EBGames are at it again. All they care about is getting you to trade in more games (for well below their value) to pay for their overpriced new games, so they can keep pumping used games back to you at several times their "trade-in" value.

Prices for PS3, X360, and Wii U versions of Batman: Arkham Origins:

EBGames: AU $89.95

JB HiFi: AU $69.00 (can be ordered from their website, and delivered cheaply if you aren't near a JB store.)

Big W: AU$58.00 (Catalog sale price. Begins thursday. May not be available in all states. Normal price $78.00)

--

And if you're after Blackgate for Vita or 3DS:

EBGames: AU $49.95 Vita, $69.95 3DS (Not a typo!)

JB HiFi: AU $44.00 Both versions

Big W: AU$48.00 Both Versions. ($38 on Vita only in catalog, starting thursday.)

--

If you were planning on buying this at EBGames, do yourself a favor and buy it elsewhere.

If you have already pre-ordered at EBGames, you should be able to get them to price match if you bring a Big W catalog and show them, but remember that you are entitled to a full refund according to Australian laws. They should not refuse to refund you.

Note: Target and Kmart may also be options, but I don't have any information regarding that, due to lack of catalog or information on their website. Kmart don't even list games on their website at all. As always, I recommend shopping around, and if you can, support Australian retailers who provide Australian jobs.

All prices include GST (Goods and Services Tax, equal to 10% of listed price)

40 hour playthroughs was never a common thing. Hell, I grew up paying full price for games that, on average, were over in 40 minutes.

How many hours I get out of a game is FAR LESS important to me, than the quality of the time I get out of a game. I've played a lot of 20-30+hr games that I rarely ever feel like replaying. Replaying a 40 hour game, going through the same drawn-out filler content for another 40 hours, is laborious. I prefer games around the 5-8 hour mark, that are actually fun to replay.

I would seriously be surprised if there was any real backwards compatibility in next-gen Sony and MS consoles at all. Software emulation at best with a limited selection of supported titles indivdually re-priced and downloadable. You should keep your current-gen consoles if you want to keep playing games for them, just like in the old days.

After blowing another motherboard in my PC earlier this year, I opted to forgo replacing it and go without. Having quit WoW in July '11 after 5+ years of raiding and PVP, I rekindled my love for console gaming, and decided I had little use for a PC anymore. I have zero interest in tablets. I no longer have any desire for PC gaming, and couldn't possibly care any less about facebook/twitter, so the only browsing I ever do is Gamespot (including Fuse), the Playstation blog for store updates and sales, ebgames, gmail and occasional youtube randomness. So, using the PS3 hasn't been too bad, aside from the odd crash when I have too many tabs open.

Unfortunately, there's one really big fly in the ointment - Gamespot doesn't like the PS3 browser. I've listed a few of the issues I encounter. Sadly, I can not provide screenshots from this system.

* Gamespot videos do not play in the Playstation 3 browser, requiring download option (which is sometimes not available for video content during events such as e3. Of course, none of the live coverage works. Video feeds from Twitch also do not work in the PS3 browser, unlike Youtube and a plethora of similar services.) What appears where GS videos should be, is a plain blue frame, with a grey box near the centre.

* The Livefyre comment system - Comments often load slowly, and it occasionally fails to recognize that I am I signed in, until a refresh or two. The most frustrating issue, however, is common "A javascript error has occurred", resulting the comments failing to load properly, requiring me to close and re-open the browser. Never had any problems with ye olde GameSpot comment system before the Livefyre switch.

* Gameplay and the GameSpotAU podcasts do not stream properly, often stuttering, forcing a download.

* 'Related titles' does not align correctly on game pages, obscuring page content. This includes review pages.

* Review pages occasionally get stuck while scrolling over embedded images and videos.

* Navigation menus sometimes fail to appear when hovering near them. Sometimes they may fail to disappear.

* Advertisements that forcibly reposition the cursor over them occasionally cause the browser to stop responding, or rarely, crash forcing a system reset and scan. (Of course this is not exclusive to GameSpot, but I felt it was worth pointing out. I appears to never happen when not zoomed in on any page.)

* X360 users are getting a GameSpot app, but not PS3 users. Okay, that's not a bug. But it does bug me. Does that count? =P

Thanks for reading.

Used games have never been a problem in the past and then suddenly it becomes a problem?; nah, that's a greedy move. Tell me which other market has problem with used products.

This wouldn't have happened if gamers didn't buy this online pass but like paid DLC most people don't value their money and accept anything a publisher does.

I blame Gamestop for this and everyone who bought used games from them. Honestly, if you only save 5 dollars better buy the original game.

Miroku32

The used game market simply wasn't so large or accessible in the past, and games cost far less money and time to develop in the past. There aren't many other industries where the major retailers sell used products alongside new products. In fact, an overwhelming majority of your local Gamestop/EbGames or GAME store is used games. And their staff are trained to remind customers that they can save money buying used.

Used copies of games are often out for sale within weeks of release, and this has nothing to do with the quality of the game, and how much content a game has can only ever go so far (Many devs see online multiplayer as a safe bet but even that doesn't always satisfy gamers).

When new copies of Game X are on shelves, and there are used copies available; what chance have those new copies got of selling without that pass?

Sure, the noble types will choose new because they like that new game smell, or they like manuals and don't want someone else's leftovers. But there clearly isn't enough of those people like me around to keep devs like Clover Studios (Okami only sold 600,000) and Team Bondi (LA Noire) in business.

If games were more reasonably priced the used market would be a lot smaller. In the UK the average game price is £40 which is a huge chunk of the average wage. Bearing in mind that gross profits from gaming is now approaching and in some cases surpassing hollywood, its a bit much to ask to still be paying 4-5x more per game than movie DVD.

Smileyvirus

Games are expensive, but they are priced rather accordingly. After all, games are a luxury entertainment item, and how often we indulge incurs a cost. Today's AAA titles require huge amounts of money and time to create. The average price for video games hasn't changed much over the years. We're still paying relatively the same price for a current gen title that we were when the first Playstation was the pinnacle of modern gaming. Audience numbers have grown, along with expectations, and with better technology, production costs soar.

Comparing a new release game to the average DVD film simply isn't fair. Apples and oranges. DVD's are cheap, but they aren't nearly as important as theatrical sales for most film studios. A typical summer blockbuster film costs between 50 and 150 million to create, and those at least mildly successful gross between 100 to 500 million in theaters worldwide. For most films, the DVD is an after thought, and more DVD's are rented than they are bought. DVD's come 3-6 months after a film leaves theaters, and within 6-12 months winds up on cable TV and in some cases, syndication. Netflix and other streaming services are relevant too.

You're right that without used games, most retailers who rely on them would simply cease to exist. That would be disasterous, but I don't see how online passes will be the cause of that. The pass is a reason to buy new. An incentive. Its not about killing the used game industry. People can still buy used games. One can still buy a used game like Batman: Arkham City and play the game just fine without the 4 short stints where Catwoman is playable. If used gamer wants to play as Catwoman, then it will require a $10 pass. Not being able to play as the feline vixen is hardly so destructive as to make a game unplayable. But the choice is still there.

Even I have doubts about the availability of passes in the future. Will I be able to pick up X game used on ebay 10 years from now and have access to every piece of content? I hope so. That is something we'll find out, I guess. If there is enough demand for it, and there is a cost benefit for publishers to continue providing them, then I would think it be very likely. Passes for older games may even become cheaper. And my children's children may still have access to those small not-relevant-to-plot-in-any-way areas of Rage.

---------

Those who fear and hate online passes, and make threats of boycott and other such extremities, simply fail to realize that this is the state of the industry. Its silly to carry on as if developers and publishers are greedy and trying to rob every gamer for all they can. These are people who create games for a living. Anyone who has ever created anything in their lives, would understand this. Developers aren't evil, and most of them aren't extremely wealthy. In an industry dominated by used re-sales and piracy, the online pass is an incentive for consumers to choose a new copy. That's all.

Devs take a small piece of content and decide that its a bonus for new game buyers = an angry mob of gamers comes up with all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy thoeries. A "complete" game is and has always been a perception. A point of view. In the past when developers removed parts of a game during development, it was because they are cutting or removing content to shorten development time, or reduce costs. In other situations, ideas change during development. Does that mean that Final Fantasy X on PS2 is an incomplete game because Tidus doesn't have black hair and the camera can't be controlled? (See the early development footage of FFX on YouTube for more info.)

Without major publishers like EA, Capcom, THQ, Square-Enix and others, what is left?

Do we want a world with no games? A world where creating a AAA title like Skyrim or Dark Souls is simply no longer feasible because devs can't ensure they'll make a return on them?

A world of only free-to-play social games with microtransactions?

Because if more people are getting so upset about a sheet of paper with a 12-digit code, and less gamers buy new games, more of the industry is going to shift to social and mobile gaming, where they can draw in mainstream audiences on facebook and itunes, with games like Farmville and Angry Birds. Not because these companies are evil and money-grubbing, but because they need to make money to stay in business and continue creating products. If there's no more money in retail console and PC games, they will go where the money is.

The fear and hatred of online passes is likely to be around for some time, and it may be another 5 years of more, but I have faith most people will come to live with them.

At least until the days when physical media are over. Something I myself am not a fan of. I happen to love physical media, and enjoy the opportunity the used game markets provide me with old games. I'm a collector, with nearly 1500 games in my collection (I have a list here. Not exactly complete. It doesn't show some of the many variants and collector's/limited editions I have, and I haven't gotten around to sorting out games for some older platforms like NES, SNES and N64 = http://www.gamefaqs.com/users/_Hydan_/games)

Thank you for your intelligent, thought-provoking reply.

Developers and publishers say that online passes exist to encourage gamers to buy new in the present day. Because without them, there is no reason for gamers to buy new games at all, when Gamestop employees are constantly reminding you that you can buy used and save $5. More than ever, gamers are making decisions to wait for cheap used copies rather than purchase a game new, and the impact this is having on new game sales is compelling devs and publishers to react with new ways to protect their income.

Meanwhile, many gamers are outraged at the prospect of online passes, and there are many varied reasons as to why. Afterall, we all want full access to games. We want a full experience for our money, even if we buy a used game. We're also uncertain about the availability of these passes in the future, and we want to be able to preserve old games, and have access to today's games in thirty-odd years time.

We're always looking for new ways to save money. As consumers, we love a bargain. If we get the same product for less, we'll take it, and the impact that choice may have probably isn't going to crush the good feeling you get having saved a few dollars.

The online pass is the best defense the industry has right now from what they percieve as an ever-growing threat. The used game. I happen to be on their side in this issue, and over the next several paragraphs I'll explain why. I invite anybody reading to offer their veiws, but please refrain from using name-calling or dismissive statements. And if you feel like there is a better solution than online passes, then please feel free to share those ideas.

---

Its easy to assume that online passes are about greasing a few more dollars out of gamers, to fund the apparently 'evil tyrannical money-grubbing' maniacs who create the games we love. We look at online passes in shock and horror, but then comment on how sad it is that games like Okami sell only 600,000 new copies. Clover Studios closed. No more Okami.

Okami is a great example of why developers are afraid of new IP. LA Noire is another (Team Bondi went broke. Closed.) Most gamers look at new IP with uncertainty and the typical resort for Joe Gamer is to wait a month and buy it used. Knowing that, it should come as no surprise then, that we have a new Call of Duty every year, and Final Fantasy 13-2 launched just this week.

We're treated to trailers, gameplay videos, screenshots, and all sorts of promotions. We're barraged with advertisements and newsletters and developer interviews. We have access to playable demos, press previews and reviews. Yet still, we look at new IP such as Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning with great uncertainty (Okay the demo was buggy and based on an old build. Bad example.) We're afraid of this new IP, and the developers are aware of this.

But is this what we really want? Whether we intended it or not, this is the path we all took as gamers. Now we're walking this long and dark road called Call of Duty 66 and though our feet are weary, there is no end in sight, and another Dynasty Warriors is just around the corner. We have only ourselves to blame.

---

One common argument is that used games shouldn't hurt devs because the game has already sold and they've already gotten their money. This argument holds no water, whatsoever. When you're talking about a 20 year old game you bought on ebay, it isn't going to hurt anyone, and you can be certain that Miyamoto isn't going to cry if you bought Super Mario World for $2 at a flea market.

Another common argument is to begin comparing used games to used cars, but again - this view completely ignores the fact that:
A) a game is not a car.
B) used cars don't come with manufacturer warranties, free registration and all sorts of other perks,
C) nobody ever says "Thats a nice car. I'll wait a few weeks then buy it used".
D) You don't trade-in your car after driving it for a week, buy another, repeat.

Comparing used games to used cars is like comparing a rabbit to a toaster. Don't bother.

Where used games DO hurt is when consumers have a choice. Gamestop/EbGames, GAME, Gametraders, and others of the sort. These stores rake in millions of dollars re-selling the same copies over and over again, and this does nothing at all to support the people who create these games. Joe Gamer buys a used game at $55, plays for a week, then trades it in for a $5 value credit on their next purchase. When you walk into these stores, you are surrounded by used games. When you attempt to purchase a new game, some dude behind the counter wants to remind you that you can save $5 and buy the same game used.

The math is very simple. Every time you choose a used copy over a new copy, that is one new copy that does not sell. The impact for developers and publishers is direct and painful. The more consumers making that choice, the fewer new copies will sell. You don't need a degree in economics to understand that.

---

Many people talk about greedy corporations, because its easy to throw such accusations around, and thanks to the Occupy movement, 'greed' has become the new buzz word. But who are we talking about here? Sure, there are some blatant examples of greed and excess, particularly in the oil and mining industries (they don't even attempt to cover it up either). Video game developers and publishers (Yes, even those most hated - and in some cases, deserved - such as EA and Activision) are working in an ever-changing, ever-expanding environment, riding the waves of the most competitive entertainment industry in the world, and every day they deliver the high-quality, highly-demanded games that people like you and me want.

Developers spend millions creating games for a massive audience that is demanding as it is volatile. We want insane mind-blowing graphics, high-quality gameplay, voice actors and music; we want stable online servers, and huge amounts of content (but we cry foul at DLC, huh. SMH). After all this, and the constant moaning at developers in blog comments about how crap the latest trailer looked; an overwhelming majority of gamers simply aren't willing to cough up $60 - The same price we were paying 10 and 15 years ago for games that had development costs at a fraction of what the average game requires today.

Greed, you say? Joe Gamer who would rather save $5 on a used copy, and then expect full access as if he has some kind of birthright or natural entitlement to such content is the one guilty of greed here. Joe Gamer who doesn't care where his money goes, knowing the devs get nothing while lining Gamestop's pockets is the one guilty of greed. Joe Gamer is the one nickel-and-diming.

Rocksteady says if you buy their game new, you get to play as Catwoman. If you buy it used, Catwoman requires a pass that will cost you $10, and that money goes to them. Joe Gamer hears this and goes into a FROTHING RAGE. Joe Gamer is a spoiled, over-entitled and greedy person who wants everything for less. Don't be like Joe Gamer. He doesn't get laid.

---

Getting into personal territory now...

I've spent a vast amount of time researching online passes and their place in the industry, as well as gamers, and I've been an avid supporter of the gaming industry for most of my life. From the earliest memories I have of my childhood, jamming away on a Philips VideoPac G7000, I've been a gamer, and its what I love. I've read hundreds of lengthy, often hate-filled discussions across the net, regarding online passes, and yet the most common response I've seen is "boycott".

Think about that word for a moment and what it implies.

These developers use online passes as an incentive for you to buy the game new, instead of waiting for a cheap used copy, and the best course of action you can think of, is to boycott them? I'm sorry, but you've already been boycotting every developer behind every game you've ever waited to buy used in the name of saving a few dollars. And that is why we now have online passes. That's right. You are the reason we have online passes. If you're going to blame and boycott someone. Start with yourself.

If you feel strongly about online passes, or the greater gaming industry in general, then I strongly recommend you research and think hard about where your hard earned money is going.

Keep it civil. Thanks.

Every single page I load from Gamespot Australia tonight (in the last 30 or so minutes now), it loads one of those very annoying full-page ads from the Paranormal 3 movie with a trailer. And every single time, I skip it, the Gamespot pages get screwed up, hiding large chunks of texts and images. I've tried clearing my cache. Still happens. Cookies. Yep. Different browser. Yep.

So I find a link to the forums, figure I'll look for a way to send feedback to Gamespot about the ad. Page seems to load just fine... then the Paranormal 3 ad comes along. I skip the ad and the forum index is now screwed. Can't even see all the different forums. Click refresh. Happens again.

I even get it trying to make a new topic. As I type this, I can't see half the entry fields, nor the submit or preview buttons without having to tab and guess. Again, refreshing makes it fine... for about 2 seconds until that ad loads.

That ad is essentially making it very difficult to navigate or to read anything on Gamespot.