Batman: Arkham Knight season pass makes me bat crazy

Batman: Arkham Knight's season pass is $40, so does the "complete" Arkham Knight experience total $100? And is it worth it?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
ShinMaster1271d ago (Edited 1271d ago )

I think they're just trying to squeeze the game to the last drop because it'll be the last in the series/trilogy (at least from Rocksteady).

LackTrue4K1271d ago

"dam it, where is Super-Man when you need him?!"

iSuperSaiyanGod1271d ago

I'd rather pay for a $70 batman season pass then a $60 superman game .

Peace_Love_and_FPS1271d ago

^ why because Goku got thrashed on ERB? ;)

ShinMaster1270d ago

We haven't really had a good Superman game or a Superman game period, in ages.

I've been hoping that Rocksteady made a Justice League game, as challenging as that may be.

_-EDMIX-_1271d ago

ummmmmm....sure. I really don't think it is. They are likely saying this to actually get sales. I'm very doubtful on a "never" for this series and Rocksteady.

Yi-Long1271d ago

They'll say this is the last 'Arkham' game, and then rebrand the new games as 'Gotham' games or something.

Anyway, I was excited about Arkham Knight, but because of the ridiculous Season pass DLC milking, I won't be picking the game up at launch for full price.

I'm not spending 100 euro in order to get the complete experience. I will spend that money on developers and games that dó respect me, and their own product.

ab5olut10n1271d ago

Better get the Season Pass Repellant Bat Spray.

Peace_Love_and_FPS1271d ago (Edited 1271d ago )

Yours for a low price of just $40.00!!!

Transporter471271d ago (Edited 1271d ago )

I think 29.99 and 39.99 season passes is too much money. It just seems like they purposely hold back content in order to charge you for it later. I am boycotting season passes due to this. I will also boycott the game and will wait for a full edition of the game. This is a really hard decision for me, but I can only speak with my wallet.

reallyNow1271d ago

since watchdogs, season passes are no-go's for me. what a joke that turned out to be. :-(

iSuperSaiyanGod1271d ago

What a joke watchdog was in general

Yi-Long1271d ago

The joke is on THEM, really. I was interested in Watch_Dogs, especially considering the lack of decent next-gen sandbox games at the time...

... but the whole DLC/Season Pass thing made me decide against buying the game at launch, and now the game is on sale in the EU PS Store for 20 euro, and I'm just not interested in the game at all any more, so even though I WAS interested and they could have made 50-60 euro from me on day 1, they decided to get greedy, which put me off from that initial purchase, and now instead of getting my 50-60 bucks AND money for DLC, they get absolutely NOTHING from me. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No pesos!

reallyNow1270d ago

i actually really liked the single player. the problem is i expected...something in the multiplayer. like, how about those digital trips in co-op? that would have been fun...seems like lots of opportunity for a really compelling co-op experience was wasted.

aLucidMind1271d ago

Free for all new copies and $20 for those buying used, with all DLC being free to those having the pass is perfect in my opinion. The pass should also reflect the overall DLC costs; if the cost of all DLC is $20, then the pass should be $10 then.

Rewards New customers with extra value (free pass), Used customers get a good value ($10, get $20+ worth of free DLC), and the developer gets to not only make money in a reasonable way AND build consumer loyalty through a fair business model.

This is excluding those multiplayer passes, which are clearly only to stick it to consumers. The current form of Season Passes are little more than scams at best to try and milk ALL customers rather than reward them.

_-EDMIX-_1271d ago

" they purposely hold back content" don't actually know that and the game is 5 times larger then Arkham City. How do you know they didn't haven another part of their team solely working on DLC?

You can boycott it all you want, the reality is your mad about something that is no only baseless, it doesn't even matter. Its not your game, company, ip, team etc. Your paying for what they are offering with Arkham Knight....thats it.

Soooo if 7 years went buy and they released this DLC, would you still be mad? lol, I'm sorry but its extra content for a reason. Arkham Knight is already the largest game this team has ever made and I doubt its shorter or has less content then the last games JUST to um..."hold back" for dlc.

They have other teams to actually just do the dlc. Did it ever occur to you that they can make a game large, long, filled with content AND have DLC?

Oblivion, larger then Morrowind, longer...had DLC.

Skyrim, larger then Oblivion, longer....had DLC.

GTAV larger then GTAIV, longer....had DLC

Mario Kart 8, more tracks and karts then any Mario Kart in history.......had DLC.

Smash Bros Wii U, larger roster in history, more levels then any Smash, has DLC.

GT5, most tracks and cars ever released in GT history.....had DLC.

I'm sorry but one really needs to factor that unless theses games are coming out smaller, shorter with less content then their previous entries.....maybe they legit actually are giving you extras.

Not only do publisher hire extra teams to do DLC while games are being made, they are PAYING extra for it to happen, ie the life of the DLC is because its being charged for....its existance is to be sold as an extra, it wasn't made to be in the full game as it doesn't cover the cost.

Sooo what BF has launched with 40 maps? So for $60 which has been factually shown by inflation to be LESS then what they where making years ago, they should just make a game for year and years to have literally hundreds of hours of content for what, $60?

Do you not actually get that it exist because its being charged for? All those season passes would not had just been in the game without dlc you know, it was made because it was being charged for, someone needs to pay the people making that extra content. Why would a team go into years longer into development to give 40 maps for a game all for the same price? Consider publishers are not just getting more money per game because of this...

They are giving you MORE at a price. Even if this DLC was free, if years later they made payed for DLC, you would likely not like that either..... Games typically have more content each entry and are typically larger, not shorter and smaller.

I really haven't seen anything to really show that something is being "withheld" and the reality is, even if part of it was, as long as I'm getting more then the last time and its larger and a complete game, I could care less, it again isn't my IP, I don't own the team nor publisher etc.

Pay for what is being offered, you not buying the souls of the developers lol. I"m not sure why folks think they own the whole IP when they buy a game. Your buying what they are offering...

Want extra, pay extra. That is only fair, they don't just work for free.

Peace_Love_and_FPS1271d ago (Edited 1271d ago )

All I can say is get a job, maybe as a games journalist or an Activision PR artist (not that there's any difference between the two besides salary).

Legit dude, I only read two paragraphs, my eyes glazed over when I saw the rest of it. You're getting waaaaaaay too heated over this. Chill. Chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill.

1271d ago Replies(1)
aLucidMind1271d ago

Season Pass content is almost never worth it, especially when you consider the execution. I've never actually bought a season pass because of this fact, and only recommend doing so after all DLC has been released so you can see if the pass is worth your money.

As much as I dislike EA, they did it right with Mass Effect 2's Season Pass (Cerberus Network) where every new copy got it for free and just about all DLC content being free. Too bad that was a one-time-ever thing, as nobody (not including EA) has done that again... possibly because 'screw you, give me money!'.

Show all comments (39)
The story is too old to be commented.