I just had to say it somewhere.

Somehow the PC release of this version has retroactively been canceled, it feels like. People are complaining about console DLC while the game is still not available for purchase on the PC.

I never would have thought it could get this bad. How broken are games going to get?

That's insane!

Seems like forever since I beat it on PS4. By the time it does come to PC I guess people will have moved on and not care anymore.

Unfortunately I don't have a concrete source (I think it was the Warner Bros Games forums or something), but WB has come out saying that the game is seeing a planned re-release in October. Steam page also states that the game rerelease is still a planned thing. For what it's worth there was a pretty hefty interim patch. Haven't messed around with it myself but it did fix some things. Not everything, but some things.

Edit: Not that I'm defending this or anything. This whole thing was a hot mess, and hopefully other AAA devs take it a sign of how PC ports can no longer just be hastily cobbled together. I'm glad that I really didn't spend a lot of money on this, or otherwise I'd be pretty pissed.

You can still buy Batman Arkham Knight just not through steam the rerelease doesn't sound too far off.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Batman-Arkham-Knight-PC-Version-Go-Back-Sale-Very-Soon-87777.html

The PC version of Batman: Arkham Knight will go on sale once again in the coming weeks. 24th September

http://www.cdkeys.com/pc/games/batman-arkham-knight-pc-cd-key-steam?utm_source=google_shopping&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=gs_uk&utm_content=5051892170529&utm_term=batman__arkham_knight_pc___dlc&gclid=CLievYjtoMgCFcGe2wodh2sNqg

That's a good thing isn't it? If they're not confident in the game running in an acceptable performance, they should take it off the shelves (digital or otherwise) so people don't end up buying a broken product.

@adequatelyprepared: tbh I don't think WB cares very much AAA publishers make most of their revenue from console also games with high system requirments tend not to do big numbers on PC, I get the impression WB pulled the game to save face and avoid bad PR. Funny thing steamspy has Arkham Knight having 447k owners with 119k playing in the past 2 weeks so a large portion seem to be happy enough.

http://steamspy.com/app/208650

@thepanzini: I was very happy with the PC version. Im just bummed out the DLC for the season pass never came.

I just realized this yesterday too. It's still sitting uninstalled in my library. (I got it for free)

I guess this is what happens when a publisher decides to not delay a game. Let this be a lesson, or something...

well....we know an award is in this ports future

I feel bad for my PC brothers. the game is great

Yeah, I own the game and season pass. They've done a really shitty job all round, very little communication on their part. It took them over 2 months to put out the interim patch, that didn't even fix the main problem, which is the data streaming. It's runs at a solid 60 until it has to pull in new data then stutters. I think nvidia guys have had a much better time, if you run AMD you're forgotten.

Even the people who can play it reasonable framerate, haven't had any of their season pass content or even a window for when they'll get it.

I think i'm past it at this point, I've already had the story spoiled just from glancing the many months of support forums.

It's fucking insane that this thing still isn't available. It feels like so long ago when I submitted my refund request to Steam for this pile of garbage and bought the working PS4 version. Can't wait for the Hottest Mess award discussions this year.

That's pretty effing great. This'll be at least a chapter in the book covering games in the 21st century.

I bought it on g2a for 15 bucks. Its the only place it's available.

I got it free with my video card, which also came with Witcher 3. So at least I had a solid time with the Witcher. Played through batman in July, but it was rough in a lot of places.

I still can't believe this. 2016 pc GotY incoming.

And let's not forget that before the interim patch they patched the ps4 version to ADD NEW FEATURES.

@ds9143: There is a link to keys for sale on CDKeys in this very thread...

I still haven't tested it extensively but it's pretty playable post patch from what i saw. Frame fluctuates a lot but doesn't cause BAD stutters (at least with bordeless windows and Aero v-sync). The memory leak i had got fixed pretty well by the utitly that someone made(not perfect but the system ram had started to free up at least so it didn't crash or start to stutter as bad), not sure how the patch handles the memory now though. I got the game for 36$ and also got it free (still have the code but it's probably invalid now) but i'm not putting ANY more money into this game. No dlc, no season pass NOTHING. If they don't give that shit away to everybody and refund season passes fuck em tbh.

I imagine they're trying their damnedest to make it available....I do not envy anyone working on this pc port.

I've played some of the game after the interim patch, and it runs pretty well now. I have a GTX 980 and 16 gigs of RAM, and it runs pretty much 60 FPS with all the nvidia effects turned off. Dips into the low 50s when driving around in the Batmobile at times.

I just don't care that much about the game anymore. I'm much more into Witcher 3 and MGS V now. I may pick up the season pass when it is on sale for $5 next year sometime, but as of now, I just feel burned. I built a new PC this past spring for Arkham Knight, and the way they've handled the PC version has been a huge bummer. Luckily I got Witcher 3 for free with my 980, so that was a great alternative while Batman was broken.

My gmg key war finally revoked. Which might mean they are closer to actually selling it.

Wow, thanks for mentioning this. I had forgotten all about this being pulled of Steam. I'm kinda shocked that it's still not there!

GTA had a much delayed PC port and people were a-ok with that. I guess GTA can get away with things other games can't but still. Warner Bros could have waited.

EDIT: As @oldirtybearon rightly said below, I people were actually pretty annoyed about it. I guess it did just pass me by!

I guess I was trying to say how Rockstar were a-ok they were doing what was best for the game.

@personandstuff: Did you get a refund from GMG for the game, or did they just straight take it away? I also got the game from GMG when it was $36.

@paulmako said:

Bwahahat? There was like a year and a half of whinging about the lack of a port, or even details of a port. Then when it finally got announced, it was months away and people were still whinging.

Fair play to you if you managed to avoid the outrage, but that statement is not accurate at all.

I'm sure there's a lot going on behind the scenes but interesting to think about:

• how many resources have they assigned to fixing the PC version?
  1. If a lot, are the problems so huge it just takes this much time?
  2. If not a lot - well, why the hell not? My guess is Batman sells damn fine on PC.
  3. How do refunds fit into this story? (it's better to NOT sell copies vs have refunds?)
  4. Does the (anecdotal) fact that most PC players buy their games on sale have anything to do with this? If I'm WB, do I figure it's cool to take months to get this figured out because then we can have the game fixed for the holiday sale when people will buy this anyways?

So far as AAA games that are not PC-centric, when will major publishers realize it is better to delay a PC port then sell it broken? I don't understand why so much effort is spent releasing these all on the same day. It's borderline fantasy to even attempt this. Xbox One is 1 sku. PS4 is 1 sku. PC? That's all the skus. All of em. The amount of testing and configuration required for high end PC games isn't anywhere within a thousand miles of the testing you do for consoles. To descend into childishness: it's actually kinda dumb to put the same timeline on console/pc testing. Throughout all the history of games the number of developers who can release complex, graphics intensive AAA games on multiple platforms and have them all work beautiful from day 1 is a damn short list. It just takes longer to test PC games; I can't see how that isn't the case in every scenario. If you can afford to keep all your skus in house until the PC version is done and allow the consoles to benefit from more time - fine. But I think most publishers need a return on their finished games. So sell the ones that work and just wait damn it :S I totally understand that not every game is GTA, and you ideally want to get your skus out in the same release window... but, yeah. I dunno.

Or are there PC gamers out there who still prefer these problems vs getting games later? Is it so important to have a game on Day 1? Not that it's PC gamers responsibility here but wouldn't we prefer working games first and foremost? I feel there is a scary amount of unjustified anger around delayed PC releases sometimes. Other times it is totally justified (RDR, you fuckers!)

Annnnyways. What a damn mess. Clean it up WB!

@geraltitude: Here's an answer you're not likely to want to hear, but let's use the recent example of Metal Gear Solid V.

It sold 3 million units in its first week of release, and it's sold many more since then. 700,000 of the copies sold in September--and this info is given by Konami themselves--were sold on PC. Right now, Konami is saying that this is the fastest selling game in the history of Metal Gear. While we'll have to wait for the September NPD data to see just how many copies it sold on the console market, I'm willing to bet that if it hasn't tied MGS2's 7 million, it's damn near close.

But let's just say it's 7 million for shits and giggles. of those 7 million copies, 700,000 of those were PC sales. What does this tell you about the viability of the PC market with regards to AAA titles? It tells you that, while you can reap a sizable return, it's not exactly the side of bread that gets the butter. Yet I always see PC gamers acting befuddled as to why their platform of choice seems to get delayed ports, or shoddy ports, as if their money isn't good enough or something. That's obviously not true, and I don't think any publisher is willing to turn down free money, which is why these games do get ports, but in contrast to what they make in the console space... you see where I'm going.

Basically, while the PC market is a lot stronger than it was ten years ago, it's still not a heavyweight contender when it comes to raw sales. The thing is, from what I've been able to piece together through years of observing the PC gaming space, is that while PC gamers are definitely willing to spend the money on games, there aren't enough PC gamers to, for lack of a better phrase, make it worth the investment in both time and money that it would take to do a proper, spitshine polished port.

Taken in this light, it becomes a lot clearer as to why the AAA publishers treat the PC platform the way they do. CDPR have outright stated that if the Witcher 3 hadn't been made with consoles in mind, it point blank wouldn't have been made. And that's CDPR, the company that is sister to the second largest distributor in the PC gaming space.

Of course none of this is to say that PC gaming doesn't deserve quality ports, or day and date release with consoles, but the ridiculous reality of the situation is that PC gamers will, sadly, have to put up with one or the other. It's not the primary market, it's not the primary focus, and it's not because these companies hate you or any PC gamer, it's because in terms of sheer volume, compared to consoles, there's just not enough PC gamers willing to buy AAA games.

@oldirtybearon: I actually totally, completely agree with you, down to pretty much the last word and have felt this way for some time. I guess what I'm asking for (if I'm really asking) is just that PC ports come out later and more refined rather than day and date and wonky. From here I guess I need a business-facing person to just tell me that's a bad idea, and that the game would ultimately sell less copies (even as a better version) if it were to come out late. Considering what both you and I seem to agree about as far as the PC market goes, and since (I think) PC games have a much longer tail due to steam sales etc: I find it hard to believe that delaying would really sacrifice many sales. But, yeah, could be way wrong.

And in the case of Batman... I can't imagine anyone expected this. Surely when they tested the game internally they figured "This obviously isn't ideal, but only X % of players are on PC, so we'll probably be ok and can always patch it later. Also, there are no refunds on PC! :P " And then refunds happened, and probably whatever issues they knew of ended up being much bigger in reality.

@geraltitude: I'm willing to bet that is exactly what happened. The thing is, developers are given a budget in time and money, and some are told to prioritize which platforms get the most love due to sales potential. This doesn't excuse the sad sack of shit state the Arkham Knight PC port was released in, but I can absolutely see how it got there, especially when Iron Galaxy started whining about having only a couple of months to optimize the PC version.

Think about that; two months. Iron Galaxy had two months to get the PC version in working order. That means that Rocksteady didn't even have enough time to start working on the PC version. They were grinding away at the console platforms right up until release. It truly is a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

As for why you're unlikely to ever get a straight answer from a suit, I don't think companies are willing to risk alienating the PC gamers. You never hear about how much anything sold because nobody really wants to say. It's not like Valve has made them sign an NDA that forbids them from trumpeting sales, but if you notice, every AAA publisher talks about this stuff in the vaguest possible terms. Valve doesn't even allow people access to hard data in sales numbers which is fucking ridiculous to me.

The thing about why delays may be harmful even on the PC version is an interesting question. It's generally assumed that games sell the most in the first month (hell, the first week in some cases) of release, and the tail games can have on Steam may be a good thing, but it may not be as well. I mean, is selling an extra few thousand copies six months later for $15 a pop a better deal than the hundreds of thousands, if not millions being sold during the launch window?

But of course we can't speculate too heavily because Valve won't give anyone hard data. I guess they're above that, or something.

@oldirtybearon: Yeah I'm right there with you.. that Valve stuff. The lack of data, or more appropriately, the refusal to share data, is interesting? Kind of nuts all in all. I imagine if you are starting a digital distribution platform now you probably can't get away with that. Does Apple or GoG share that same data?

And thinking about that timeline... two months. That's terrifying. I work in software myself (not games) and yes, the scale is much smaller. Still, considering what I know about testing and deploying files and how much work goes into that for "simple" database software... Terrifying. Two months ain't shit. Can you imagine working at Iron Galaxy in that time period and just seeing this awful brick wall deadline you are just plummeting into headfirst? Phantom anxiety. Hard to imagine no one tried to delay but yeah... on the one hand, I don't necessarily blame WB for doing what everyone seems to do (underestimate how bad the situation is, pray it isn't that bad, then 180 when the refunds pour in) but I also totally fucking blame them. Hope that isn't contradictory: if you are a product of the industry culture, I suppose you can also be a victim of it too.

I really wish we had any hard data about Steam Sales. I wonder if there are any smaller developers who have been more transparent about any of this stuff? I know there are some games which became profitable only after a very long time being for sale cheap (I think there's a Doubefine game here my memory is searching for? or maybe Dust?) but for most games the anecdotal knowledge has always been the 1-3 month window. Maybe 1-6 month. If you do the math it does feel like you would need a world of volume at $5-$15 to make up a single $60 sale. I can't think right now about how time affects that (do your margins go up over time? I assume?).

Speaking about being vague when it comes to sales that MGSV stuff is right up there. "37% more copies than MGS2". Right... 37% more than the launch week of a 2001 game we don't have launch week data for.

I wonder if games will ever reach Hollywood levels of transparency: The movie costs X, marketing costs Y, actors cost Z. We made W profit.

Yeah. nVidia gave people with keys MGSV keys, bit of a disaster still.

@geraltitude: I'd definitely like to see more transparency with regards to sales data from everywhere. It's just frustrating as hell to not have any indication on what's doing well and what isn't. I suppose as customers we're not exactly supposed to care, but when so many different people keep pushing the narrative of "games are so expensive to make and there's hardly any profit in it" there's just no way to verify any of it.

As far as transparency with the Steam Sale business, one developer tried that and he was absolutely crucified for it, both by the media and by the PC gaming community. He made the Castle Doctrine, and he was very outspoken about how Steam Sales can have the unintended side effect of every developer scrambling in a race to the bottom. Just google Jason Rohrer + Castle Doctrine and you should get some good stories out of it.

Of course since nobody is willing to volunteer data, proving or disproving his claims is hard to do. It's all a fucking mess.

@brandondryrock: I should have gotten a refund but I don't know where it went. I initiated the refund request a long time ago.

PS I also played the entirety of the game after first big patch.

Tomorrow will be 100 days since the release of Arkham Knight.

http://days.to/23-june/2015

I can't wait for PC owners to get their hands on this game and realize it just isn't very good.

@oldirtybearon: You make some good points across the board. I have to wonder if at least part of the reason not enough PC gamers buy AAA games could be atributed to the "Steam Sale" phenomenon. I'm not gonna lie, it's the reason I haven't bought GTA V or MGS V on PC.

Now, if I can only find that thread where some guy was trying to tell me that it was conjecture from entitled gamers that Arkham Knight was borked on PC...

I....I played and beat this game on the PC the week it was released..

...cause I had just bought one of the latest models of Nvidia cards (for the Witcher 3) and they released drivers specifically for my card that fixed the start-up issue I had...

..So yah me? Like it -does- run on the PC...on some of them. On mine? Maybe just on the very latest tech that they actually bothered to test/release specific drivers for?

So eh. It will get here eventually, if only in a "Here it is for 20$, its as optimized as we care to make it, buyer beware" budget title 2 years from now.

That said..its the weakest of the games by far IMO. The car stuff is so brutally bad (Because I didn't realize there was a upgrade line that made my guns do more damage..imagine that end fight with a completely un-upgraded cannon (shot speed or damage..) and the story was. Well ok, I liked the plot well enough but man. Your not really missing out on much IMO. Maybe the console versions played/looked/ran better though?

also GTA didn't have a PC version then get the PC version pulled.

Well you maybe/possibly can At the end of this month (which I take to mean Mid November)

While there were significant performance improvements made to the game, the teams are continuing to work on the additional updates that were outlined in our previous post. We expect these updates to be ready at the end of October, at which time the PC version will be made available for purchase. In addition, support for all DLC that has been released for the console versions will be in place.

https://community.wbgames.com/t5/Support-for-PC/October-1st-Update-on-PC-Version-of-Arkham-Knight/td-p/814762

I have a bad feeling they are done fixing performance issues, which stinks for me because on my right the framerate improvement from that last patch isn't that great.

I played it on PC and had minimal issues, but I was also on a new GPU that I'd just bought which seems to have been a big help. Post their first big patch it has been running just fine; I was actually rather surprised that the game didn't come out again after that one released (it offered 30/60/90 fps options along with all the post-processing effects that were initially missing).

Anyone still doubting my "AAA publishers don't give a shit about the PC" point?

Sure, sometimes they do but sometimes they, really, really don't.

You guys honestly aren't missing anything. It's by far the worst in the series.

@mustainium: ~opinions~

I bought it day 1 on PC. It ran like crap on my GTX 970. I had to downgrade the graphics so bad just to get it to play ok. I "beat" the game but couldn't trigger the end cutscene even after looking up how to on youtube.

After that I decided to take a chance and ask for a refund through Green Man Gaming. After a few days I got my money back into my bank account and the game removed from my steam account. I say justice was served.