DX11 in this game is terribly broken. People with incredibly crazy rigs are getting massive stuttering while playing. For example, when I run the benchmark I'm getting highs of 70'ish FPS, but the stuttering drops the average down to about 19. With DX11 off (and everything else still set to high, including PhysX) I'm getting about 40 FPS average. Haven't really met anyone that hasn't had this issue yet.

Apparently 5 weeks was enough to pad console sales, lie to PC gamers that they were working on optimizing the game for the PC and going on holidays, but it wasn't enough to make sure that the game was actually optimized for the PC. Rocksteady can suck a dick.

UPDATE: Still no word on the patch but for anyone encountering DX9 issues also: disable PhysX. With PhysX on in DX9 I'm lucky to average about 36 fps. With it off, my fps jumps to nearly 70 fps. I'm going to wait until they fix this (since PhysX adds very noticeable visual effects) but if you don't mind missing out on them, just disable it the game runs fine with everything else maxed out (at least on a 560ti).

Nice.

So it's more or less like every DX11 release to ever hit the market.
 
That said, it's sad to see people delay PC versions like this and not optimize it well. Any hype I had for this release has already gone away, I moved on and I am married to Skyrim now.

@Azteck said:

So it's more or less like every DX11 release to ever hit the market. That said, it's sad to see people delay PC versions like this and not optimize it well. Any hype I had for this release has already gone away, I moved on and I am married to Skyrim now.

Which is exactly what they wanted, sales of the PC version to drop off as they attempt to move everyone over to consoles. The whole situation is really sad in an irritating way, especially when Arkham Asylum was such an incredible PC release.

Forget what I said, I didn't realize what forum I was in.

@ThisArmyStud said:

Nice.

Glad to see that I can anticipate my download on Steam finishing. 

No surprise really.

Yep, same here, plus I'm getting random-ass crashes. Cool beans.

@RsistncE said:

@Azteck said:

So it's more or less like every DX11 release to ever hit the market. That said, it's sad to see people delay PC versions like this and not optimize it well. Any hype I had for this release has already gone away, I moved on and I am married to Skyrim now.

Which is exactly what they wanted, sales of the PC version to drop off as they attempt to move everyone over to consoles. The whole situation is really sad in an irritating way, especially when Arkham Asylum was such an incredible PC release.

Well, since apparently the Physx stuff is amazing and the game still looks incredible when maxed out, I hardly care. We're still getting the best version and, frankly, I've yet to see any developer use DX11 well as most titles were never designed from the ground up to take advantage of the feature. When that starts happening, I'm sure we'll see some amazing stuff. But, until then, I'll be happy running AC with the incredible Physx effects (best use of it previously was in the last Batman game) and a wonderful 1920x1080 res.

Also: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/11/batman-arkham-city-on-pc-is-the-version-gotham-needs-and-you-deserve.ars

Yeah, it's a great port with one broken feature that will likely get patched.

This is one of the reason why I'm going to buy the game during the next christmas sale for 7.5 euro.

@RsistncE said:

@Azteck said:

So it's more or less like every DX11 release to ever hit the market. That said, it's sad to see people delay PC versions like this and not optimize it well. Any hype I had for this release has already gone away, I moved on and I am married to Skyrim now.

Which is exactly what they wanted, sales of the PC version to drop off as they attempt to move everyone over to consoles. The whole situation is really sad in an irritating way, especially when Arkham Asylum was such an incredible PC release.

Then the developers and publishers complain that the PC version didn't sell that well.

I bought the retial version of the game and I was wondering is the Catwoman DLC tied with the product key or is there a piece of paper with a code on it? I noticed my copy just came with the product key and the catalog but nothing else.

Strange, I thought the Arkham Asylum PC port was pretty alright. I'm glad I got this for free. (I can't even get the fucking thing to launch right now...)

@fullmetal5550 said:

I bought the retial version of the game and I was wondering is the Catwoman DLC tied with the product key or is there a piece of paper with a code on it? I noticed my copy just came with the product key and the catalog but nothing else.

The Catwoman DLC is being used to stem used game sales on consoles, seeing as there is no used market for PC games because of CD keys I'd expect every copy of the game will include the DLC. I think Rage was the same way on PC.

@fullmetal5550 said:

I bought the retial version of the game and I was wondering is the Catwoman DLC tied with the product key or is there a piece of paper with a code on it? I noticed my copy just came with the product key and the catalog but nothing else.

Catwoman's all integrated with the PC version since you can't exactly buy them used. Especially since it does the 5 activation things, which is kinda lame. But at least that's one less code you gotta enter.

I don't mind the DX11 thing terribly, bit lame that I can't really use my rig to it's fullest potential but I'll get over that. My main problem is that the fucking thing doesn't launch now, and when it did last time I crashed at the main menu. It's a finnicky game to be sure. This bothers me. I wanna play the thing I payed for. I guess I could always just go back to Skyrim but I kinda wanted a break.

Thanks for informing. I'm pretty pissed at the developers for taking so god damned long in releasing this game for pc and delaying without even informing anyone.

EDIT: Guys is it really true that this game is like 16 gigs? What the fuck?!

@Deusx: It's like 16.7 gigs, yeah. Dumbest shit since SW:TFU was 30 gigs.

@Vitor said:

@RsistncE said:

@Azteck said:

So it's more or less like every DX11 release to ever hit the market. That said, it's sad to see people delay PC versions like this and not optimize it well. Any hype I had for this release has already gone away, I moved on and I am married to Skyrim now.

Which is exactly what they wanted, sales of the PC version to drop off as they attempt to move everyone over to consoles. The whole situation is really sad in an irritating way, especially when Arkham Asylum was such an incredible PC release.

Well, since apparently the Physx stuff is amazing and the game still looks incredible when maxed out, I hardly care. We're still getting the best version and, frankly, I've yet to see any developer use DX11 well as most titles were never designed from the ground up to take advantage of the feature. When that starts happening, I'm sure we'll see some amazing stuff. But, until then, I'll be happy running AC with the incredible Physx effects (best use of it previously was in the last Batman game) and a wonderful 1920x1080 res.

Also: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/11/batman-arkham-city-on-pc-is-the-version-gotham-needs-and-you-deserve.ars

Yeah, it's a great port with one broken feature that will likely get patched.

I get what you're saying and I agree to some extent, but you can't help but feeling that the game should have just come out at the same time as the console versions since PhysX is really the only differing feature. Combining that with the fact that nvidia was hyping tesselation and the DX11 features, it kinda feels like we got screwed over in regards to a major feature rather than a minor one.

@Deusx said:

Thanks for informing. I'm pretty pissed at the developers for taking so god damned long in releasing this game for pc and delaying without even informing anyone.

EDIT: Guys is it really true that this game is like 16 gigs? What the fuck?!

Yeah it's 16 GB, but in all honesty that makes sense to some extent since DX11 features (and patches) have always been hefty in size, and then taking into account higher resolution textures and the PhysX stuff it and it's pretty easy to see why it's 16GB. If anything that 16 GB's makes this even more depressing since it's clear that there was some effort expended in trying to make this a real PC game instead of a sloppy ass port, but the crap implementation of a single (major) feature has really left a sour taste in a lot of users mouths.

On the bright side, the developer and some nvidia community guys have acknowledged that there are performance issues with DX11 (understatement of the year) and that we should hear from Rocksteady shortly. No idea when a patch will be pushed through, if at all, at this point.

Meh, I got it free with my GPU. I can wait until it's fixed.

In a way, I am actually glad they decided to screw over PC owners, because now I'm not $40 poorer.

Well, that and they blocked my region from buying the game on Steam. Those dicks.

Yep I just loaded up the game, and holy fuck is DX11 broken as hell. Guess all that time it was delayed was put to good use *sigh*

@Azteck said:

So it's more or less like every DX11 release to ever hit the market. That said, it's sad to see people delay PC versions like this and not optimize it well. Any hype I had for this release has already gone away, I moved on and I am married to Skyrim now.

apart from codemaster games as the DX11 is pretty flawless in Dirt and F1

oh and AVP and Crysis 2. all of which look STUNNING on my PC

Yeah i'm not playing it until they release a patch for dx11... which is fine.. i still have skyrim and skyward sword to play.

This is really frustrating. I don't have the best rig in the world, but it handles every game I throw at it really well. I have a Core i7-920, 12 GB of RAM, and a GTX460. Even with DX11 turned off, the performance is awful. Whenever I'm flying around the city, the game will just freeze for a few seconds, I'm guessing for it to load or something. I hope a massive patch comes out within the next week that fixes a lot of performance issues.

Bethesda releases PC version same day as console version with a day 1 patch to address known issues.

Rocksteady: ????

No profit.

@SirPsychoSexy said:

Meh, I got it free with my GPU. I can wait until it's fixed.

Yeah I saw that deal or one like it.....I've downloaded it on Steam but I'm still screwing around with other stuff. Maybe get fixed, more or less soon.

We can either be self-entitled whiny pricks about it or not, either way that's not going to change the reality of the business. We as consumers rarely know what it really takes to get this shit to market and I bet that PC version delay was a godsend for someone at Rocksteady so I'm not gonna hate. Besides it's not like they won't try and fix it anyway.

I feel bad enough waiting half a year to buy a game at more than 50% off so for me I consider it even.

Can you run it in DX9/10 ?
 
DX11 is hardly ever worth it in 9/10 games anyway and is almost always somehow broken at launch. (tho SR3 recently handled it well)
As long as you can run it in in DX9, i'll be fine and not care about 11.
Question is can you?

Glad I didn't buy it now.

I love all the programming experts that frequent the GiantBomb forums. You know exactly how long it takes to optimize a game. Let me let you in on a little secret. It's a painstakingly long awful process. It's perfectly believable to think that they've been working on it for a month and have only arrived where they are. If you turn off the DX11 the game looks phenomenal and is again the superior version of the game. By far. If you just want to judge the port turn off physx and dx11 and the game is flawless. Turn on physx and it gets even better. There is not one way in which the console version is superior to the PC version (I will admit having to put the cd-key in twice sucks but after the first time you start the game DRM is no longer noticeable)

Saying you're glad you didn't buy the game and stating that Rocksteady somehow fucked us over is absurd. The only reason not to buy the game is if you don't like The Batman. If you're only happy with game purchases that are 100% optimized for DX11 cards you're not going to be happy with most games you buy.

That's a bummer but the game still looks way better having played the 2 versions, I wouldn't hold myself for playing the game because of no DX11

This game is awesome.

@Tennmuerti: Steam says Dx9.

I was holding out on a purchase specifically for the PC version, Arkham Asylum was fantastic on the PC, hopefully it will get patched in the future.

@Tuffgong said:

We can either be self-entitled whiny pricks about it or not, either way that's not going to change the reality of the business. We as consumers rarely know what it really takes to get this shit to market and I bet that PC version delay was a godsend for someone at Rocksteady so I'm not gonna hate. Besides it's not like they won't try and fix it anyway.

I feel bad enough waiting half a year to buy a game at more than 50% off so for me I consider it even.

@Hunkulese said:

I love all the programming experts that frequent the GiantBomb forums. You know exactly how long it takes to optimize a game. Let me let you in on a little secret. It's a painstakingly long awful process. It's perfectly believable to think that they've been working on it for a month and have only arrived where they are. If you turn off the DX11 the game looks phenomenal and is again the superior version of the game. By far. If you just want to judge the port turn off physx and dx11 and the game is flawless. Turn on physx and it gets even better. There is not one way in which the console version is superior to the PC version (I will admit having to put the cd-key in twice sucks but after the first time you start the game DRM is no longer noticeable)

Saying you're glad you didn't buy the game and stating that Rocksteady somehow fucked us over is absurd. The only reason not to buy the game is if you don't like The Batman. If you're only happy with game purchases that are 100% optimized for DX11 cards you're not going to be happy with most games you buy.

You two are aware that DX11 was pushed as a major selling point for the PC version, and that WB/Rocksteady were even publishing articles pushing people to buy DX11 Nvidia cards in order to play this game maxed out right? And the fact that they claimed that a 560 would be more than enough to max the game out with DX11, Physx and everything at high? THEY LIED. If they had hastily implemented DX11 without promoting it at all and had sold the game based on it's merits to PC gamers and not based on a feature set I wouldn't be complaining. They didn't do this though, they promoted (and sold) the game based on a lie. The fact is that they didn't spend the month making the game better on the PC (high quality textures and a resolution bump don't require a month of work, even they stated this implicitly and said the extra time was for DX11 implementation and optimization) they instead spent that month lying to PC gamers, padding their console sales and going on fucking holidays. Protip: if as a business you lie to people about your product, which causes them to buy a product based on false assertions, then expect them to "whine" and be "self-entitled" about you and your company as a whole.

BTW DX9 performance is pretty shit also for a lot of people.

@Tennmuerti said:

Can you run it in DX9/10 ? DX11 is hardly ever worth it in 9/10 games anyway and is almost always somehow broken at launch. (tho SR3 recently handled it well)As long as you can run it in in DX9, i'll be fine and not care about 11.Question is can you?

Yup, you can run DX9. However this doesn't change the fact that DX11 was touted as a major selling point for the PC version and was used to not only sell the game but also nvidia gpu's (as evidence by the "buy this nvidia gpu and get arkham city free!" promotion).

@Hunkulese said:

If you just want to judge the port turn off physx and dx11 and the game is flawless.

The game does look incredible. But it still runs terribly on my machine even with DX11 off. The main problem with me is the framerate is terrible. Even when I turned down the detail to just High instead of Very High, it runs terribly.

@RsistncE: I would bet that a majority of people who decided to purchase the PC version of this game didn't do it because they were won over by DX11 marketing bullshit. If they were then I'm sorry but they're idiots if that's all it takes to get them to buy a product. People generally decide to buy the PC version because they rightly assume it would look better and run better than the console versions. Even without the DX11 stuff the PC version accomplishes this goal.

Should PC gaming be smooth and day one perfect? Sure especially when we're talking about people who pre-order and buy games on day one. I'm not one of those people and this kind of thing has been happening for so long I can't understand where all this selective amnesia is going on. It's a sad reality that we have to assume the game is not perfect but going to get patched and fixed later but I'm not naive enough to keep getting sad once it keeps happening. Just wait to buy the game until they fix that shit or don't buy it at all. I can't make apologize for people falling for marketing.

@RsistncE: Maybe you should have actually read what I wrote. Optimizing a game is not an easy or quick process or everything would be fully optimized. They could have easily run into more issues than they anticipated and a month is not a lot of time to fix everything. But because they released the game a month later and it's not perfect you assume they were doing nothing and just lying to everyone? Would you rather they had kept pushing the game back until everything was fixed? Would you rather play it in January? It also doesn't make a lot of sense that they were just trying to pad console sales. They make more money off of each PC version and they don't have to worry about used game sales.

I know people like to bitch when everything isn't perfect but maybe you should step back and look at things logically and use some common sense.

@rebgav said:

@Hunkulese said:

If you just want to judge the port turn off physx and dx11 and the game is flawless.

Yeah, the game is fine if you disable two of the two PC specific features. I'll bet that nvidia are delighted with how this deal is working out for them.

Maybe you should also include my next sentence where I say it is even better with physx on. The point I was making was that even if your computer can't handle physx you're still getting the superior version of the game. People have been whining about how great the Arkham Asylum port was compared to this but in reality this port is just as good.

People also seem to forget how badly Arkham Asylum was optimized when it was first released on PC. They patched it and I see no reason why we shouldn't expect a similar patch for Arkham City.

@Tuffgong: Your logic is trying the sidestep the main point here: they HEAVILY used the DX11 feature to both sell the game and video cards. Hell, go to the geforce site and there's Arkham City plastered everywhere with claims about how DX11 takes the game to another level and how you need a nvidia card to take advantage of both physx and DX11. This is on top of two marketing releases from WB heavily promoting the game by talking about DX11. It doesn't matter how many people believed the marketing (and why shouldn't they? since when was it legal to outright LIE to consumers?) or didn't believe it, the point is they at best heavily embellished the truth and at worst outright lied.

Again, you're taking this off topic. I never said a piece of software should or will run perfectly day one, because there are far too many system configurations out there to eliminate all issues. However, this ISN'T a system configuration issue, this is a "developer-not-giving-enough-of-a-fuck-to implement-a-feature-properly" problem, since Rocksteady has already confirmed it is a general problem seemingly effecting most if not all users. Should a game be void of all bugs and issues day one? No, that's impossible. Should a developer put in at least a competent effort in the face of what they promised? Most definitely.

@Hunkulese: This has nothing to do with optimization and everything to do with using a major PC feature to sell a game. If they knew that DX11 was completely fucked, why didn't they say so before release? It's clear that they've acknowledged that it's a general problem affecting most users so that much is clear. The only other option is they didn't know, which honestly tells me that they didn't take the time to playtest the PC version after DX11 implementation at all (something many developers have done in the past).

You keep using bullshit apologist excuses like, "would you rather play it in january?", and, "it's not perfect for YOU." Garbage arguments that are completely missing the point. They marketed DX11 as a MAJOR SELLING POINT for the PC version. They claimed that a 560 would run the game maxed out, with physx and DX11 features on. They did a shit job of implementing it and lied/witheld the truth. You and the other guy need to stop with this apologist nonsense and face the facts that Rocksteady did a shitty job of implementing DX11 (just as other developers have, something which I think we can all admit here) and overall did a crumby job of porting the game over to PC since it doesn't even run that great in DX9.

Also: console sales are much more profitable in the long run than PC sales, using the current approach that publishers are using to PC games of course. I'm not sure if it's even necessary for me to explain this because it's common knowledge that publishers want players pushed over to consoles as much as possible.

@RsistncE: I still fail to see the lie. If this is the finished version than I can see your point but it's not. The exact same thing happened with the PC version of Arkham Asylum and by the time they finished working on it everyone raved about how well it ran on PC. You just seem content on making up worst case scenarios and stating them as fact. How does it have nothing to do with optimization? The game will run with DX11 turned on and with a super high end machine it will run well. It is clearly an optimization problem. You say that the game having to come out in January is a garbage argument but you also want the game to be perfect now? You can't have both.

There is nothing apologetic about what I'm saying. They've shown in the past that they'll continue working on optimization and there's no reason to believe they wont do the same with Arkham City. No they didn't come out and say this game doesn't run great in DX11 yet don't buy it yet but the writing was on the wall when they pushed the game back a month. I'll say it again, you can't accomplish a lot in a month. They can't just say make this game run great, you have a week, go.

The game is a great port and has been running flawlessly for myself and many other people that I've talked to. Way better than Arkham Asylum ran.

Console sales are more profitable in the long run? Yes they make more money because more people buy console games but used sales take a large chunk of money from them. They make more profit per each PC copy sold and that is not arguable. It's necessary for you to explain because you don't present a valid point. If they wanted to push everyone to play it on console they wouldn't even bother with a pc version. They focus on consoles because of the larger player base but they get more out of people who buy the games on PC.

I know you are coming from a place of anger but stop making things up to back your opinion and use some better judgement,

@Hunkulese: First of all, let me make this clear: this isn't a discussion about Arkham Asylum, nor am I saying that the game was perfect at launch. Regardless, you just said that what we've received is not a finished product...

WTF

So let me get this straight, you've just admitted that we were sold an unfinished product and this is OK and none of us should complain about this? Is this a joke?

When did I say it wasn't an optimization issue? I said this isn't an issue with build variation, but rather an issue with poor implementation (and therefore optimization) of a feature by the developers themselves. I thought I also clearly said that I wasn't expecting a perfect piece of software, but here, let me quote myself for your convenience:

I never said a piece of software should or will run perfectly day one, because there are far too many system configurations out there to eliminate all issues. However, this ISN'T a system configuration issue, this is a "developer-not-giving-enough-of-a-fuck-to implement-a-feature-properly" problem, since Rocksteady has already confirmed it is a general problem seemingly effecting most if not all users. Should a game be void of all bugs and issues day one? No, that's impossible. Should a developer put in at least a competent effort in the face of what they promised? Most definitely.

Sure the writing was on the wall that this game wasn't going to run great when they delayed...but then it was washed off and written over with statements like "DX11 will take your Arkham City experience to the next level!" and "DX11 and Physx are the way that Arkham City is meant to be played."

Also you say that the game runs fine for you...I'm assuming with DX11 on, or your point is kind of moot in the context of this discussion. And if you are running fine with DX11, then you're in the minority as Rocksteady has already identified this as a general and widespread problem.

Your entire concept of how financial decisions are made is quite flawed. First of all, not a single individual who works in corporate finance or financial accounting recognizes a "lost sale" (in the way you are using the term) as a relevant cash flow when doing net present value analysis on a project. The concept of lost sales through used games is garbage spun up by firms marketers and PR in order to defend increasingly draconian measures of control being implemented in the games industry. The idea of lost sales via used games has no financial (theoretical or real world) basis and is nothing but hot air and a way for companies to have another scape goat in their pockets.

In terms of the console industry being more profitable: there are many reasons for this, including the fact that the barrier to entry for console games is lower, the largest audiences for big name titles exist on consoles, console games general provide a greater profit margin and a larger ROI over time due to DLC etc. There are many reasons for it, but just to be clear, console gaming isn't inherently more profitable, it's just profitable right now because of the way the industry has propped it up. In other words: the financial superiority of producing games for consoles is propagated by the industry itself (and of course consumers who play on consoles, but that's the other side of the coin).

You asked why companies still produce for PC's? Because the NPV of investing in the console port is still positive (aka. it is a profitable venture). However, when taking the regret approach to return analysis into account, the return on producing for consoles is also positive in terms of NPV but the return itself is greater, so obviously a company would want to push it's market into console gaming. I think that should answer your question sufficiently.

I still don't understand why you and the other guy are defending Rocksteady and WB here. Other companies have done what they have (i.e. did a shit job of implementing a feature) and have even owned up to it and the fact that they didn't put in as much time as they claimed they did or should have. Why is Rocksteady any different? What makes them so special that they can fuck up royally like this? It's people like you and the other guy that make me actually believe companies might be hiring shills to rabidly defend their games on forums.

@RsistncE: You really should just stop because you're making youself look like an idiot. Read your posts.

You said: This has nothing to do with optimization

And then you said: When did I say it wasn't an optimization issue?

You also say that the game doesn't run well in DX9 but when I say that it runs fine for everyone I've talked to my point becomes moot?

The bottom line is that this game was designed for consoles with the DX11 and physx added in later. They could either release a perfectly playable version of the game and continue working on things so they can release a patch for the minority of people who are running DX11 cards or they can wait until everything is running smoothly. For 90% of people the first choice is a better option. I'd much rather to play through it now and then replay it again when the DX11 kinks are worked out. This isn't some rinky dink unknown publisher. Rocksteady has shown in the past that they will put in the time and effort to fulfill all the promises they've made. This is why bringing up Arkham Asylum is entirely relevant because they exact same thing happened with it. Physx was heavily promoted and failed to perform on day one.

My entire concept of how financial decisions are made is quite flawed? I didn't say anything about any financial decisions so I'm curious how you figured out my concept on the matter. Are you trying to argue that the console market isn't larger because that's all I said. You're also pretty naive if you think used games aren't a pretty significant loss for the publishers. I know it's asking a lot but just use some common sense. Chains like EB Games are able to turn a profit based almost exclusively off their used game sales. There are many people who only buy used games and publishers make $0 off of those sales. It's cute to say that it's all spun up to defend their draconian measures of control but again take a minute to think that through.

I know it's useless to present actual logical points to people like you so I'll leave you to your angry thoughts. RAWR!

@Hunkulese said:

@RsistncE: You really should just stop because you're making youself look like an idiot. Read your posts.

You said: This has nothing to do with optimization

And then you said: When did I say it wasn't an optimization issue?

You also say that the game doesn't run well in DX9 but when I say that it runs fine for everyone I've talked to my point becomes moot?

The bottom line is that this game was designed for consoles with the DX11 and physx added in later. They could either release a perfectly playable version of the game and continue working on things so they can release a patch for the minority of people who are running DX11 cards or they can wait until everything is running smoothly. For 90% of people the first choice is a better option. I'd much rather to play through it now and then replay it again when the DX11 kinks are worked out. This isn't some rinky dink unknown publisher. Rocksteady has shown in the past that they will put in the time and effort to fulfill all the promises they've made. This is why bringing up Arkham Asylum is entirely relevant because they exact same thing happened with it. Physx was heavily promoted and failed to perform on day one.

My entire concept of how financial decisions are made is quite flawed? I didn't say anything about any financial decisions so I'm curious how you figured out my concept on the matter. Are you trying to argue that the console market isn't larger because that's all I said. You're also pretty naive if you think used games aren't a pretty significant loss for the publishers. I know it's asking a lot but just use some common sense. Chains like EB Games are able to turn a profit based almost exclusively off their used game sales. There are many people who only buy used games and publishers make $0 off of those sales. It's cute to say that it's all spun up to defend their draconian measures of control but again take a minute to think that through.

I know it's useless to present actual logical points to people like you so I'll leave you to your angry thoughts. RAWR!

Quote me where I said word-for-word "This isn't an optimization issue". I didn't, stop making shit up. What I said was:

However, this ISN'T a system configuration issue,

Notice how I'm supplying quotes yet you're just blowing hot air? Yeah.

Your point was moot because this is a discussion about Rocksteady not delivering on their promise of fully functioning DX11 in the product. What part of that isn't clear to you? If this discussion was about DX9 then yeah, your experience would be applicable. However, this discussion is not about DX9, it's about DX11. Clear enough for you now? Also DX9 isn't exactly a top performer, it's running pretty shitty for a number of people also, but I digress.

One more time with feeling: I DON'T CARE FOR EXCUSES. Rocksteady and WB promoted the PC version via DX11 and PhysX features, even pairing with nvidia in order to sell their gpu's for the game's launch. They convinced people to part with their money based on a farce. How is this not wrong?

Again, Arkham Asylum is not relevant to this conversation, I don't care if they patched it or didn't, this conversation is about Rocksteady and WB releasing a product that does not work for anyone AS THEY CLAIMED IT WOULD.

As soon as you start talking about a company deciding to produce a console game or a PC game, THAT is a financial decision. You taking into account the idea that used game sales are in any way considered to be a real and measurable financial effect is absolutely ludicrous and nothing but a laymen's false belief. You can claim my naivety all you want, but I'm a finance major who's interned and worked for multiple companies and I can tell you right now that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about when it comes to this topic. Lost sales via diverted sales or expected sales are not a cash flow that can be taken into account. When a company sits down and decides whether they want to produce their game on a console or a PC they first do an NPV analysis as a basic first step. That NPV analysis does not consider "lost sales" to be a relevant cash flow. In fact it's non-existant and can't be reliably discounted in any way. In other words, the companies financial arm, which is what helps it to make real and informed decisions, does not count "lost sales" when it decides whether or not it wants to produce a game for consoles. I'm hoping that made sense to you, but of course it probably flew over your head completely. There are no empirical facts to suggest that the used games market leads to a financial loss for game companies.

Yeah, the days of buying a console port on day 1 are over. I will always buy the genuine PC games and the trusted ports (like Assassin's Creed) without hesitation, otherwise I'm "getting the game without paying" until the piece of shit port is worth sixty dollars.

@RsistncE: @RsistncE said:

This has nothing to do with optimization

Didn't bother reading the rest of your nonsense.

@Tennmuerti said:

Can you run it in DX9/10 ? DX11 is hardly ever worth it in 9/10 games anyway and is almost always somehow broken at launch. (tho SR3 recently handled it well)As long as you can run it in in DX9, i'll be fine and not care about 11.Question is can you?

Yup, you can run DX9. However this doesn't change the fact that DX11 was touted as a major selling point for the PC version and was used to not only sell the game but also nvidia gpu's (as evidence by the "buy this nvidia gpu and get arkham city free!" promotion).

@RsistncE: I was bored enough to read the rest and I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. Nobody has made any wacky claims about publishers financial decisions except for you. You're the one who decided they held the game back for the sole reason of boosting console sales. You also declared it was common knowledge that publishers would rather people played all their games on consoles. Both of your accusations are based on nothing. If they would prefer you played their game on a console why release a PC version? Why bother putting in the extra effort adding DX11 and physx support when most people would be happy with just playing the console version on their PC at a higher resolution.

I never said anything about publishers not wanting to release a game on console because of used sales. I said it was a major loss of income and it is no matter how you try and spin it. Have you noticed an influx of online passes recently? If they don't care about lost sales why implement something that annoys people who bought your game new? The only benefit they get is from people who didn't buy the game new. But according to you they don't even care about that loss of revenue anyway.

They never consider lost sales when they decide whether or not to release a game on a certain platform?

http://www.1up.com/news/super-street-fighter-4-canceled

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/138269.20111124.I-Am-Alive-unlikely-to-see-PC-release/

I'm sure that is just more marketing propaganda right?

I guessing you just bought a new PC and feel like a chump but this is par for the course. Most PC games are released unfinished and it's rarely a good idea to purchase a PC game in the first couple weeks. I know you don't enjoy relevant examples but Crysis 2 was used to sell GPUs because of DX11 and it took months after release for the DX11 support to actually get patched in. Since you get so worked up over it I suggest that for future PC purchases you hold back on buying games until you see for sure that it is 100% ready to go.

Fucking unbelievable. I wait an entire month after the console release to play this game and what am I rewarded with? A broken game... There is absolutely no way they weren't aware of this problem before releasing the game and clearly just wanted to get out in time to suck up some holiday spending, real scumbag move.