As if Warner Bros. hasn't made enough of a sport out of trying to baffle the consumer with its utterly bizarre and incomprehensible pre-order schemes for Batman: Arkham City, we can now add one more bat to the consumer's skull (albeit a far less confusing, far more obnoxious one) courtesy of Batman's publisher.

This latest moment of consumer grudge humping comes via today's news that the Catwoman missions contained within the game will be locked behind an online pass. Despite WB's constant hyping of the Catwoman bonus missions, you won't be able to freely access them unless you have a new copy of Arkham City, as well as an Internet-connected console. If you do pick up a copy used, you'll need to pony up $9.99 to gain access to these missions.

While the Catwoman missions aren't required to get through Arkham City's storyline, I can say having played as the character in preview builds that they're actually fun, and most definitely a perk of the game. Gamers without Internet-ready consoles are fewer and further between nowadays, but they still exist, and shockingly enough, some of them might want to play Arkham City--as Catwoman, even. As for the used players? Well, you're probably getting used to this sort of thing these days. I ask you: Where's your Occupy Wall Street movement? Where's your protest march? Where are the jobless college kids acting on your behalf?

Of course, the answer is "playing video games and writing enraged Internet comments at nobody who can actually affect change." Right then. Carry on.

As if Warner Bros. hasn't made enough of a sport out of trying to baffle the consumer with its utterly bizarre and incomprehensible pre-order schemes for Batman: Arkham City, we can now add one more bat to the consumer's skull (albeit a far less confusing, far more obnoxious one) courtesy of Batman's publisher.

This latest moment of consumer grudge humping comes via today's news that the Catwoman missions contained within the game will be locked behind an online pass. Despite WB's constant hyping of the Catwoman bonus missions, you won't be able to freely access them unless you have a new copy of Arkham City, as well as an Internet-connected console. If you do pick up a copy used, you'll need to pony up $9.99 to gain access to these missions.

While the Catwoman missions aren't required to get through Arkham City's storyline, I can say having played as the character in preview builds that they're actually fun, and most definitely a perk of the game. Gamers without Internet-ready consoles are fewer and further between nowadays, but they still exist, and shockingly enough, some of them might want to play Arkham City--as Catwoman, even. As for the used players? Well, you're probably getting used to this sort of thing these days. I ask you: Where's your Occupy Wall Street movement? Where's your protest march? Where are the jobless college kids acting on your behalf?

Of course, the answer is "playing video games and writing enraged Internet comments at nobody who can actually affect change." Right then. Carry on.

I need play the first one, I heard it was really good. lol

I AM ENRAGED!

Why does catwoman hate our freedoms?

PC gamer says "what's a used game?"

I doubt this will effect Arkham City, but if anyone tries this with a Non-AAA title, I'm guessing it will tank like the Exxon Valdez.

I've never been more angry about anything in my entire life!

Whoa! Alex getting a little political at the end there.

I have no problem with paying money for Catwoman.

Sucks for people like me who wanted to rent it....

Sucks

Shocking that they would add a way to discourage used sales onto a game with no multiplayer mode.

I am shocked.

Shocked.

I'm not selling this one, am I?

You know, Warner Brothers, I hear Batman fights crime and injustice. So if you find yourselves haplessly wandering under some kind of gargoyle............

People who buy used games can probably afford to wait a few weeks/months to play games at the rate at which retailers are discounting new titles. So much stuff comes out with coupons or promo credit that it kinda makes the online pass thing silly - my incentive to buy your game new is not necessarily the content I'm missing out on if I didn't, but the song I can get it for.

if it's on the disk, and i buy the disk, then i should have access to it. period. if they want to restrict then just make it $10 DLC. how about they make their beef with used game sales companies rather than with customers. buttholes.

I was under the impression that Catwoman was incorporated into the main campaign? If so this is very odd.

It does make the choice simple for non-online gamers though, just buy the game used instead and save a few bucks.

Fine by me.

the only way this garbage stops is if you all agree not to buy the game and we all know that will never happen

When are publishers going to stop all this cowardly manoeuvring and just issue CD-keys with console games? It's obvious to anyone that's the direction they're moving in.

Fine by me, pre-ordered my game already long time ago.

@spartanman1222: Sir, that is a fine question. Why not give incentive to companies like Wal-Mart who do not deal in used games with bad ass free DLC when purchased from their store, above and beyond anything you can get from retailers who sell used. No gamer is penalized, and even more sales will go to the retailers that don't deal with used games. Win win situation.

Wait, I need to be connected online, on consoles, even after redeeming the code?

I'm buying this game new, because I want the shit out of it, but this really bothers me. I'm going to buy the game not to play as Catwoman, but now my sale is going to be interpreted as a thumbs-up to this kind of stuff.

Good. Used game sales suck and this is one decent way to tackle it. I'll say it again: I just wish they would have required the pass for the ending chapter instead of something optional... this is a good start.

@spartanman1222:

Why are you entitled to what's on the disk? O,o

@StingingVelvet said:

PC gamer says "what's a used game?"

Steam sales might be the closest equivalent.

Oh video games you so crazy.

Buying new, could care less.

I buy all my games new so i don't have a problem with it, i see the frustration some people have with this stuff but bitching and crying on the internet isn't going to change anything, deal with it.

#occupyCatWoman

I wish they didn't do this; Arkham City is a single player game. Single Player GOD DAMMIT; which means I a consumer buying a product and I shouldn't need to make an online interaction in the first place. What if I live in an area with no internet connection, the online infrastructure goes down, or I just don't want to inconvenienced? There's better ways to do this like when EA issued Dead Space 2 Limited Edition, you didn't have to go online any bit at all to get the other game. You just had to make sure you picked up the first print of the game so EA new you were paying full price as later prints wouldn't be as expensive but would cut the extra print because they knew the game would be issued at a lower price by then.

@Picard said:

I need play the first one, I heard it was really good. lol

I'm the same way. I use to love some of the old Batman games.

@spartanman1222:

Why are you entitled to what's on the disk? O,o

Damn... Guess I should just buy it now then.

@JRock3x8 said:

the only way this garbage stops is if you all agree not to buy the game and we all know that will never happen

Yeah, it won't happen because why wouldn't I buy one of my most anticipated game of the year. I always buy new games and have a 100mbit/s internet connection. These things doesn't bother me one bit.

And frankly, why does WB have to give you something you didn't pay them for? I actually think these online passes are a good thing since that way the publisher and developer get money from (some) used copys of the game and it encourages people to buy new copys of the game.

If you want to experience the game as intended by the developer/publisher then pay them for the game. If you don't want to pay them then you shouldn't expect them to give you the same service as those who did. It's as simple as that.

You know, I really wonder if this kind of thing is legal. Wouldn't surprise me if it's legal in America, but other countries I'm not so sure.

Yes.. because this gonna stop me from buying this game, that I've been hyped for since the year started.

It's not a problem for me, but it's more than a little sucky for budget minded gamers that don't mind waiting to play new titles later. Or renters to I guess.

Well the Internet-connection thing is weird, I guess.

This is getting out of hand. Online modes being locked are reasonable because they are independent modes (I can say I played GTA4, Bioshock 2 and MGS4 to completion and never touched the online modes), and consoles has to be online to try to use them in the first place, but locking entire sections of the single player experience and forcing people to be online to play them is a pretty douchy move.

This won't affect sales since many people will buy it regardless, or not knowing about it; but it could set a pretty ugly precedent.

The worst part is that WB are not concerned about messing with their public, but they are quite willing to bend over to used games retailers to offer them preorder exclusives.

I'm just waiting for the day you really only buy a partial game. This is getting close, but we will see how much the rest of the room can be consumed before the game is effectively, if not technically, castrated. Extra endings? A big inexplicable gap in the story? I would like to think that Deus Ex; Hum. Rev. developed their dlc for the insert point, and not simply withheld it for monies,..which is a subtle distinction that I think is true. But other developers will already have that and much more on the disc mind you for unlock..again for monies. This thing with Batman..close but it's not the same.

@PJ said:

@JRock3x8 said:

the only way this garbage stops is if you all agree not to buy the game and we all know that will never happen

Yeah, it won't happen because why wouldn't I buy one of my most anticipated game of the year. I always buy new games and have a 100mbit/s internet connection. These things doesn't bother me one bit.

And frankly, why does WB have to give you something you didn't pay them for? I actually think these online passes are a good thing since that way the publisher and developer get money from (some) used copys of the game and it encourages people to buy new copys of the game.

If you want to experience the game as intended by the developer/publisher then pay them for the game. If you don't want to pay them then you shouldn't expect them to give you the same service as those who did. It's as simple as that.

The problem with that is that not everyone can afford to pay 60 dollars for a new game. If you can, good for you, but the online passes do more harm than good. They screw over people who want to rent the game or buy it used, last I checked no other medium puts up pay walls for used or rented copies.

As for the used players? Well, you're probably getting used to this sort of thing these days. I ask you: Where's your Occupy Wall Street movement? Where's your protest march? Where are the jobless college kids acting on your behalf?
Of course, the answer is "playing video games and writing enraged Internet comments at nobody who can actually affect change." Right then. Carry on.

Aaah never change, Alex.

I think the online pass is justifiable, since how terrible used game sales is for the developers. However, requiring online access for the sections of the game is a bit much, unless it's a one time, log in sort of deal. If it requires a persistent connection, though? That's dumb as hell.

Does this mean you cannot progress in the game without having Xbox Live Gold? What.

dick move WB, dick move.

@bybeach said:

I'm just waiting for the day you really only buy a partial game. This is getting close, but we will see how much the rest of the room can be consumed before the game is effectively, if not technically, castrated. Extra endings? A big inexplicable gap in the story? I would like to think that Deus Ex; Hum. Rev. developed their dlc for the insert point, and not simply withheld it for monies,..which is a subtle distinction that I think is true. But other developers will already have that and much more on the disc mind you for unlock..again for monies. This thing with Batman..close but it's not the same.

Assassins Creed 2 is another example, although that is less infamous since it felt like real DLC released months after the game. This Batman thing is pretty ugly because the entire section is already on the disc (and was even promoted on the last E3)... I am betting the online pass download won't be larger than a few KBs.

God help everyone that the developer wants you to pay for extra content! AaaaAaaaHH!

Well Alex, you gotta still complain. Even if it's to nobody that can do anything, you're at least voicing your dissatisfaction with it. Complacency is the same as acceptance.

Also I'd rather pay money for Katwoman rather than Catwoman. Mmmm, Dylan Ryder. ;)

Isn't this basically just codes for Day 1 DLC that they are packaging with the game? It's just a pricing structure they aren't taking away your rights as a consumer. When you purchase an item they are required to be up front about what you are getting and what you need to have to get the full use out of their product. Similar to if you buy a car to get full use out of it you have to also purchase gasoline. The gas doesn't come with the car.

I guess I understand that those without internet are hosed a little but like in my car analogy if you want to drive the car your going to purchase the gasoline.

If I end up not being able to buy Batman because of Ubisoft-style DRM and general treatment of customers I'll be mighty disappointed!