Home » General » Arkham City’s Catwoman DLC: Don’t Bother

Arkham City’s Catwoman DLC: Don’t Bother

Arkham City’s Catwoman DLC: Don’t Bother

By now you’ve probably bought Batman Arkham City. As it was released today it’s also unlikely that you’ve picked it up second-hand, and have the Catwoman DLC out of the box.

Good for you. But for those picking the game up further down the line second-hand, the question of whether to shell out for the DLC will need to be contemplated. After all, if you don’t have the DLC aren’t you missing out on the full Arkham City experience?

The answer is probably no.

Why? Because in terms of gameplay the Catwoman DLC offers very little bang for your buck. She does have some new moves that befit her abilities, but it’s hard to really shake the feeling that everything you do with Catwoman is filler: after all, Rocksteady would really remove vitally important story sections of the game to essentially get one over on those nasty second-hand proles that are Ruining EverythingTM?

No. So what you get for your £7.99 are a bunch of side-missions that really, when it comes down to it, are totally disposable. Some will appreciate more content, which is fine. From our perspective however these sections are also annoying: we appreciate that Rocksteady is using them as a pace-setting exercise, but it’s wildly frustrating to have control of Bats is wrenched out of our hands at crucial or interesting moments.

What really irks is that, as Catwoman has her own Riddler trophies, you can’t achieve a 100% completion rate if you buy it second hand. Which is outright mental. We appreciate the online pass is important for publishers ‘protecting their investment’. But infringing on single-player? Doesn’t that set a worrying precedent for future releases? How long until new games are just the title screen with a link to the PSN store?

It’s nonsense. Click here to see the man himself explain our position in more depth.




Similar posts

  • Janice

    I think it’s fantastic. Adds a whole new side to the story.

  • Liquinathium

    Is it really that hard to beleive that credit should go to those that develop the product. If a farmer planted, nurtured and harvasted a batch of carrots for sale struck up a deal with a shop and sold them on, would it be fair if the next batch he tried to sell was turned down because little jimmy had inocently traded his in to the shop who now no longer need the farmer for their stock.
    Game developers work hard on there games and the better the game the greater the effort that goes into them. Dlc will effect those that buy the pre owned market but It isnt a personal attack on the gamers but on the greed of companys that use trade ins to boost profit margins. If you want the full experiance, save and buy new so the credit falls to the developers who dream in said experiance, not the corporations that only dream in currency.

  • Ian Dransfield

    @Liquinathium

    That seems to be working under the utterly bizarre assumption that publishers aren’t out to make money…

  • Jon

    This is rediculous. If I buy a used car from another should I be required to send a payment directly to the manufacturer or else my AC doesn’t work? Hell no. I hate the idea of single use codes. Its the same reason I mostly buy physical CDs rather than mp3s.

  • Launching my borrowed copy of Batman Arkham City and constantly being prompted to download the Catwoman DLC was bothersome. But after playing her episodes several times have concluded it was not worth 800 Microsoft points considering a handful of avatar items and arcade games are typically the same balance but offer so much more. As a caution to other gamers lay pressure on Rock Steady and Xbox Live to lower there prices.