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

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48046084]Playing with a 680 Gtx and its more than acceptable. I'm rather disappointed this happened though, like how could you fuck this up realistically?[/QUOTE] Developers care less about the quality of the games they make nowadays and care more about the cash. [editline]27th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=saintsim;48046699]Finally these AAA optimized-by-a-chimanzee framerate-locking rushjob-factory assholes can get what they deserve. [sp]'scuse my language[/sp][/QUOTE] I agree 60fps minimum or gtfo! [editline]27th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=evil-tedoz;48054509]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] A Gtx 970 should be eating that game for breakfast that doesn't make the developers look to good.

arkham knight is officially in beta!

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;48068067]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.[/QUOTE] My game doesn't dip below 30 in the batmobile, on a 680, it can hover around 30, goes up to 45 at least. But hey, you're the one telling me how the game runs on my system so you're clearly ready to speak for me.

what a great time to be a PC gamer

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48072295]My game doesn't dip below 30 in the batmobile, on a 680, it can hover around 30, goes up to 45 at least. But hey, you're the one telling me how the game runs on my system so you're clearly ready to speak for me.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the folks at [URL="http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/batman-arkham-knight-needs-some-serious-fixing-on-the-pc/"]Kitguru[/URL] would love to know where you got your magical 680. or maybe you're just running the game at 1360x768 and omitting that fact just to give you a reason to argue.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48046084]Playing with a 680 Gtx and its more than acceptable. I'm rather disappointed this happened though, like how could you fuck this up realistically?[/QUOTE] A GTX 680? What the fuck?

"more than acceptable" can mean a lot of things. It generally means "I don't have any numbers to back this up, but it's good to me".

Does it run flawless at 60? No. Does it drop below 30? Sometimes. Does it look good? Yeah. Does the batmobile scenes drop to sub 20? No, not even sub 30 for me. Was there also a patch yesterday that made my meager rig able to run it better than before anyways? Yes. [video=youtube;gSGdqKFpoN4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSGdqKFpoN4[/video] There's my own playable footage from a few days ago pre patch, I'm sure i'll bother to record some more for people who are "LOL YOU CAN'T RUN THIS YOU TROLL" not that it'll persuade those like bruhmis but whatever. [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Hugo Strange;48074423]A GTX 680? What the fuck?[/QUOTE] It's not broken because the game can't run on strong rigs. It's broken because it's fucking broken for some people. However, SOME PEOPLE, are able to play this game at acceptable frame rates across variable settings on random rigs. It doesn't seem consistent because it isn't. I got lucky. I've never said anything else. I'm just fucking tired of people saying I can't be playing the game. Oh really? Look at my steam account and wait for some more footage for me to put up(I don't have any editing software so they're generally just going to be 5 minutes of shadowplay footage) [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Bruhmis;48074288]I'm sure the folks at [URL="http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/batman-arkham-knight-needs-some-serious-fixing-on-the-pc/"]Kitguru[/URL] would love to know where you got your magical 680. or maybe you're just running the game at 1360x768 and omitting that fact just to give you a reason to argue.[/QUOTE] 1920x1080 but thanks anyways.

I just get like avg. 40FPS and a lot of texture pop in and stutter. Unplayable, but it's not like 10-12FPS unplayable.

I've gotten stutter, but not a lot of it, and not for very long. I get dips in frames, but it's pretty decent at holding around 40 or so frames as well. The games already had a quick patch.

Hopefully they learned their lesson from this.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48074771]Does it drop below 30? Sometimes.[/QUOTE] oh, so it [B]doesn't maintain 30[/B]. so exactly what I said. think before you post.

I know two people with 680s, one runs the game fairly well, it's playable and generally gets about 40 fps, the other is nigh on unplayable and struggles to even hit 20. The playable one has 8gb ram and an AMD processor (I'm afraid I can't remember it's exact name) while the unplayable is an old i7 920 with 6gb of RAM. It seems like specific combinations of hardware work better than others, which is interesting. Makes me wonder how long it will take them to fix it.

Some people could magically run watch dogs alright with midrange hardware.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;48075865]oh, so it [B]doesn't maintain 30[/B]. so exactly what I said. think before you post.[/QUOTE] Oh no a game drops below 30 on a bare minimum system! Think before you post

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48077020]Oh no a game drops below 30 on a bare minimum system! Think before you post[/QUOTE] Well to be fair, the minimum requirements were changed hours before launch

[QUOTE=TheTalon;48077141]Well to be fair, the minimum requirements were changed hours before launch[/QUOTE] I always figured this game would run mediocrely on my rig, it does, but it also looks way better than I expected as well. It is a bad port, I'm not defending it, but I personally can play it and not have too many hiccups [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] And a 660 was the minimum and still is for the longest time. Only AMD requirements were changed which is admittedly terrible

Battle mode toggle has been in the game since day one for me

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48074834]I've gotten stutter, but not a lot of it, and not for very long. I get dips in frames, but it's pretty decent at holding around 40 or so frames as well. The games already had a quick patch.[/QUOTE] I wonder if a ssd would make a difference or not? [editline]29th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=General J;48055323]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] Too bad it wasn't around when id released Doom Bfg edition that was terrible!

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;48074288]I'm sure the folks at [URL="http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/batman-arkham-knight-needs-some-serious-fixing-on-the-pc/"]Kitguru[/URL] would love to know where you got your magical 680. or maybe you're just running the game at 1360x768 and omitting that fact just to give you a reason to argue.[/QUOTE] Im holding a solid 45-60 at all times on my 660 ti 3gb, and no, i dont dip below 30. Stop being and ignorant jerk. All because their benchmark with a 660 was shit doesn't mean it will be for everyone with a 660ti. There's other hardware at play, like CPU, ram, ect.

Seems the people who are having little to no troubles with the almost minimum requirements are very lucky and few and far between. [video=youtube;GKy2BEHKeyE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKy2BEHKeyE[/video] From the 6 minute mark you can really see how bad it runs and this is with a gtx 970 [video=youtube;bFBd5GgGkMs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFBd5GgGkMs[/video] TotalBiscuit's review of it and bear in mind these are his pc specs: i7-5930k @ 4.2ghz 16gb DDR-4 2800 RAM 2x GTX Titan X Graphics Sandisk Extreme Pro SSD.

It's pretty clear they only tested it on a few configurations. Explains why people with 970s are having lots of trouble and people with lesser graphics cards are not.

When I put my GTX 960 into my PC and launch Batman: Arkham Knight, I will say "time to even the odds".

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48046226]"Refunds are bad for developers!!" Only if your bad and or make games less then 2 hours long.[/QUOTE] What if you make a short story-based game that only costs a dollar or two

[QUOTE=Eric95;48085393]What if you make a short story-based game that only costs a dollar or two[/QUOTE] I don't think there's anything to worry about because most people aren't going to refund something like that if they like it, especially not for just a couple bucks. And if they don't like it, well that's kind of the point of refunds. To get your money back for something that you're unhappy with. If a developer has a game that takes less than two hours to finish and are afraid of people refunding, then they should put in some extra time to expand on the game. Create extra story content, give players rewards for exploring every little thing, figure out ways to keep the players coming back. It doesn't matter what you do, just give customers a reason to feel like their purchase was justified. And if the developer is afraid of running out of money to finish their game due to the extra time they need to add such things, well that's why we have things like Kickstarter, Patreon, and Early Access.