The only argument that could be made is if the touch screen features for the Wii U are out of this world that they are an experience that the other consoles are missing out on... but I doubt that. I also noticed that the PC Version is 10 dollars less yet I did not hear anyone say that PC would be missing out on multiplayer. http://www.gamestop.com/pc/games/batman-arkham-origins/109592 (http://www.gamestop.com/pc/games/batman-arkham-origins/109592)
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Soren on August 02, 2013, 01:58:37 PM
Nope.avi
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: ejamer on August 02, 2013, 02:18:14 PM
Is it fair? No way.
But they probably know that the Wii U version is going to sell poorly regardless (by comparison, for install base if no other reason) and figured the extra $10 per copy would be worthwhile to the bottom line.
I agree that it seems ridiculous and makes the Wii U version less desirable than any other.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: broodwars on August 02, 2013, 02:34:33 PM
You made your choice on 3rd party games when you bought a Nintendo console. Personally, I don't see the removal of a multiplayer mode no one cares about from a single-player-focused game to necessarily be a deterrent. I said the same thing when I bought the PS3 version of Resident Evil Revelations over the Wii U version despite Nintendo having exclusive multiplayer modes. I'd also say the same thing if Tomb Raider had been released on PS3 without the tacked-on multiplayer mode. I bought the game for the single-player experience and I've barely played the multiplayer, yet I feel like I got my money's worth. I wouldn't care if it wasn't there.
You need to decide for yourself what features you care about in the games you play. If you're not an online MP person, it doesn't matter if that feature's not available or weak in your games. Complaining because a mode you don't care about isn't in your game is just complaining for its own sake. Besides, if you are about Online MP, why do you play on Nintendo systems, where Online MP has never been strong?
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: sweetfeathery on August 02, 2013, 02:45:42 PM
It's pure principle. It shouldn't matter if the multiplayer is the next Call of Duty or just another pile of rubbish. If game developers are going to charge the full price of the game then I should have the full experience. If they came out and said that they felt the Wii U multiplayer base was not large enough to justify Batman's multiplayer then so be it... but take ten dollars off the game. The idea that the Nintendo community is suppose to just brush it off, condemn the reality of the multiplayer, and continue to pay the full price only encourages this bad behavior.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Soren on August 02, 2013, 02:58:30 PM
Complaining because a mode you don't care about isn't in your game is just complaining for its own sake.
Ah, the old "why are you complaining about something you say you don't care" tactic. Closely related to the "I'm not affected by this so I don't care" defense.
Part of the broad appeal of several game franchises revolve around the multitude of features that tap into different user bases. It's why I complained about Wii U Madden not having Ultimate Team, even though I've never used the mode in any EA Sports game that has it. Because there's another big sector of people who only play UT.
The Wii U version of Arkham Origins lacks the same overall value that the PS360 versions have. It's stupid for them to be priced the same.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Phil on August 02, 2013, 03:20:12 PM
I called it a self-fulfilling prophecy in the news article. It just seems like WB Games are setting themselves up to fail on Wii U with Arkham Origins and the lack of features compared to the other platforms so they have an excuse to stop supporting the system.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: lolmonade on August 02, 2013, 03:29:19 PM
Lousy for Nintendo console owners, smart move for WB to release this version. If they can release the multiplayer-less version at a lower cost to them, it lowers the barrier to profitability. If they can hit profitability on this game, they may be more inclined to more heavily support the Wii U in the future.
As is with most cases, if this leaves a sour taste in your mouth, then don't buy until you feel you're getting the right value/$ ratio
I find myself hard-pressed to blame WB in this case. Nintendo hasn't fostered an adequate install base to make the Wii U a platform that 3rd party developers can have confidence in making money off-off. In some ways, Nintendo should feel lucky they're releasing any version of this game.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: sweetfeathery on August 02, 2013, 03:46:03 PM
It is fair to say that we have the right to not buy a game if it leaves a sour taste in our mouths, but lets remember events like this when the Nintendo consumer is painted as a group that does not support third party releases. Lets look back to practices like these when we the consumer are expected to pay the premium cost for less but chose not to and then are told "Nintendo fans only buy Nintendo games!" History has a funny way of repeating itself and I'm sure a year from now somewhere the example will be made of a game like this having poor sales figures compared to the PS3 and 360 which people will draw the conclusion that the audience of Wii U players do not want these types of games.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: marty on August 02, 2013, 05:05:45 PM
It is fair to say that we have the right to not buy a game if it leaves a sour taste in our mouths, but lets remember events like this when the Nintendo consumer is painted as a group that does not support third party releases. Lets look back to practices like these when we the consumer are expected to pay the premium cost for less but chose not to and then are told "Nintendo fans only buy Nintendo games!" History has a funny way of repeating itself and I'm sure a year from now somewhere the example will be made of a game like this having poor sales figures compared to the PS3 and 360 which people will draw the conclusion that the audience of Wii U players do not want these types of games.
I think there are greater truths the the "wisdom" that Nintendo fans don't buy 3rd party games. A lot of "Nintendo fans" are actually multi-console owners capable of deciding what games they want to buy. If 3rd parties want to make an inferior version (or at least a game that is advertised lacking specific features), it signals that more work/effort was put into one version than another (which might not be 100% correct, but it'd be hard to convince someone that the version missing elements is superior). This is also going to effect Nintendo console only gamers who would rather not buy any version rather than the inferior one. If you give people a choice between best, worst, and nothing, don't be surprised when they don't chose the worst--even if they couldn't choose the best. 3rd parties have themselves to blame. Nintendo has been getting the worst version for 20 years. It'd be one thing if that weren't the case but it is. You can't blame customers for wanting something better than what they're being offered. They're the one's paying--or withholding payment if they're not getting what they want.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Caterkiller on August 03, 2013, 04:40:33 PM
Oh hey, you know the new Splinter Cell doesn't have offline co-op on Wii U... That is some old bull ship.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: paleselan on August 04, 2013, 01:43:50 AM
Or you could buy the game on the PS3/360...
In all honesty, the only reason the PC version is cheaper is because the company doesn't have to pay a licensing fee, while Warner Bros has to pay Nintendo about $10 per copy sold when the game is sold on Wii U.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: sweetfeathery on August 04, 2013, 09:29:31 PM
That right there is the problem. Why should the consumer buy the game for the Wii U if there is a mentality to buy it on your Xbox or PS3? And while many of us here may also own the other consoles, I would make the argument that the Wii U for some people is the only console that a consumer may own. If I bought a game like the new Splinter Cell or Batman, paid the sixty dollars, got it home and found out that my version of the game has had features stripped from it, I would be pretty upset. To tell someone like this "Well, you should have known better than to have bought it for a Wii U" is just plain absurd. It should be all or nothing if a third party wants to put a game on the Wii U and charge the full price, and if the argument is that the game is destined to fail then why bother releasing it on the console in the first place? Deadpool is a game that I applaud for charging 10 dollars less than a traditional game at launch. They knew that the game was not a AAA experience but they were smart enough to slash ten dollars off the cost because of this.... and the PC version is a twenty dollar difference! So don't tell me that third party companies are painted into a corner and have to charge the full price for a game with less content.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Oblivion on August 04, 2013, 09:31:22 PM
You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who's only console is the Wii U. Not counting Nintendo fanboys.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Kytim89 on August 04, 2013, 10:57:58 PM
You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who's only console is the Wii U. Not counting Nintendo fanboys.
Emphasis added.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: bustin98 on August 04, 2013, 11:16:22 PM
I'll buy Splinter Cell and Batman on the Wii U, once they drop in price. $10 for SP and $20 for Batman.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Khushrenada on August 06, 2013, 02:52:18 PM
Whether multiplayer is there or not, I'll buy it for the Wii U since that's the only next gen console I've got or plan to get. Frankly, I'm just happy that the game is even being offered on Wii U after missing out on the first two with the Wii. They could have easily decided not to bother with a Wii U release as well since I have no idea how well Armored Edition sold but thankfully, this is one third party title that is still getting released and it is pretty much one of the few third party titles I'd be interested in and as such I plan to support it still.
I've asked this before but never really got an answer on it. How well did Rockband sell on the Wii compared to the other two consoles? That is another big third party game that had a few features missing on the Wii compared to the other two but did it have lower sales than them or not? I know that some people see this as a slap in the face to Wii U owners or a conspiracy to create lower sales but I see it like music cds.
Sometimes after an album has been released, it will be re-released as a special edition or there's an anniversary edition which might have some bonus tracks or demos or other such little bonuses. Now, if I've already bought the cd, yeah, it can sort of suck to see what might be a superior edition on the shelf but the chances that those extras are going to be super amazing are pretty low. In other cases, where I didn't own an existing version of an album, I have bought the special edition version thinking I might as well get the best version possible. Invariably, the extras that are included are so often inferior or not that interesting that I never really play them or listen to them aside from the first couple times I try them out and just stick with the regular track listings that would be present on a non-special edition album. Because of this, there are times where I haven't even bothered to buy a special edition album and just stuck with the regular version because the cost didn't seem worth it.
Now, I know the argument will be, that this is different. The Wii U version doesn't have two choices, one with multiplayer and one without. Nobody owns the game yet and it is not like they are re-releasing it as a special edition. The cost is the same for all. I get all that. My thought wasn't to do with those facts. Basically, it had to do with the fact that sometimes, these extras that are included really offer nothing to the value of the product and a lot of times, even if you have them, you wouldn't miss them if they suddenly disappeared or never had them. And so it is with the multiplayer in this game. I hardly ever seem to do any multiplayer gaming anymore and if I do, it is just with the old standby's of Mario Parties or Mario Kart because people are a lot more familiar and able to play those games. Nor do I do any real online gaming (expect mafia, ha ha ha). Therefore, I don't have a problem buying this game without it.
I was going to buy this game orginally thinking it would only be singleplayer. The fact that a multiplayer option appeared was just an extra surprise. Now there is no multiplayer. So, be it. Doesn't change the fact of why I originally wanted to buy and play the game as that was never part of the offer before. But that's just my way of thinking.
Oh, and with games these days, you pretty much never have to pay full retail price. There are so many price drops, offers, deals, bargains, discounts and used game sales that paying full retail price for a game is a waste of money and the only benefit you get is the opportunity of being able to play it as soon as it releases.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: sweetfeathery on August 10, 2013, 04:49:23 AM
When I worked at GameStop the Wii versions or Guitar Hero and Rock Band were our highest of the consoles (other than the PS2). The music games worked perfectly on the Wii because the audience who bought the Wii for the Wii Sports saw the instruments set up when they walked through the local Best Buy and realized that with their Wii they had the hardware they would need to get into music games. That is a great example of third party selling on the Wii. The Wii version was not an HD and did not have the same level of online support but still was able to sell well on a Nintendo platform.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: toddra on August 18, 2013, 12:36:28 PM
I think that is just typical for Nintendo, their games always seem to be missing something one way or another and they always charge full price so this is nothing new. Even back in the SNES days multiplatform games often looked slightly better on SNES but tended to have more content on Genesis. It's just the way things are.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: BranDonk Kong on August 18, 2013, 01:01:57 PM
Except Aladdin, which was a better game on the SNES but looked better on the Genesis (completely different games though, developed by different companies, so I guess that's not fair).
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 18, 2013, 01:31:57 PM
Not to derail this thread into a flame war, but Genesis Aladdin is way better than SNES Aladdin.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: nickmitch on August 18, 2013, 06:28:04 PM
Just watched a video of the Genesis version, and I'm shocked at how different it is.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: RedBlue on September 27, 2013, 11:46:09 PM
It seams Warner brothers have made batman 10 dollars cheaper because it doesn't have my.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Enner on September 28, 2013, 01:47:23 AM
Surprised that Warner Brothers reduced the price of the Wii U version of Batman: Arkham Origins by $10.
It's good news for Wii U owners as the Wii U version of the game is missing content from the other versions of the game. However, it sets a strange precedent that, implicitly, a multiplayer mode is worth $10 at retail launch.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: UncleBob on September 28, 2013, 03:33:13 AM
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Sarail on September 28, 2013, 10:31:10 PM
I'm fine with that. I'd never touch the multiplayer anyway. Bring it, Batman.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: nickmitch on September 29, 2013, 12:10:41 PM
Being $10 cheaper might make me buy it, even after not playing much of Arkham City.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: EasyCure on September 30, 2013, 04:45:14 AM
I'm the exact opposite, the discounted price and the amount of fun I had playing Arkham City would bump this up to at least an impulse near day 1 purchase.
Really the only thing holding me back is fact that Wind Waker will be out soon. I don't know why I feel the need to replay this in HD, but I must.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 30, 2013, 09:59:05 AM
Wind Waker HD is already out, bro. eShop.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: EasyCure on September 30, 2013, 12:59:47 PM
Yeah I know but I'd rather buy the disc, call me old fashion.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Ian Sane on September 30, 2013, 07:23:36 PM
A $10 cut for a less featured version is the best I think we can expect and it certainly is a nicer gesture than just charging the same price. But as I own a PS3, I would never get the Wii U version unless it was my only option. $10 isn't THAT much of a difference where it would move my purchase towards the Wii version. $20? Now it's something I would consider. Having the "better" version of the game is worth $10 to me and it's the similar price point for "Collector's Editions" and such with extra doodads. Surely someone who will pay a little extra for an art book or key chain or whatever would also pay extra for a more fully featured version, particularly when that version isn't a premium but rather the usual price.
This will sell to Wii U-only owners but not so much to anyone else. The Wii U is fully capable of online games so it shouldn't be missing the feature to begin with. And even with a discount it is not in Nintendo's best interest to have the Wii U versions of games be seen as lesser budget versions. Not that it matters to the third party but Nintendo shouldn't be okay with this.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: NeoStar9X on October 08, 2013, 01:07:40 AM
Glad they cut the price. Seriously it was the smart thing to do. Otherwise they would have simply alienated the customer base I think. The lack of multiplayer is bad enough but to be charged the same price for less content that isn't going to be added is crazy and downright insulting.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Ceric on October 08, 2013, 09:23:56 AM
Or I could wait oh... 3 months maybe and get it for a Song off of Steam.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: ShyGuy on October 08, 2013, 10:09:23 AM
Or I could wait oh... 3 months maybe and get it for a Song off of Steam.
Can't you say that about 90% of games?
And I do.
That's why Nintendo as a console is something I have because of all the exclusives.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: Phil on October 08, 2013, 03:00:27 PM
This makes me lean towards the Wii U version, as I don't care for (or want) multiplayer in single player-focused titles. It's a waste of resources that could go into further polishing the single player experience. I hope the version comes out well and runs as well as Arkham City - Armored Edition did.
Title: Re: No multiplayer but we're expected to pay full price?
Post by: ShyGuy on October 08, 2013, 03:36:12 PM
Or I could wait oh... 3 months maybe and get it for a Song off of Steam.
Can't you say that about 90% of games?
And I do.
That's why Nintendo as a console is something I have because of all the exclusives.
Then what's the point of saying it now? why not wait 3 years and pick it up for $5 on ebay? Then you can have the physical copy.
Why not just watch the cutscenes on Youtube and use the free time to volunteer at an animal shelter?
I rather have Digital because it doesn't take physical space in my house. No animal shelter near and if this is like the first game that wouldn't really be that great. Honestly, its more of a statement about my experience with the first game that I found to be a more Polished Other M that went to long.
