the first sale, if your game was worth keeping you would have had 2nd sale also,, dont blame people reselling your game because YOU as developers did not keep that consumer intrested...

[KidMakeshift]

What do you do if the pass isn't in the case?

Do you think customer service will provide one over phone?

[JohnColaw]

Game Stop has been given the "rights" to give out DLC codes with used copies of Arkham City (they'll be printed on the back of the receipt). So I imagine if you didn't get one, go talk to them and they'll just give you one.

[schlanz]

Holy ****ing Crybabies.

[Yukicore]

I don't have to sweat it because this game is so awesome i pre-ordered it, i just couldn't handle "not having this game" feeling. This VIP pass better get some additional free content, but i guess it's not made that way. :(