I don’t believe that the existence of DLC content will necessarily diminish the quality of the $60 version of Batman: Arkham Knight

see deal Batman Arkham Knight - Xbox One $14.99 on Gamestop

WB’s recent announcement of a season pass , it remains one of my most hotly anticipated games of 2015, and I intend to play the hell out of it. That said: what the hell is this?For $40, Warner Bros and Rocksteady promise us the following:

Loading

“ There’s so much we don’t know about this.

Loading

Loading

“This season pass for Batman: Arkham Knight delivers new content every month for 6 months, featuring new story missions, more supervillains invading Gotham City, new legendary Batmobiles, advanced challenge maps, alternative character skins, and new drivable race tracks.”As a huge Batman fan, that strikes me as completely bonkers. Even if some of this extra content ends up being great – I do love Arkham challenge maps, and I might even spring for a well-done Animated Series Batman skin (yes, again) – there’s virtually no way all of it will be worth paying for. Who in their right mind would buy a bundle of vaguely described DLC all at once, especially sight unseen, at two-thirds the price of a full new game?Let’s also consider that historically, Batman games’ DLC hasn’t inspired a lot of confidence. Both Arkham City and Arkham Origins eventually produced roughly $40 in DLC: there’s one short, story-based add-on for each game for $10 apiece (which I found somewhat half-hearted), a handful of challenge maps that include the ability to play as Batman’s sidekicks, and skin packs. (Arkham Origins also has two $2.99 “Supply Drop” packs that promise “a measurable advantage in online gameplay,” which would be super gross if anyone played Arkham Origins’ multiplayer.) Absolutely none of that is essential – aside from the novelty of playing as a different character, you wouldn’t miss much at all by skipping it completely.Beyond that, there’s a big pacing problem. We’re talking about a slow trickle of content coming out over the course of six months, for an exclusively single-player game. Now, I absolutely loved Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, and to a lesser extent I enjoyed Arkham Origins, but I didn’t play them for more than a couple of weeks before I’d had my fill and moved on while I was still feeling high on Bat life. The prospect of coming back to a city I’ve already spent a few dozen hours punching my way through every month just to play through a couple of new story missions or try on a new skin sounds dull and obligatory.How about this: I just wait six months for all the DLC to come out, snap up the pieces that look interesting when most of them are on sale (for certainly less than $40,) and then play through all of it at once to make my return to Gotham a worthwhile stay rather than a sad, “Well, I guess I already paid for this junk” drive-by?It’s times like this that we’re reminded that the concept of a season pass was conceived not as a way to deliver value (as any quality DLC should sell itself by looking cool), but as an incentive to hold onto your copy when you’re done playing instead of selling it back to GameStop or passing it on to a friend. This high-priced and poorly defined pass feels like an especially cynical implementation of that concept. I’ll be playing Arkham Knight, but I won’t be buying the season pass – and I don’t recommend that you do, either.

Dan Stapleton is IGN's Reviews Editor. You can follow him on Twitter to hear all about how awesome PC gaming is, plus a healthy dose of random Simpsons references.