Batman: Arkham Knight (performance issues)

gizmo

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Do we know for sure that it was Warner Brothers that outsourced the PC port to Iron Galaxy Studios or was it Rocksteady that contracted IGS to port the game.

That'd be a publisher call one way or the other.

Squaredude

I've played 15 or so hours of it and it is a great game. Not had any issues performance wise. Only noticed that some of the textures are awful after it was pointed out to me.

TheDoc

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Do we know for sure that it was Warner Brothers that outsourced the PC port to Iron Galaxy Studios or was it Rocksteady that contracted IGS to port the game.
In a statement from Rocksteady they stated

I'd imagine a decision like that is taken by the publisher. I wouldn't be surprised if Rocksteady wanted to do it, and WB pushed for a third party to do it, so Rocksteady could focus on both the console versions and content developement

Skerries

Venom

TheDoc wrote: »

I'd imagine a decision like that is taken by the publisher. I wouldn't be surprised if Rocksteady wanted to do it, and WB pushed for a third party to do it, so Rocksteady could focus on both the console versions and content developement

I reckon it was a case of major cost cutting. The limited Edition Batmobile edition was pulled due to the Batmobile itself being rubbish so the powers that be, cut corners there as well.

levitronix

I ll be letting the game sit in the library to and just wait for the updates, wonder will it be a re download should i uninstall it ? from the pc

Squaredude

levitronix wrote: »

I ll be letting the game sit in the library to and just wait for the updates, wonder will it be a re download should i uninstall it ? from the pc

Better not be a re download, took me long enough to download first time round.

Sonics2k

TheDoc wrote: »

I feel back for Rocksteady, and hope they don't get too badly burnt from WB decision to outsource the PC platform. Worth remembering Rocksteady made all the content, not the optimisation.

Got to have a go on a PS4 and the game from what I played was incredible. Those further through it are saying all round it's a fantastic game that is a fitting close to the franchise. Obviously the PC issues taking all the spotlight, but what is being lost is there is also a fantastic game here.

I havn't even contemplated a refund. I'll let it sit in the library until it gets fixed, and provides me time to play other games, focus on the new wow tier etc.

Definitely a pity though, hopefully when the game is sorted people who bailed come back and it gets the recognition it looks like it deserves in terms of a game.

I don't feel any pity for them at all.
Even if they out sourced it, then it's still on Rocksteady to ensure their partner is doing a good job of porting the game to PC.

I mean, you wouldn't mind but the damn thing is made on a PC in the first place and it only comes down to genuine laziness that guys working on port managed to absolutely balls this launch up so much, exactly the same as with happened with Unity.

gizmo

Sonics2k wrote: »

I don't feel any pity for them at all.
Even if they out sourced it, then it's still on Rocksteady to ensure their partner is doing a good job of porting the game to PC.

That's not how it works though. Rocksteady would have been leading the development of the core game while insuring it was working on consoles. From all the reviews I've read, they've done a fantastic job on it on both platforms. Iron Galaxy, on the other hand, would just have been taking builds of the game, probably from the XBox One branch, at various stages and working on porting the game and any new features which were added along the way. It would be Warner Bros responsibility, notably the Producers on the project, to ensure that this process was going smoothly. When it was clear the game wasn't going to be ready, it should have been delayed.

How anyone couldn't feel sorry for the people who have been working their asses off on the end of their trilogy for over three and a half years only to have its release completely overshadowed by the quality of a port they have no control over, hamstrung by technology they had hand in adding and pushed out the door, unfinished, by a publisher they have no sway over, is beyond me.

Sonics2k wrote: »

I mean, you wouldn't mind but the damn thing is made on a PC in the first place and it only comes down to genuine laziness that guys working on port managed to absolutely balls this launch up so much, exactly the same as with happened with Unity.

It being made on the PC makes absolutely no difference to how the game will actually run on a PC. Whatever about not knowing the ins and outs of the development process, it's utterly daft to then accuse them of laziness without knowing anything about the time they had to port it over or resources at their disposal while doing so.

FAILSAFE 00

gizmo wrote: »

That's not how it works though. Rocksteady would have been leading the development of the core game while insuring it was working on consoles. From all the reviews I've read, they've done a fantastic job on it on both platforms. Iron Galaxy, on the other hand, would just have been taking builds of the game, probably from the XBox One branch, at various stages and working on porting the game and any new features which were added along the way. It would be Warner Bros responsibility, notably the Producers on the project, to ensure that this process was going smoothly. When it was clear the game wasn't going to be ready, it should have been delayed.

How anyone couldn't feel sorry for the people who have been working their asses off on the end of their trilogy for over three and a half years only to have its release completely overshadowed by the quality of a port they have no control over, hamstrung by technology they had hand in adding and pushed out the door, unfinished, by a publisher they have no sway over, is beyond me.


It being made on the PC makes absolutely no difference to how the game will actually run on a PC. Whatever about not knowing the ins and outs of the development process, it's utterly daft to then accuse them of laziness without knowing anything about the time they had to port it over or resources at their disposal while doing so.

Rocksteady, Warner Brothers and Iron Galaxy were all happy to release the game in the state it was in. Their all on my **** list.

gizmo

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Rocksteady, Warner Brothers and Iron Galaxy were all happy to release the game in the state it was in. Their all on my **** list.

Why on earth would you think either developer would be happy to release the game in the state it was in?

Rocksteady have been working on the Arkham Trilogy for six years and the job they did on Asylum would have been what got them acquired in the first place, nevermind the acclaim that followed. There's no way they'd want to see their series tarnished to the extent it has been. As for Iron Galaxy, they're an independent developer who have worked on a number of ports for a wide variety of publishers. Having projects like this pushed out the door will directly affect their reputation and make it harder to secure more contract work in the future.

Don't get me wrong, there's a hell of a lot of blame to be thrown around for this but at the same time it should be correctly apportioned or, at the very least, directed in such a manner that makes actual sense.

Dair76

Anyway, it's going to be interesting watching the fallout from this debacle. Some are heralding Steam refunds as the reason WB took such drastic action. Maybe it was, but what about future releases? Will this new found consumer power make publishers more wary of releasing multiformat games on PC in the first place? Or will we see an increase in staggered releases, where XBox and PS take priority, and it's only when these are complete that work on the PC port can start?

I certainly don't share the optimism that a lot of observers have in the wake of this. It could well be a Pyrrhic victory for PC gaming.

EoinHef

Dair76 wrote: »

Anyway, it's going to be interesting watching the fallout from this debacle. Some are heralding Steam refunds as the reason WB took such drastic action. Maybe it was, but what about future releases? Will this new found consumer power make publishers more wary of releasing multiformat games on PC in the first place? Or will we see an increase in staggered releases, where XBox and PS take priority, and it's only when these are complete that work on the PC port can start?

I certainly don't share the optimism that a lot of observers have in the wake of this. It could well be a Pyrrhic victory for PC gaming.

I totally see your point,but would a delay be the worst thing if the game was ready when it finally released?
GTA V has already proved that a game can be delayed on PC and still be a success.

If devs/publishers went the route of just not bothering with PC that would leave money on the table. Why not spend a bit of extra time for a PC version and get the most money out of the content you have made.

Robert ninja

The problem is they design games for consoles and then try port upwardly to PC. Doesn't it make more sense to design primarily for PC? Then port down to consoles via systematic downgrading, as well as adapting optimisations from the PC version (that has to consider many hardware configurations) to set ones, then just lock all the settings to whatever the devs/publishers feel is what they want in terms of graphics/performance balance (although I often disagree with what they think is a good balance, hence why I game primarily on PC).

Dair76

EoinHef wrote: »

I totally see your point,but would a delay be the worst thing if the game was ready when it finally released?
GTA V has already proved that a game can be delayed on PC and still be a success.

If devs/publishers went the route of just not bothering with PC that would leave money on the table. Why not spend a bit of extra time for a PC version and get the most money out of the content you have made.

Fair points, but given that PC versions of some titles already feel like an afterthought, I can see some developers/publishers thinking it not worth the effort, be it extra time, manpower, money etc. Of course, that'd depend entirely on the resources already available to them.

whiteramekin

if huge chunks of the pc gaming market didn't wait to purchase games until they were a minimum of 50% off, or rush to 'dodgy' keyseller sites instead of paying anything near RRP the resources put into pc ports would most likely increase

Maximus Alexander

whiteramekin wrote: »

if huge chunks of the pc gaming market didn't wait to purchase games until they were a minimum of 50% off, or rush to 'dodgy' keyseller sites instead of paying anything near RRP the resources put into pc ports would most likely increase

If PC ports were generally in a worthy state at launch, more people would probably buy them immediately instead of waiting until they are 50% off.

whiteramekin

that really isn't even remotely close to true and you know it

Maximus Alexander

whiteramekin wrote: »

that really isn't even remotely close to true and you know it

It's utter nonsense to say that spending more money on substandard products encourages companies to make better products.

whiteramekin

so in your opinion demonstrating through action that a lucrative market exists is counter productive?

if i was making a game you can be damn sure i'd put the PC low on the priority list, you'd be crazy not to. even if you ignore the much smaller market the culture around waiting for steam sales and buying bulk bought indian cdkeys is obviously going to impact your takings. why would anybody put more effort than they had to into that sort of community


obviously arkham knight is a hilarious **** up on top of this issue but pc gamers aren't innocent victims in this.

Maximus Alexander

whiteramekin wrote: »

so in your opinion demonstrating through action that a lucrative market exists is counter productive?

If you pay launch prices for crap ports, you're demonstrating that there's a market for crap ports, so companies will make more crap ports.

Azza

whiteramekin wrote: »

so in your opinion demonstrating through action that a lucrative market exists is counter productive?

if i was making a game you can be damn sure i'd put the PC low on the priority list, you'd be crazy not to. even if you ignore the much smaller market the culture around waiting for steam sales and buying bulk bought indian cdkeys is obviously going to impact your takings. why would anybody put more effort than they had to into that sort of community


obviously arkham knight is a hilarious **** up on top of this issue but pc gamers aren't innocent victims in this.

You be crazy to put as little effort into the PC port as what appears to have gone into Batman Arkham Knight. Even though the PC playerbase is a relatively small percentage of the total player base the reputational damage been done is much more significant.

Outside of gaming, people wait for sales on all sorts of items and products, why should PC gamers be expected to be an exception to this. As a consumer I have the right to shop where and when I want too as well as decide on what price points offer value to me. I often use key sites, nothing illegal about this, but I do stay clear of any games that require playing with a VPN to bypass regional restrictions.

If a game is for sale, it should be in playable condition. PC gamers in this case are totally innocent.

whiteramekin

yeah whatever, no one's making a stalker 2 and the dark souls series gets reasonably decent pc ports that sell well. I've **** all interest in most modern games so this really doesn't affect me. I'm fairly content to let pc gamers shoot themselves in the foot and blame the industry for the limp so work away

whiteramekin

Azza wrote: »

You be crazy to put as little effort into the PC port as what appears to have gone into Batman Arkham Knight. Even the PC playerbase is a relatively small percentage of the total player base the reputational damage been done is much more significant.

Outside of gaming, people wait for sales on all sorts of items and products, why should PC gamers be expected to be an exception to this. As a consumer I have the right to shop where and when I want too as well as decide on what price points offer value to me. I often use Key sites, nothing illegal about this, but I do stay clear of any games that require playing with a VPN to bypass regional restrictions.

If a game is for sale, it should be in playable condition. PC gamers in this case are totally innocent.

i tried to seperate arkham knight from my general point, obviously I didn't do a great job. arkham knight is a whole separate **** up. it's part of the wider lack of attention paid to pc ports sure but it's just criminally incompetent on top of that. the 'guilt' of the pc gamer here is in the general context of constantly undervaluing content .

im not saying people dont have the right to take advantage of steam sales or key seller sites, i'm just saying you can't do this **** and then expect anybody to treat you as a properly lucrative market. By all means wait for 50-75% off and shop around for cdkeys the publishers have priced to sell in improvished markets but don't fool yourselves into thinking you're doing anything other than reinforcing the notion of pc gaming as an afterthought to the big boys.

If everyone's comfortable with that then awesome but we all know they're not. pc gamers demand more options, more work, better quality.. and then refuse to pay more for it.


anyway, complete side issue and I've never met a pc gamer who has been even remotely swayed by my arguments so absolutely pointless one as well.


*shrug* I'm gona play some more stalker

EoinHef

Nobody put a gun to Warner Brothers or Rocksteadys heads,they could have easily made the game a console exclusive and not made a PC version.

But they didnt,they marketed it the same as the console versions then released a broken product.

Thats whats happened here,PC gamers cannot be blamed for criticising a broken game or the "state" of the industry.

As i said nobody forced anybody to release the game on PC,but if your going to do it at least do it right.

Digital Solitude

whiteramekin wrote: »

yeah whatever, no one's making a stalker 2 and the dark souls series gets reasonably decent pc ports that sell well. I've **** all interest in most modern games so this really doesn't affect me. I'm fairly content to let pc gamers shoot themselves in the foot and blame the industry for the limp so work away

Dark Souls at least ran at launch on PC, by a team who had never coded for PC before. Plug a controller in and Dark Souls was fine, DSFix brings fixes, but none are essential.


How are PC gamers shooting themselves in the foot?

TerrorFirmer

even if you ignore the much smaller market the culture around waiting for steam sales and buying bulk bought indian cdkeys is obviously going to impact your takings.

33% of the Witcher 3's sales were on PC. GTA V has sold over 2 million copies on PC. That's not a 'much smaller market' for major AAA releases, a category Arkham Knight belongs in. There's no excuse, which is why WB took the unprecedented move of removing the game from sale.

Some games will naturally have a much lower uptake on PC than consoles, but we're still talking large and financially viable numbers. If 2 million people buy a game on consoles and say, 500,000 purchase on PC, that's still a very large number and an important stream of revenue.

What you're doing in the instance of Arkham Knight is not only loosing significant more revenue based on the shoddy quality of the port than you saved by doing it on the cheap, but also loosing significant future revenue due to the reputation you've created as a result. We are talking millions here. Not just a few pennies from PC Gamers.

Also, this whole 'PC Gamers wait for everything to be on sale' is just ridiculous. PC Gamers are no different console gamers - there are day one purchases and purchases you're not in a hurry to make so you wait until a price drop in some form entices you.

The idea of waiting for a game to be on sale is hardly unique to any one platform - or did I miss the announcement where PS4 and XB1 games are to remain at 69.99 forever?

BenHK

whiteramekin wrote: »

yeah whatever, no one's making a stalker 2 and the dark souls series gets reasonably decent pc ports that sell well. I've **** all interest in most modern games so this really doesn't affect me. I'm fairly content to let pc gamers shoot themselves in the foot and blame the industry for the limp so work away

whiteramekin wrote: »

i tried to seperate arkham knight from my general point, obviously I didn't do a great job. arkham knight is a whole separate **** up. it's part of the wider lack of attention paid to pc ports sure but it's just criminally incompetent on top of that. the 'guilt' of the pc gamer here is in the general context of constantly undervaluing content .

im not saying people dont have the right to take advantage of steam sales or key seller sites, i'm just saying you can't do this **** and then expect anybody to treat you as a properly lucrative market. By all means wait for 50-75% off and shop around for cdkeys the publishers have priced to sell in improvished markets but don't fool yourselves into thinking you're doing anything other than reinforcing the notion of pc gaming as an afterthought to the big boys.

If everyone's comfortable with that then awesome but we all know they're not. pc gamers demand more options, more work, better quality.. and then refuse to pay more for it.


anyway, complete side issue and I've never met a pc gamer who has been even remotely swayed by my arguments so absolutely pointless one as well.


*shrug* I'm gona play some more stalker

So essentially you want PC users to drink the console Kool-Aide? Pre-order a year in advance at rip-off merchants Gamestop, buy all DLC via the Super Duper Season Pass with exclusivity out the wazzoo? **** that. PC users are, for the most part, smart about this industry and very honest. If a piece of **** product is obviously an after-thought then why should we reward those peddling the crap? Arkham Knight will most likely end up being one of the most torrented games of the year and Warner Bros has nobody to blame but themselves.

If a game is good, the producers of said product are rewarded. If not, they're not. Simple as that.

abbir

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The idea of waiting for a game to be on sale is hardly unique to any one platform - or did I miss the announcement where PS4 and XB1 games are to remain at 69.99 forever?

Don't forget, Used Sales on consoles. Saving €5 on a copy so that the publisher/developer gets no money from that sale. You don't have that on PC.

Dair76

abbir wrote: »

Don't forget, Used Sales on consoles. Saving €5 on a copy so that the publisher/developer gets no money from that sale. You don't have that on PC.

Exactly, this accounts for far greater lost revenue to the publisher than discounted sales on the minority platform.