Batman : Arkham Origins will be $10 cheaper on WiiU / PC than on 360 / PS3

http://wiiudaily.com/2013/09/batman-arkham-origins-will-be-cheaper-on-wii-u/

Warner Bros Games have confirmed that the upcoming Batman Arkham Origins will actually be cheaper on the Wii U than on other current gen consoles. The Wii U version will retail for $50, while the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions will cost $60.

The cheaper price is likely because the Wii U version doesnt have online multiplayer. WB Games recently revealed that Arkham Origins on the Wii U will also be getting the season pass, which features a bunch of new content, including a new story campaign DLC.

The game launches on October 25 on the Wii U, PC, PS3 and Xbox 360. Its one of the few multiplatform titles thats actually coming to the Wii U this Fall. Be sure to check out the recent trailer of the game as well.



 

Not sure what there is to discuss. The cheaper price is for an inferior product.

Didnt they confirm the WiiU version to have no multiplayer mode? its an infirior version hence the lower price.

Not sure what there is to discuss. The cheaper price is for an inferior product.

airshocker

Didnt they confirm the WiiU version to have no multiplayer mode? its an infirior version hence the lower price.

finalstar2007

What, for missing a multiplayer component that has a chance of not being good due to who's behind it (they are by the same guys who did Brink).

nintendoboy16

Not seeing how this makes any difference. If one version doesn't have multiplayer and the others do, it's inferior.

I'd say the same thing if this was the case with the 360, PS3, or PC. You can't charge $10 more for a title that doesn't have one of the features the game was made for.

pc most likely like almost all games will also be $50

In fact looking at greenmangaming and steam preorder actually confirms this . Its 45euros as opposed to 60 on 360/ps3

Those that say it's an Inferior Product. Who actually cares about the Multiplayer for Arkham Origins?

It's going to be dead within the Month it comes out.

Those that say it's an Inferior Product. Who actually cares about the Multiplayer for Arkham Origins?

It's going to be dead within the Month it comes out.

LegatoSkyheart

Yeah that's what I was thinking.

The MP looks crap and I wish I could get a PC version for cheaper if I had the option to remove the MP. 

Those that say it's an Inferior Product. Who actually cares about the Multiplayer for Arkham Origins?

It's going to be dead within the Month it comes out.

LegatoSkyheart

You don't have to, but it's still an inferior version.

Not sure what else to tell you guys.

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

What, for missing a multiplayer component that has a chance of not being good due to who's behind it (they are by the same guys who did Brink).

airshocker

Not seeing how this makes any difference. If one version doesn't have multiplayer and the others do, it's inferior.

I'd say the same thing if this was the case with the 360, PS3, or PC. You can't charge $10 more for a title that doesn't have one of the features the game was made for.

[QUOTE="finalstar2007"]

Didnt they confirm the WiiU version to have no multiplayer mode? its an infirior version hence the lower price.

dobzilian

So artical confirmed my question and says its in inferior version hence the $10 price difference.

multiplayer will probably be really bad and not many will touch it but this is an entire mode the WiiU version is missing out on and shouldnt be taken as a good thing.

Depends. If it's the kind of game that where multiplayer defines the game, then I'd say you'd have a point. Sometimes, it doesn't matter on the extra content, it can still be the worst version. See; Tom McShea and his thoughts on Rayman Legends on Wii U.

nintendoboy16

No, it doesn't depend. If I had bought a car and my friend had bought the same model only his came with power windows, mine would be inferior to his. It's the same principle here.

Hey, at least you don't have to spend an extra $10. Would seriously be a kick in the nuts if they made you pay the full price and didn't include multiplayer.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Not sure what there is to discuss. The cheaper price is for an inferior product.

nintendoboy16

[QUOTE="dobzilian"][QUOTE="finalstar2007"]

Didnt they confirm the WiiU version to have no multiplayer mode? its an infirior version hence the lower price.

finalstar2007

So artical confirmed my question and says its in inferior version hence the $10 price difference.

multiplayer will probably be really bad and not many will touch it but this is an entire mode the WiiU version is missing out on and shouldnt be taken as a good thing.

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Not sure what there is to discuss. The cheaper price is for an inferior product.

rjdofu

And fact >>> speculation.

DC more.

[QUOTE="rjdofu"][QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]What, for missing a multiplayer component that has a chance of not being good due to who's behind it (they are by the same guys who did Brink)?

nintendoboy16

And fact >>> speculation.

DC more.

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

[QUOTE="rjdofu"] Lacking content = fact, "a chance of not being good" = speculation.

And fact >>> speculation.

DC more.rjdofu

And how the f*** is controlling Murphy on the Wii U touch pad not extra? That, and the Vita version were the only ways you could control him where in the PS3, 360, and PC versions, you had to press a button.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Those that say it's an Inferior Product. Who actually cares about the Multiplayer for Arkham Origins?

It's going to be dead within the Month it comes out.

airshocker

You don't have to, but it's still an inferior version.

Not sure what else to tell you guys.

This is a tad bit different from Splinter Cell lacking Multiplayer seeing how that game franchise was sort of built upon that.

No Multiplayer for Splinter Cell was certainly a blow for the WiiU version, but here....

No one plays Batman for a Gears of War Multiplayer clone.

Hey publishers, why dont you go ahead and charge 50 dollars for all your games and leave out the multiplayer? I'll download it for 10 bucks if i want it.

Hey publishers, why dont you go ahead and charge 50 dollars for all your games and leave out the multiplayer? I'll download it for 10 bucks if i want it.

crimsonman1245

Might as well force it on everyone else.

WiiU is dodging the bullet.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Those that say it's an Inferior Product. Who actually cares about the Multiplayer for Arkham Origins?

It's going to be dead within the Month it comes out.

LegatoSkyheart

You don't have to, but it's still an inferior version.

Not sure what else to tell you guys.

This is a tad bit different from Splinter Cell lacking Multiplayer seeing how that game franchise was sort of built upon that.

No Multiplayer for Splinter Cell was certainly a blow for the WiiU version, but here....

No one plays Batman for a Gears of War Multiplayer clone.

[QUOTE="rjdofu"]

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]You mean, like how PS3, 360 and PC versions of Rayman Legends don't have the Murphy touch control segments and the Wii U version does, only to have McShea say it's the worst, having the usual "TSHBO" comments all over that review thread?

nintendoboy16

And how the f*** is controlling Murphy on the Wii U touch pad not extra? That, and the Vita version were the only ways you could control him where in the PS3, 360, and PC versions, you had to press a button.

Content is something else, be it extra missions, extra weapons, characters etc. Extra content prolongs the game duration, while alternative control method does not.

"Won't be as good" is a shit argument, since it has nothing to do with the fact that multiplayer mode increase game replayability, you may not like it, some other will.

Lacking multiplayer = lacking content, spin it however you want.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

You don't have to, but it's still an inferior version.

Not sure what else to tell you guys.

dobzilian

This is a tad bit different from Splinter Cell lacking Multiplayer seeing how that game franchise was sort of built upon that.

No Multiplayer for Splinter Cell was certainly a blow for the WiiU version, but here....

No one plays Batman for a Gears of War Multiplayer clone.

For WiiU? Thought they axed Multi all together for it.

If true then man this isn't like that situation at all then. Still Batman Arkham Origins Multi is terrible.

lol WiiU, all games on WiiU should be $10-20 cheaper to match Nintendos cheap asses.

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

[QUOTE="rjdofu"] Totally related :roll:. And no, murphy touch controll =/= extra content, since you can still control Murphy regardless.

rjdofu

And how the f*** is controlling Murphy on the Wii U touch pad not extra? That, and the Vita version were the only ways you could control him where in the PS3, 360, and PC versions, you had to press a button.

Content is something else, be it extra missions, extra weapons, characters etc. Extra content prolongs the game duration, while alternative control method does not.

"Won't be as good" is a shit argument, since it has nothing to do with the fact that multiplayer mode increase game replayability, you may not like it, some other will.

Lacking multiplayer = lacking content, spin it however you want.

On multiplayer: Multiplayer has the POTENTIAL to add replayability, but if it's widely disliked then what's the point? Would Wii U owners REALLY be missing that much? Prime example of this dates back to the N64 era with Star Fox 64, which, though a fantastic game, had a fairly mediocre multiplayer mode, yet was still replayable thanks to multiple branches in the main campaign. I'm sure the Wii U version of Arkham Origins will still have replayability without multiplayer.

[QUOTE="rjdofu"]

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]It kind of is. People are laughing at the Wii U version of Arkham Origins for lacking content (that, again, maybe won't be as good given tthe Brink dev's history), nevermind STILL laughing at the Wii U version of Rayman Legends for having extra content with the lower scored reviews.

And how the f*** is controlling Murphy on the Wii U touch pad not extra? That, and the Vita version were the only ways you could control him where in the PS3, 360, and PC versions, you had to press a button.

nintendoboy16

Content is something else, be it extra missions, extra weapons, characters etc. Extra content prolongs the game duration, while alternative control method does not.

"Won't be as good" is a shit argument, since it has nothing to do with the fact that multiplayer mode increase game replayability, you may not like it, some other will.

Lacking multiplayer = lacking content, spin it however you want.

On multiplayer: Multiplayer has the POTENTIAL to add replayability, but if it's widely disliked then what's the point? Would Wii U owners REALLY be missing that much? Prime example of this dates back to the N64 era with Star Fox 64, which, though a fantastic game, had a fairly mediocre multiplayer mode, yet was still replayable thanks to multiple branches in the main campaign. I'm sure the Wii U version of Arkham Origins will still have replayability without multiplayer.

Bought the PC version yesterday for $35. Standard price is $48.

Or you could get the entire Arkham trilogy (2xGOTY editions) for $45. Don't know for how long the code is valid.
http://www.greenmangaming.com/batman-franchise/
GMG25-W38UG-WZTBY


Don't forget to search Thief, if you're interested in that at all.

So basically the multiplayer is worth $10. The PC version is the ONLY one people should be getting as not only will it be cheaper but it will have free online, better visuals and obviously controller supportXxR3m1xInHDn3D

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

[QUOTE="rjdofu"] You seem to confuse different control method with extra content. You can call it extra feature if you really stretch it.

Content is something else, be it extra missions, extra weapons, characters etc. Extra content prolongs the game duration, while alternative control method does not.

"Won't be as good" is a shit argument, since it has nothing to do with the fact that multiplayer mode increase game replayability, you may not like it, some other will.

Lacking multiplayer = lacking content, spin it however you want.

rjdofu

On multiplayer: Multiplayer has the POTENTIAL to add replayability, but if it's widely disliked then what's the point? Would Wii U owners REALLY be missing that much? Prime example of this dates back to the N64 era with Star Fox 64, which, though a fantastic game, had a fairly mediocre multiplayer mode, yet was still replayable thanks to multiple branches in the main campaign. I'm sure the Wii U version of Arkham Origins will still have replayability without multiplayer.

What, for missing a multiplayer component that has a chance of not being good due to who's behind it (they are by the same guys who did Brink)?

nintendoboy16

What exactly have the guys who are making the singleplayer made ? Nothing, so that has a chance of not being good either. Hell, every game coming out has a chance of not being good so what does that even mean ?

Gray Matter also made Quake Wars which was good and Enemy Territory which is one of the best multiplayer gamess ever made.

Actually, a steam version of Batman Archam Origins is only 36 bucks on greenmangaming with their pre-order coupon.

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"] 

What, for missing a multiplayer component that has a chance of not being good due to who's behind it (they are by the same guys who did Brink)?

R4gn4r0k

What exactly have the guys who are making the singleplayer made ? Nothing, so that has a chance of not being good either. Hell, every game coming out has a chance of not being good so what does that even mean ?

Gray Matter also made Quake Wars which was good and Enemy Territory which is one of the best multiplayer gamess ever made.

But those games were done PRIOR to Brink. Might as well trust Dennis Dyack's dev team for Shadow of Eternals and it's funding after what happened with Too Human, X-Men Destiny, as well as a wrongful suit against Epic when Silicon Knights was still around.

Didnt they confirm the WiiU version to have no multiplayer mode? its an infirior version hence the lower price.

finalstar2007

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Not sure what there is to discuss. The cheaper price is for an inferior product.

nintendoboy16

But those games were done PRIOR to Brink. Might as well trust Dennis Dyack's dev team for Shadow of Eternals and it's funding after what happened with Too Human, X-Men Destiny, as well as a wrongful suit against Epic.

nintendoboy16

Trust ? Who is talking about that ? I'm saying give it a chance before writing it off based on nothing. They have made great multiplayer games before, so why can't they do it again ?

Ugh... your comparison with silicon knights and their Kickstarter is really bad. I don't even want to go into it, but I'll bite:

1. Trusting people with your money that have made nothing decent since the gamecube isn't smart
2. You are not giving Gray Matter money in ADVANCE for their multiplayer of Batman, you'll get to see if its any good or not before you pay any money. Not give money blindly and hope for it to be good.
3. Could the two cases be any more different ?

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"] 

What, for missing a multiplayer component that has a chance of not being good due to who's behind it (they are by the same guys who did Brink)?

nintendoboy16

What exactly have the guys who are making the singleplayer made ? Nothing, so that has a chance of not being good either. Hell, every game coming out has a chance of not being good so what does that even mean ?

Gray Matter also made Quake Wars which was good and Enemy Territory which is one of the best multiplayer gamess ever made.

But those games were done PRIOR to Brink. Might as well trust Dennis Dyack's dev team for Shadow of Eternals and it's funding after what happened with Too Human, X-Men Destiny, as well as a wrongful suit against Epic when Silicon Knights was still around.

Not sure what there is to discuss. The cheaper price is for an inferior product.

airshocker

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

But those games were done PRIOR to Brink. Might as well trust Dennis Dyack's dev team for Shadow of Eternals and it's funding after what happened with Too Human, X-Men Destiny, as well as a wrongful suit against Epic.

R4gn4r0k

Trust ? Who is talking about that ? I'm saying give it a chance before writing it off based on nothing. They have made great multiplayer games before, so why can't they do it again ?

Ugh... your comparison with silicon knights and their Kickstarter is really bad. I don't even want to go into it, but I'll bite:

1. Trusting people with your money that have made nothing decent since the gamecube isn't smart
2. You are not giving Gray Matter money in ADVANCE for their multiplayer of Batman, you'll get to see if its any good or not before you pay any money. Not give money blindly and hope for it to be good.
3. Could the two cases be any more different ?

If they pull it off, then I'll retract what I said and prove I'm wrong, but as of this time...

Bought the PC version yesterday for $35. Standard price is $48.

Or you could get the entire Arkham trilogy (2xGOTY editions) for $45. Don't know for how long the code is valid.

http://www.greenmangaming.com/batman-franchise/
GMG25-W38UG-WZTBY


Don't forget to search Thief, if you're interested in that at all.

McStrongfast

Thanks for the info. But I still have to play Arkham Asylum and City. Better hurry up before GFWL closes down because I doubt the game will still work after that.

I'd like to pre-order Thief, it's looking very good. But I need to see more about it before I do.

Also it seems to me like the PC version is 15 euro/dollars cheaper than the PS3/360 version. Making it 5 euro/dollars cheaper than the WiiU version even.

But even without the Kickstarter, would you still want to give a chance to devs that have recent bad enough history that can still mess them up? I know Splash Damage has done decent in the past, but it's not hard to see why people are skeptical, if not shunning the multiplayer this early.

nintendoboy16

So hypothetically, if there was a Shadow of The Eternals and if it was good than yeah: I would buy it day one. I wouldn't care about Too Human sucking, I would only look at the game in question being a good game. Would I trust them with my money in advance ? Hell no !

I don't think you shouldn't be sceptical, I'm saying don't write it off yet. It has a chance to be bad as much as it has a chance to be good.

Not sure what there is to discuss. The cheaper price is for an inferior product.

airshocker

The candidness of this post is hilarious.

WII U[size=10]nappreciated[/size]. Jack-Burton

I thought the U was for Underpowered ?

Gray Matter's doing the SP? What does that even mean? Like, how many people from Gray Matter are we talking about? Needs to be a bunch for that not to be a weird misnomer.

Oh, you're confusing Gray Matter and Splash Damage. Gray Matter would've been a good fit if it was the early 00's though.

All I know about WBG Montreal is that I recognize Martin Tremblay's name. Yeah, I guess he's been around for some time. I'd imagine there's a lot of crossover between the 218794 game studios in Montreal. WB Games is probably like one third each of Ubisoft, Eidos and EA. So you know, this will hardly be their first game.

[QUOTE="Jack-Burton"]WII U[size=10]nappreciated[/size]. R4gn4r0k

I thought the U was for Underpowered ?