• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Batman: Arkham Knight On PC Is Not Very Good [UP: WB suspends future sales until fix]

Who is responsible for this mess of a port?


Results are only viewable after voting.

DrTeflon

Member
Images shamelessly stolen from a comment on the Eurogamer thread:

So, you guys want to see something funny? The PC version isn't just missing effects like AO - certain textures and models are entirely absent:

PC:
UBmA8LS.jpg


PS4:
9GMeSLB.jpg


PC:
cm4r0qJ.jpg


PS4:
olpRlpx.jpg

Nope, it's there

 
Images shamelessly stolen from a comment on the Eurogamer thread:

So, you guys want to see something funny? The PC version isn't just missing effects like AO - certain textures and models are entirely absent:

PC:
UBmA8LS.jpg


PS4:
9GMeSLB.jpg


PC:
cm4r0qJ.jpg


PS4:
olpRlpx.jpg

LOL wow. Just wow. This is ridiculous.

Note to self - anything published by WB needs to be avoided.

Just wow.
 

cheesekao

Member
Perhaps so.. but they would still be console GAF.
Well I don't tend to make such large generalizations but when I do, I'd use words like 'some', 'seemingly', 'maybe', etc so that I can avoid being called out for when I'm wrong. I've seen mods call out people who make similar blanket statements like yours. They don't lead to bans but eh.
 
That's their mistake to make. I won't buy there games till they put out good products; if they don't want to put out quaility products or any at all then I'll never play those games - their loss
I see it as the consumer losing far more than the publisher in that situation. 10-15% of sales for the pub versus missing a ton of great games.
 

Kinthalis

Banned
So. Should buy the X1 sku instead of the PC Version?

I think waiting is your best bet. Xbone is still 900p, last time I checked, and the frame rate isn't as solid as the PS4.

Unless you absolutely, HAVE to play the game today. Wait a few days and see what the first patch does, then decide.
 
The only real issue SPECIFIC to PC (Because Origins had game progression bugs, like doors that didn't open - but these issues were on all platforms) in previous games was AC's DX11 renderer performing like ass.

The DX9 renderer only lacked tessellation though, and ran flawlessly. DX11 worked a lot better, as you mentioned, a month later.

Probably a dumb question but does Arkham Knight have DX9 rendering and if so does it clear up performance issues?

What a glorious disaster. Like everyone else I don't know yet who to blame for this, but... that won't stop me from giving it a try! Bwahaha!

1st place: WB, because I've disliked their anticonsumer practices for a while now and I've been itching to find a place of honour for them in my shit list. Well, this is it: you made it guys.

2nd place: Rocksteady. I don't even care if the "suits" of WB forced then to outsource the pc port: they fucked up. It is still their baby, their logo at the start of the game.

3rd place: Iron Galaxy. Kind of feeling bad for them, since they're the easiest target. Maybe they messed up, maybe they didn't... one thing for sure is that this port is the first thing that will come to my mind whenever I see their name/logo in the future.

Nvidia deserves some of the blame. They were up selling this game to move video cards, showing off the game with effects and frame rates that just aren't possible with any consumer available hardware.

This just gets better and better. Wasn't that old E3 gameplay video supposedly running on PC? Or was it a PS4 devkit?

Jeff Gerstmann from Giant Bomb said it was running on a pc and there were huge performance issues.
 

Kinthalis

Banned
Probably a dumb question but does Arkham Knight have DX9 rendering and if so does it clear up performance issues?

Nope. It's DX11. It's likely that a lot of what they could do in this game wouldn't run at all or acceptably using DX9.

That wasn't the case with the previous games since they were meant to run on consoles.
 
To people who want the head of Rocksteady OR Iron Galaxy... WB is the publisher. They handle release dates, etc.

They force the developer's hands of when the game has to launch.
 
Whats the performance like on a gtx680? Accordibg to some reviewers it averages 45fps on max at 1080p, is that true? Id rather get the pc version for 15 bucks than ps4 for 60. My budget is tight
 

mm04

Member
Wouldn't you have gotten both? I did.

No, I only had the TW3 offer available at the time. I've had the 970 for a few months. Unless you mean buying Arkham Knight, which I intended to. But the timing with the Steam Sale luckily took my attention from it.
 

Jisgsaw

Member
Real question here, why is it that with game software there never seems to be any legal action taken when the developer doesn't deliver on their end of the bargain? I've never taken the time to look into this but I know there are a lot of knowledgeable people here that might know. From my point of view, I paid for something and it turns out that it was falsely advertised and seemingly broken. How can that be OK? I've seen class action lawsuits for a lot less but I don't think I've seen it happen in gaming. I'd appreciate any insight.

I'd guess it's pretty hard to define what "their end of the bargain" is, plain and simple.
You'd be hard press to prove that you should expect to have AO in the PC version for example.

Game not running at all could be another problem though, but then I guess they can weasel their way out by putting the problem on your specific configuration/system.

I'll also admit I never read the whole of the user agreement, maybe there's a sentence there saying they don't take any responsibility if the game doesn't run as advertised (which as stated previously is already hard to define).
 
I skipped getting this on console just because I sort of wasn't terribly interested after the delays, but I guess I'll take this opportunity to pretend I'm taking some kind of stand by not supporting this game at all :p
 

Gbraga

Member
Whats the performance like on a gtx680? Accordibg to some reviewers it averages 45fps on max at 1080p, is that true? Id rather get the pc version for 15 bucks than ps4 for 60. My budget is tight

If it wasn't the stutter issues, it would be more than fine on a 680. If they fix that, the game will already be pretty good, even if still inferior to the PS4 version.
 

Mrbob

Member
So does GMG, see below:

GMG made a post on their blog this morning. Initially they weren't going to allow refunds but I think the pressure from Steam allowing them is making GMG cave in.

http://blog.playfire.com/2015/06/batman-arkham-knight-pc-guidelines.html

Warner Bros. are currently working on a patch which we are hoping will be released soon. We want you to enjoy your game, but if after the fix has been released, you still cannot play your game, we will process refund requests for the game.

Seems we have to wait until after the patch though to request a refund.
 
losing out on a bad experience, I think I can live with that
like i said a min ago

Missing AO and some textures with a little stuttering during Batmobile sequences does not = "running like dogshit" to me. *shrug*

(in the case of Arkham Knight)

Ultimately I think the biggest issue that's causing such an uproar is that the console version looks better. People are understandably upset and bitter about that. They might not want to admit it but in the back of your mind that competitive thought process is there...why does my version look worse.

The game doesn't "run like dog shit".

This looks like a memory leak. I doubt that type of performance is common.
 

Sinatar

Official GAF Bottom Feeder
To people who want the head of Rocksteady OR Iron Galaxy... WB is the publisher. They handle release dates, etc.

They force the developer's hands of when the game has to launch.

Yea it's important that people aren't shitting on Iron Galaxy for this. They did what they could with the resources provided. Warner Brothers are the ones who shipped it like this.
 
like i said a min ago



Ultimately I think the biggest issue that's causing such an uproar is that the console version looks better. People are understandably upset and bitter about that. They might not want to admit it but in the back of your mind that competitive thought process is there...why does my version look worse.

The game doesn't "run like dog shit".


This looks like a memory leak. I doubt that type of performance is common.

You're making assumptions here. A shit-ton of people have been reporting performance issues. Face it, the PC port is bollocks, and players who aren't having a good experience with it should get refunds. It doesn't matter if the publisher likes that or not, giving them money for a shit job will just result in future games been handled with no care whatsoever.
 

JustenP88

I earned 100 Gamerscore™ for collecting 300 widgets and thereby created Trump's America
This is bizarre and I don't understand it. I feel bad for all the PC peoples out there.
 
like i said a min ago



Ultimately I think the biggest issue that's causing such an uproar is that the console version looks better. People are understandably upset and bitter about that. They might not want to admit it but in the back of your mind that competitive thought process is there...why does my version look worse.

The game doesn't "run like dog shit".


This looks like a memory leak. I doubt that type of performance is common.

It is common, don't come into this thread when you're clearly ignorant and uninformed of the issues. You're on the verge of trolling when you imply that PC gamers would throw such an uproar because we're insecure about how the game looks better on consoles.
 

Dez_

Member
Well, it's not great, but at least it runs on my 970 once I turn off all the Nvidia effects. Hoping this will get fixed asap. It's not like I can return a game I got with my card anyway.
 
Top Bottom