Batman: Arkham Knight’s Season Pass is a Milestone for Industry Abuse

Let it go on record that I firmly believe that the toxicity of today’s marketing and business strategies in the video game industry will ultimately lead to its downfall. Video gaming was once a simple, straightforward concept. There was no such thing as downloadable content or add-ons unless it was a PC title with an expansion pack; video games were released in their complete form after years of development.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
GreetingsfromCanada1343d ago

GG Rocksteady, you're probably launching the most overpriced season pass of all time.

RealFry1343d ago (Edited 1343d ago )

*For a single player game*

Remember COD and Battlefield still charge $50 for theirs. Even the previous $30 status quo is too much. Expansion DLC like this should cost $20 for a singleplayer game, and has to be PACKED with worthwhile content.

Im gonna wait until all the content for the season pass comes out and then wait for a sale.

sinjonezp1343d ago

Shouldn't skins and customization be a part of the game? Shouldn't people be able to enjoy things like skins for let's say, gathering hidden items in the game. Think of this reference. Tekken 3 or even the first soul caliber. When you played the game and Perform objectives, tons of unlockables happen. Now in order to get skins, and unlockables item types, it's a part of dlc. The only thing that I get is additional story missions AFTER the game is released. Other then that, they should have it where villains are in the game. That would have been a big selling point to say , as you play, in the days ahead , more villains will surface. That would give the game legs. Instead they look at us as cows and just throw us grass and we will eat. Granted you don't have to buy it, it would be cool if a lot of it was a part of the game. Maybe more people would buy the thing. Amen

mikeslemonade1343d ago (Edited 1343d ago )

The simple solution is to increase the price of games from $59.99 to $69.99 msrp. Then everyone can have access to the DLC.

We haven't seen a price increase since 2005. And even in 1996 the N64 was charging $60 per game at times.

ginsunuva1343d ago

It's WB's decision, not the developer's.

Magicite1343d ago

hopefully main game will deliver, I can live without DLCs and other additions.

Relientk771343d ago

Well I'm definitely not buying the season pass

Army_of_Darkness1343d ago

3 rich, clueless gamers disagree with you and will buy the over priced crap Gawd dammit!!

Satyre281343d ago

This is the kind of stuff that really worries me that they are taking content from the game and putting it into a DLC. This is kind of outrageous, 40 bucks for a season pass??!? Seriously? I need to really think now if i am even going to buy the game, i honestly refuse to give support to this garbage. I also have the witcher which i expect will last me months so i might not even need Batman.

Vandamme211343d ago

I'm buying it because it offers more story

affrogamer1343d ago

you're one of those idiots they target. Believe it or not they're cutting content from the $60 value and reselling it to u for $40 more, and if people like you keep supporting this the rest of the industry is going to follow suit. Gamers pockets lose at the end of the day!

Army_of_Darkness1343d ago

Vandamme is an exception cause he's ballin' with the cash he's getting from his B movies.

Papafynn1343d ago

The cost of making video games has increased over the years but its MSRP has declined if one factors in inflation. For publishers to make their money back on these AAA risk video games, prices either have to increase or the exorbitant DLC format will be the norm. This may not be a popular opinion but 1080p, 4K, 60fps cost a lot of money to make. Are you willing to pay more for the past time you love so dearly?

Bathyj1343d ago

Well this is why I never whine about the price of games. They are as cheap or cheaper than they were 20 years ago.


The market is a lot bigger and they sell way more units. Games cost more to make but they are selling more of them to recoup that and keep prices at what the market considers fair. The issue with this is people feel they are buying an incomplete product, as a lot of this DLC is ready to go and could easily be included on the disc.

Rebel_Scum1343d ago

DLC ready to go? You don't know that. But your comment below regarding day one dlc is spot on. That's taking the mick.

Bathyj1343d ago

Yeah I didnt mean specifically Batman has DLC ready to go, I meant in general that is why DLC has become such a bad practice, and charging this much for it is just testing the waters now, seeing how much we will put up with. Trust me, if people actually buy this and dont send a message in two years it will be just normal.

BattleAxe1343d ago (Edited 1343d ago )

Hmm, that's funny, because we always hear how new game engines like Unreal Engine 4 make it much much easier to develop games these days.

Not to mention the fact that game engines are being given away for free, with royalties being paid only after a certain amount of sales.

Also, I'm in my late 30s, and the bit about games being more expensive 20 years ago simply isn't true. Sure, I remember the odd game such as Final Fantasy for the NES being $100.00 at launch, but those prices were far and few between.

Papafynn1343d ago

I don't quite understand the logic that having DLC content ready at launch day means it should be included in the final game. DLC is produced by a different team with its own budget & has to pay for itself. It's only prudent to do so, having the original development team start DLC content after the game ships is suicidal. It will take good year plus to plan, develope & ship DLC if this were the case. By that time everyone would have moved on to the newest, latest, best AAA game. No publisher has that luxury of a gamer's attention span for than long! It's like asking if I'm saving my money for the Dragon Age DLC or getting Witcher 3.......Witcher 3 duh!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1343d ago
areisul1343d ago

I'd be MORE than happy to sacrifice graphic fidelity for less bullshit anti-consumerist practices. Especially considering we're in a time where there is next to no innovation in terms of gameplay.

poppinslops1343d ago

Sure, AAA develepment costs have risen - but $140AU?

GTAV cost $300mil to make and market, yet it's had countless free updates (including online Hiests) and it was sold for $70AU... made a LOT of money.

CDPR are already renowned for their approach to the Witcher 3's dlc, which they've been wholly upfront about... their paid dlc has more playtime than most standalone games, for a fraction of the price.

Rocksteady are cashing in - nothing more, nothing less - it's their 'last' Batman game, and it will sell regardless of it's dlc.

Rebel_Scum1343d ago

Are you too young to remember the cartridge era? 16bit games were around the $140 mark in Australia I imagine. They were 160-190 in NZ.

The 10th Rider1343d ago

Well, I do agree in a sense, people say MSRP of games hasn't gone up this gen...But the cost of DLC and things like that often add up, with the MSRP, to $100 or more.

The MSRP didn't increase this gen. Instead they try to subliminally pry more money out of you by releasing DLC that's often planned well before release.

_-EDMIX-_1343d ago (Edited 1343d ago )

Expansion was an add on, downloadable is merely the distribution method...that is really the only thing thats changed

I got to agree with Papafynn.

Games have stayed the same price, while becoming more and more complex. The DLC format is merely the expansion format in downloadable form and not many PC games even didn't do an expansion, most of my favorite PC games all had expansions.

Doom, Quake, Half Life, Myst, The Sims, Age Of Empire, Diablo, Never Winter Nights etc all had expansions.

Soo...were mad at the distribution method? Would it appearing on disk mean something different?

" video games were released in their complete form"

Neither of the older PC titles I listed would be "complete" as they had post launch content with that logic.

Using this silly logic. Then you never got a "complete" version of Street Fighter, I mean come on bro, "Super" is the "complete" version, no I mean "alpha" yea thats it....well no "hyper" is , no "Ultimate" is...

We've generally been getting more content per game release and not really less in terms of launch game.

Skyrim, bigger then Oblivion, more content.

GT5, more tracks and cars then GT4.

GTAV, larger then GTAIV, more missions.

Mario Kart 8, more tracks and karts then Mario Kart Wii

Witcher 3, longer and larger then both Witcher games.

Smash Bros Wii U, more stages and characters then any smash.

......all have post launch content. The hell do you mean with "complete games" and "were released"? Add in that those later games are much more complex graphically, conceptually and technically.

How can they already have THE MOST in series HISTORY, yet...not complete? Oh because DLC exist, it MUST have been from the base game? What evidence even suggest that?

Again...can't that be said about ANY expansion or even an edition released of a certain game? How many ports have come from Nintendo with extra content? That now the "complete" version? I some point we sorta need to let go that your not buying the damn team's soul, your buying what they are offering as a product. You don't NEED TO BUY DLC to play the um..."complete" version. That is an extra and a choice.

Games go up price in development, games have stayed the same price for years, post launch content in ANY FORM has existed for years and years, games have gone UP in content and size and in complexity. I'm sorry but those things just can't be disputed.

Some need to legit have real logical reasons why post launch content is bad. Not "assumptions" based on where they "think" the dlc came from. Last I recall... neither of us actually own the IP to those series, you agree to buy that game regardless if DLC is being made. No one here owns those IPs.

Mind you...I would like to here BUSINESS WISE why it would make sense. Most of you seem to think your legit owed the whole SERIES for buying 1 game lol.


No Way1343d ago (Edited 1343d ago )

The problem is.. if there is a season pass, the devs already planned content.
They already know they want to add content, after the release.
So, who is to say that they purposefully withheld said content from the disc?
On top of that, why are costumes, weapons, and etc not unlocks but downloads?

I think it looks better on the dev if a pass, or content, is mentioned after the game has been released and not before. This is what, I believe, upsets so many people..

_-EDMIX-_1342d ago

@No Way- How is that a problem? Its not your game ,They budgeted for extra content, based on knowing it will be sold outside the main game. This game is 5x bigger then Arkham City, I see most times its not even respected what gamers are getting, as suppose to what they are not getting for free. Why do they care? they again don't own the team and its extra content, not "withheld", that suggest that it was always going to be in the final game...but clearly if they budged for post launch content, it means it was NEVER going to be in the main game for FREE it makes no sense.

That is no different then McDonalds making fries based on KNOWING it will be sold. Should they give it to you for free based on them making it? I don't get it? Are you buying a Sandwich from them, or are you buying everything they create? THIS is what I mean by this strange entitlement that many gamers feel they are owed, content they did not pay for.

Why is it that a gamer is owed this? Are you again buying a game or buying the team?

"So, who is to say that they purposefully withheld said content from the disc?"

Because many, many examples of games have shown they are larger, more complex and have more content the previous entry' this game. ie I don't really just think that Skyrim, or BF etc where just going to have ALLL that content.

The content exist because it was budgeted to be sold, the publisher would likely NEVER going to make ALLL THAT JUST put it in a $60 game.

"On top of that, why are costumes, weapons, and etc not unlocks but downloads?"

Why should the be free? That is not for ALL weapon unlocks, I'm sorry but many, many, many games have weapon unlocks, Ratchet series, God Of War, Gears, Halo, Call Of Duty, BF etc yet still have DLC.

I don't really know what you mean, again....extras. You don't need to buy them. Your asking why should the extra content be for extra cost, why can't the extra content be for free as a "unlock" despite already having unlocks.....for free?

What if they just added those for free too? 2 years later they make some DLC, would you then still not be asking "why are they not just free unlocks"? LMFAO! I some point you need to get its not made for free, it was made to be an extra and charged for. Its existence was to be sold, not to be an unlock as they already have those.

Better yet, what game had unlocks, that took them out in favor of DLC? You really need to be specific because you just can't be vague about this...if its really a issue and really happening, what game did it that didn't do it with the exact same number of content prior?

"I think it looks better on the dev if a pass, or content, is mentioned after the game has been released and not before. This is what, I believe, upsets so many people"

Soooo ignorance? Soo if they "believe" it was made after the fact they will feel better? I mean....what does it matter? Its not their ip, team, company etc, they own zero rights to the game.

Any publisher, team etc can create what they want for DLC, you again are agreeing to buy THEIR game, not what you feel your owed. Why care that they made something else while making this game? Their funding doesn't back BOTH for $60...I swear I don't get why gamers don't fully grasp that concept.

Again...when you go to Mcdonalds....are you owed everything being made in the kitchen because you bought 1 sandwich? Again...we buying 1 product or the whole damn team and everything they created?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1342d ago
Show all comments (43)
The story is too old to be commented.