Warner Bros. is suspending sales of Batman: Arkham Knight for PC - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Velocet;48046669]To be fair, at least it's working just fine on some people's machines (like mine). It's not unplayable. Unplayable is Assassin's Creed Unity at launch. [editline]25th June 2015[/editline] I'm just worried that this will mean more delayed launches on PC while console users get it months ahead of us. Especially with this game being used as an example, I would have had to choose between inevitably getting it spoiled or have a sub-par launch (which again, it works just fine for me and people are really exaggerating these "unplayable" claims here)[/QUOTE] "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." more delayed games is better. Just look at Assassins creed for example, we are getting an upwards of 3 to 4 game per YEAR from that. Unity was a bust, and yet their latest game is still absolutely embarrassing. If I have to wait than so be it.

[QUOTE=J!NX;48046877]"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." more delayed games is better. Just look at Assassins creed for example, we are getting an upwards of 3 to 4 game per YEAR from that. Unity was a bust, and yet their latest game is still absolutely embarrassing. If I have to wait than so be it.[/QUOTE] Syndicate looks like Gangs of New York: the game and that's awesome. If it runs okay, it's going to be awesome based on what's been shown. The port of Arkham was rushed but the game itself is amazing and the port was mediocre at best, terrible at the worst end of the spectrum but people are really exaggerating on how bad it is based on what I've seen on message boards and YouTube. "It's unplayable because it's dipping down to 40 on a 970 GTX and doesn't have anisotropic filtering options!"

[QUOTE=mr hobo;48045334]I'm not having too many issues with it with my GTX 970. Every once in a while I get a stutter, but nothing to crazy! I guess I'm pretty lucky. At least they are taking it seriously.[/QUOTE] Are you using an SSD? My 970 is giving me 30 stationary, 25 in air/fights and 20 in the Batmobile. Apparently the game just dies on a standard harddrive.

[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045987]And there were confirmed instances of WB employees going on NeoGAF and calling people complaining about the port "entitled babies."[/QUOTE] I just love that they chose the word "entitled" when shilling. Of course customers are entitled - they are entitled to a working copy of the product they bought, and have every right to complain if what they receive is subpar, it is basic consumer rights, covered by things like the sale of goods act. :v:

[QUOTE=Inspector Jones;48046682] People bitched about how long it took GTA5 to come out on PC, but it's a pretty amazing port. Best one I've played in awhile anyway.[/QUOTE] What defines an amazing port? Being playable and having the same features as the other versions? Because those are actually basic things. Graphics settings are the only real addition most PC ports have, and I wouldn't call a game an amazing port for offering the exact same functionality as console versions but with HD jigglebone options or whatever.

[QUOTE=Mericet;48045244]If they're in talks to take down the page, I wonder if the 70% negative review rate everybody who clicked on the NOW AVAILABLE banner was graced with will still be on the new page when it comes back?[/QUOTE] The usual trick: re-release will be called like Directors Cut or something, maybe they throw in some little DLC aswell, so its technically a new game, with no previous reviews.

[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045987]The game is locked at 30 fps, is optimized terribly, there's a really bad memory leak, it crashes constantly, and some people are getting error messages that seem to suggest that it's a build from 2013. And there were confirmed instances of WB employees going on NeoGAF and calling people complaining about the port "entitled babies."[/QUOTE] It's entitled to want a game I payed for to work? [sp]I actually got this game free with my graphics card...[/sp]

[QUOTE=PieClock;48045399]Thank you, Steam refunds. See how much developers are going to care now that their cash is sinking down the drain. That said, I also haven't had much issues personally, but I also have a 970 and i'm guessing a lot of the port focus made was towards making it work on popular cards like it.[/QUOTE] it can't maintain 30 FPS on a single 970, so for you to say you haven't had any problems you're basically saying you don't care or don't notice drops below 30. doesn't mean you're not having problems, just means you don't personally see it.

Looks like the order extends to retail as well, as [URL="http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/game-pulling-pc-version-of-batman-arkham-knight-from-the-shelves/0151718"]UK games retailer GAME have been ordered to pull the PC version[/URL].

This is a clear victory of Valve's Refund policy. The fact that Valve keeps their cut anyway so the developers have to pay back in full is especially satisfying in this case.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;48045911]But that is my point, how can you mess it up so hard when the engine itself is made to handle different platforms ? And epic probably has some support service or something, AMD and Nvidia too. Imagine if they tried to make and engine themselves...[/QUOTE] This game runs on a heavily modified Unreal 3. I can't speak for their other systems but since they've entirely replaced the rendering code it's guaranteed it was designed for their primary target platforms. This is probably the also true for many other parts of the engine, so it was never designed to be platform agnostic. As a studio who's making games, not engines, they don't have the resources to design a platform independent codebase where the build tools handle it all. That's the difference between working in a production pipeline vs on engine development.

[QUOTE=Grimhound;48045228] EDIT: GreenManGaming earlier said they'd refund those who bought codes through them if the game's first patch didn't fix it. [B]Since it would appear the first patch isn't coming,[/B] you can probably get a refund if you so desire one.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=GMG+WB]WBIE also confirmed to us by email that "those customers who have already activated the game will be able to play the game during this time and will [B]automatically be updated to the new version when it is available.[/B]" So if you don't request a refund, you'll still be able to play the game even though it's been removed from sale. We're big fans of Warner Bros here at Green Man Gaming, they make some absolutely fantastic games and will continue to do so, and we have every faith that they will do all they can to make Batman: Arkham Knight on PC the best it can be. [/QUOTE] There is indeed a patch a coming. Which better be made first party by Rocksteady. [editline]25th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Genericenemy;48046696]If GTA IV and this aren't enough to stop outsourcing your fucking PC ports I don't know what will get them to do so.[/QUOTE] GTA IV wasn't outsourced.

[QUOTE=Delta616;48049109]GTA IV wasn't outsourced.[/QUOTE] Well not in the outside of the company sense but was taken from Rockstar North to another Rockstar developer who made a mess of it.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;48045763]What's the point of all the engines(in this case Unreal) supporting all the possible platforms when the ports suck ass ?[/QUOTE] I've noticed most bad pc ports are unreal engine 3 based.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;48051472]I've noticed most bad pc ports are unreal engine 3 based.[/QUOTE] To be fair, the majority of games iin general over the past ten years were UE3 based

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;48047685]it can't maintain 30 FPS on a single 970, so for you to say you haven't had any problems you're basically saying you don't care or don't notice drops below 30. doesn't mean you're not having problems, just means you don't personally see it.[/QUOTE] Well I'll just let you speak for me and pretend you've played the game on my rig which holds it around 45 fps or so even though you'll say it's both impossible and I'm a liar, that's okay I'm only running it on a 680 and it's more than playable but certainly not what I wanted it to be.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;48046668]alternatively you could say theyre probably going to do all of jack shit because arkham origins was never updated past a certain point due to dlc development obligations[/QUOTE] Atleast Arkham origins was playable on most systems

I paid 30 bucks to get the game + season pass. So far, I had fun. I haven't had any game breaking bugs, but its running like shit and I have a 970. I would definitely not pay this game at full price it's really disappointing.

[QUOTE=Cmx;48046063]Im wondering how steam refunds is effecting this decision. Now that publishers cant push a broken game like this and get away with it anymore.[/QUOTE] I'm a tad bit afraid that this could to some publishers dropping pc support because of these poor sales though.

[QUOTE=JerryK;48045716]i wonder why so many companies still don't want to take the smart route and just make a good game[/QUOTE] A good game? Are you insane, thats too risky. We need to follow the yearly release cycle with a full priced game, on disc dlc, season pass, f2p mp monetisation, always online drm and release on as many platforms as possible.

[QUOTE=Civil;48055273]A good game? Are you insane, thats too risky. We need to follow the yearly release cycle with a full priced game, on disc dlc, season pass, f2p mp monetisation, always online drm and release on as many platforms as possible.[/QUOTE] They made a great game. They cut corners on porting it and it's not a good thing at all and they're feeling the pain of that now. I know we all like to bitch and be super cynical about all this, but honestly, the amount of bitching we've done has started to change things. No, not the inane bitching that's somewhat sarcastic and useless, but serious consumer movements have started to change that. Either this game's never going to get released on PC(Unlikely) or they'll release a good port in a short time period. Yeah, they made some pretty bad decisions but at least they're reacting how we want them to, though, I know, we still bitch about that.

[QUOTE=Genericenemy;48049648]Well not in the outside of the company sense but was taken from Rockstar North to another Rockstar developer who made a mess of it.[/QUOTE] To be fair, it was their first RAGE-based game, I'm pretty sure it was a mess to begin with, as evidenced by the lack of a Red Dead Redemption port.

At first, I didn't like Steam refunds. But if it can promote big companies from not publishing a clearly broken piece of software, well that's alright by me.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48055308]They made a great game. They cut corners on porting it and it's not a good thing at all and they're feeling the pain of that now. I know we all like to bitch and be super cynical about all this, but honestly, the amount of bitching we've done has started to change things. No, not the inane bitching that's somewhat sarcastic and useless, but serious consumer movements have started to change that. Either this game's never going to get released on PC(Unlikely) or they'll release a good port in a short time period. Yeah, they made some pretty bad decisions but at least they're reacting how we want them to, though, I know, we still bitch about that.[/QUOTE] I was talking about the burning up AAA in general. The quality of the game doesnt matter if it wasnt made correctly for the platform. They are not going to be able to make a good port in a short time, minimum 1 year time if you will see it again. Im fairly sure that the pc version is exactly the-same (to the texture qualities) as the ps4 one with some nvidia gameworks functionality quickly slapped ontop of it. It would take a lot longer time than a patch the next month to fix that into becoming a well performing game on pc.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;48046824]What we should hope for is that this sends a message to publishers to stop pressuring devs into haphazardly finishing products that need more time.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=J!NX;48046877]more delayed games is better. (...) If I have to wait than so be it.[/QUOTE] It's not just a matter of you having to wait. The publisher has to foot the bill for every additional day of development. People talk about developers just needing more time, as if the only reason games get released too early is publishers greedy to start rolling in the cash as soon as possible, but it's not a matter of time, it's a matter of money. Those devs expect to be compensated for each day they're in the office, and operational costs continue as normal. It's not 'give our team another three months', it's 'give our team another five hundred thousand dollars'. And every additional dollar expected to be spent in primary development means making less risky games and safer design decisions, and additional attempts to recoup the investment in the form of DLC. Or, they might just start skipping the PC market altogether if the margins aren't worth it. More to the point, gamers need to stop leveling all blame at the the publisher when stuff like this happens and start holding the developers accountable. The developers started a project with a set budget and set development time and failed to meet their promises to the publisher, forcing the publisher to either accept a broken product or expend more money and time than agreed to get it how it should have been in the first place.

Praise the fucking lord for steam refunds.

See, now we are beginning to clearly define what makes for an acceptable product when it comes to software. Time was software, such as games, could sneak it's way though a loophole because it's not tangible like other consumer goods. Say you pay for a fridge, the box says it's a fridge suitable for keeping food and other things cold using it's built in chiller. Then you open the box and it's just a white box that resembles the picture, the seller tells you "well it looks like the thing on the box, get lost sucker!" because it's quite clearly not a fridge you'd be entitled to compensation. Software however is loosely defined, how do you promise what is and isn't working software? How do you prove this isn't as it was intended to work? In theory if the game somehow manages to show you the promotional images used to advertise the game without crashing it could technically count. However that aside the point is, software got past some of the consumer protection laws because it wasn;t utterly clear hat it is you were actually buying.[I] "Oh they didn't BUY Batman: the re-Battening, they bought a little ticket that means we might let them use our Batman: the re-battening software!"[/I] or other such arguments as [I]"They didn't follow our recommendations to the letter so it's their fault!"[/I] and who remembers the classic age old one of [I]"In our TaC's it says that if you unpackaged the game you forfeit all consumer rights"[/I] when the only way to READ the TaC's was to open the box sometimes having to take the disk out and read off the disk, Needless to say the courts soon put a boot down on THAT one. But now recent trade legislation from various bodies means that games ARE a product, not an intangible entity you gain use of, and then some more that allows you to get a refund for them to boot. This means that Steam eventually had to introduce the refund system and as a result, oh dear consumers can now decide that a product is shit and return it! How dreadful! We can't take them along for the ride as suckers anymore! Power to the consumer is what I say, not only can we vote with our wallets but take action with them and all now.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;48046248]If a game isn't 2 hours long but is still good, I doubt the majority of players would refund it.[/QUOTE] But now we've got the problem stated in IIRC Rust Devblog 66 where people buy a game, hack for an hour and 50 minutes, then refund it and continue later.

[QUOTE=Velocet;48046979]Syndicate looks like Gangs of New York: the game and that's awesome. If it runs okay, it's going to be awesome based on what's been shown. The port of Arkham was rushed but the game itself is amazing and the port was mediocre at best, terrible at the worst end of the spectrum but people are really exaggerating on how bad it is based on what I've seen on message boards and YouTube. "It's unplayable because it's dipping down to 40 on a 970 GTX and doesn't have anisotropic filtering options!"[/QUOTE] It's not just "dipping down to 40" that people are complaining about- I have a middle of the road rig (a 780 with an I5) and in the hour and a alf I've played, I frequently get stuttering, some incredibly slow texture streaming issues, Battle mode toggle isn't in the options for whatever reason (which results in prolonged batmobile combat being really uncomfortable) and don't get me started on performance with Physx smoke on when you drift in the batmobile. I didn't have an FPS counter on at the time, but I can happily estimate it'd be below the 10's. For you to miss out these particular issues and with the port (missing visual features, unstable performance, texture streaming issues at higher framerates, AMD GPU's overheating and creating hellspawns, etc) so the argument is exaggerated as little more than "Waah people are complaining they aren't getting 60 all the time" is pretty awful. On top of that, no. Ubisoft clearly haven't learned a single lesson from Unity, at least not with the boasting "pre-alpha gameplay" for the [B]reveal[/B] of a game with less than 4 months til launch (and do bear in mind they'll go gold even earlier than that!)

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48053509]Well I'll just let you speak for me and pretend you've played the game on my rig which holds it around 45 fps or so even though you'll say it's both impossible and I'm a liar, that's okay I'm only running it on a 680 and it's more than playable but certainly not what I wanted it to be.[/QUOTE] do you understand what the word 'maintain' means? the game doesn't stay above 30 (also known as [I]maintaining[/I]) on anything under a 980 TI. regular 980s dip below 30 whilst in the batmobile in certain scenarios.