"Batman: Arkham Origins season pass draws controversy"

[kane_magus]

So they're doing more or less the exact same thing they did with Arkham City? Really? I'm shocked, shocked I say, that this is the case.

It's just shit they cut out that should have been in the main game but instead is being put behind an additional pay-wall, just like they did with Catwoman in AC, except in this case, apparently everyone has to pay for it, including new buyers. This is just how the triple-A video game industry rolls these days, dawg. As such, I have no plans to buy Arkham Origins anytime soon, if at all. I may have caved on Arkham City, but not this time.

Comments

[owsf2000.livejournal.com]

You remember that slippery slope thing we use to talk about right?

This is just another roll down the hill. They tacked on the online pass idea originally just for those dirty thieving used game buyers. That IS how they justified themselves (the industry as a whole.)

What can they possibly do to increase profits after that? Why, charge even the dirty thieving new game buyers of course! How dare they expect a free pass for the online experience.

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

You can see people in the comments already trying to justify it, or at least expressing apathy over it. I'm not sure it's quite gotten to the point where outright acceptance is tolerable yet, but I'm sure that won't be too far off, judging from how the pattern has invariably gone with this kind of shit in the past. It starts with the vast majority being pissed off about it, then you start seeing some "who cares" comments starting to creep in here and there, then comes the "I can maybe see why they do this" stuff, then the "yeah, I totally support this, what's the problem?" shit. It's only a matter of time. And then the next, even worse shit comes down the sewer pipe and the cycle starts over yet again.

Direct quotes from under the article:

"Its all about voting with your wallets folks no need to make such a huge fuss."

"why are people complaining? If you don't think it contains value don't buy the season pass. Pretty simple."

So yeah, the "who cares, stop complaining about it" idiots are here already. As for me, I totally am going to be "voting with my wallet" by not buying it (or the game itself, for that matter, at least not until I can get the complete game for a more reasonable value than "full price + additional $20"). But that's not going to stop me from also complaining about it in the meantime.

Of course, one can never be sure when reputation management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_management) has come into play, which could very well be the case here.

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

To follow up on the "more reasonable value" thing, according to the Steam Alerts (http://steamalerts.com/) history for both Arkham Asylum (http://steamalerts.com/i/14276) and Arkham City (http://steamalerts.com/i/16905), the current standard/lowest price for AA is $19.99/$4.99 and for AC is $29.99/$7.49. And these are the "Game of the Year" versions with all of the DLC included. So yeah, paying $80+ for Arkham Origins (not even counting whatever other DLC they come out with later that isn't covered under the "season pass" bullshit, which is where the plus sign comes in) is not reasonable to me at all, when I can just wait a year or two and get it for much less, as will be the case.

But then, as we've both speculated in the past, it won't be too long before they (i.e. the industry in general) starts a full scale war against things like Steam sales as well. That's going to be the most likely next step. The early (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/579520.html) rumblings (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/592787.html) (hypocritical (http://kane-magus.livejournal.com/593647.html) though they may have been in that second case there) against that sort of thing have already started, after all.