Batman: Arkham Knight System Requirements

They won't make any money @ 49.99, might as well just sell it for $5. People will buy it for 49.99, play it and then demand a refund.

Also hilarious that a GTX 980 struggles to maintain 60 FPS on normal.

Also hilarious they didn't fire and lay off everyone at Iron Galaxy. Why WB didn't let Rocksteady do the PC port as well confuses me considering how amazing the previous games ran on PC.

 

Because they didn't have time or money to make a proper port, and it technically wasn't Iron Galaxy's fault? They had what, 2 months to port it fully and a low budget?

 

"Comment of the day" award goes to you! *Applause* Haha!

I had honestly forgotten about this game and I doubt I'm the only one.

 

Because they had 4 months to fix it, and on some GPUs like a R285, they improved FPS by 1. The tools were in place, Rocksteady created 3 Batman games with the same engine for PC and for the most part, they run smoothly.

I honestly hope they fix this game. I want it.

 

http://steamcommunity.com/games/208650/announcements/detail/128710596369779495
Welp, you know something's gone terrible when the refund period extends to the end of the year. However, those of us who got the game through something like an Nvidia GPU promotion or outside of Steam's money pot (might have worded this wrong) don't have the same option.

 

Three? I know of Batman Arkham Asylum, Arkham City and Arkham Origins prior to Arkham Knight.

Arkham Origins was done by Warner Brother's Montreal, and ported to PC by Iron Galaxy Studios.

You know, the same company that did the disgusting port of Arkham Knight? I seem to remember Arkham Origins running just fine on launch for most people playing it. Same studio. Some proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Galaxy_Studios

There was outrage at them being "console-heavy" or whatever, but they're not nearly this bad. Whatever happened to Arkham Knight, I can't put the blame entirely on them. Besides, they apparently had nVidia helping them optimize the title, as well as Rocksteady devs during that 4 month fixing downtime. The same title that still runs like aids for many many people, and doesn't have a SLI profile yet.

Your information is incorrect, and your annoyance is misplaced. As far as I could see, the people we need to be annoyed at here are:

Warner Brothers, for allowing this crap to even sell, and cheaping out on the port
Rocksteady Studios, for cutting corners in coding and binding many actions and physics to a 30fps lock which they knew the consoles would have. It's why the game broke above 30fps on PC, because the calculations are tied to a 30fps framerate.

 

Interestingly enough, this game is one of the rare instances in which one might actually be better off playing on a notebook than a gaming PC from a performance perspective. The one advantage that a high-end notebook GPU may have in comparison to its desktop counterpart is a large amount of VRAM. As has been well-documented by various Gaming websites, this game craves VRAM.

I'm playing Arkham Knight on a notebook with a 980M with 8GB VRAM (and 16 GB RAM) and, so far, am not experiencing any of the serious problems many other gamers unfortunately have. (There`s the abysmal Batmobile of course, but that has nothing to do with performance ;-)

 

Installed the latest 358.50 drivers and it runs much better now. (was on 353.30)

 

I was really hoping they would fix this game. Guess I won't be playing it...

 

Yup, using over 4GB of vram.

 

@Mr. Fox

Batman: Arkham Knight on PC can’t be totally fixed, refunds being offered

 

Hahaha Ima buy this POS, finish it, and get a refund before 2016. Screw you, WB.

 

I wonder if this game would play better with adaptive half refresh.

 

Wow, so WB really did top Ubisoft. ACU was crap on release, but at least after fifth patch it's fine.
WB should have put a $5 price tag after re-release and say something like "hey, we can't completely fix this POS, so here it is for a fiver. No refunds"

 

Right. I think most people would get $5 worth out of it, if they can get it to run.

 

I tried it - you get less framerate fluctuations, but the game feels smoother just running without v-sync (for me).

 

It works OK for me. Is it broken? Yup. Is it playable? Very much so... just not great. But, crappy game coding isn't that uncommon any more. Seems the developers have reached new levels of incompetence, and crappy console ports are a big part of it, I'm sure. They're in it for money driven by the volume from console jockeys... quantity, not quality, is all they care about. Games will never be wonderful unless developers are obsessed with writing games for primarily for PC and porting from PC to console after their important work is done. Console needs to be their secondary goal or what we get is going to be something less than it is capable of being.

Arkham Knight runs well enough for me to not hate it and it's a fairly decent game in spite of their software engineering incompetence. I'm not going to ask for a refund. It is what it is... just more status quo consumer trash, just like the garbage gamer-boy hardware most vendors are peddling now. Designed for fans of "good enough" and "oh well, at least it was cheap" products, not for those that demand awesome.

 

It's the plague of modern day AAA games - devs don't put any soul into their games. Only on a rare occasion nowadays a AAA game feels like devs cared about it while developing.

 

The adult couch potatoes that have never experienced real PC gaming and all of the kids that beg mommy and daddy to buy them the game all their friends on Facebook have don't care. It's awesome because all their friends say so. That's why... at least partially. If they can sell garbage for $60 a whack to people that don't know the difference, why burn any calories making something good is probably how they look at it. If they screw up on PC games, we tear them a new fanny and we raise all sorts of hate and discontent in forums about it. They kids and couch potatoes still don't know they got screwed, LOL. That may have something to do with it also... Easy money, no accountability.

 

Same boat for me. Before the patches, performance range was between 20 to 120fps, now I get much more stable, near 50fps with maxed settings. I will definitely run without vsync as that seems to dramatically cut my fps though. Also, no real SLI support but oh well, at this point I can easily finish it and enjoy it as it is.

Unfortunate, but it happens.

 

Yeah, that's right. I loved both of the last Wolfenstein titles, too. No SLI support, but looked good and was a blast to play. Just had to turn off my OSD to avoid getting ticked off about it. As long as I did not see it was only 60 FPS instead of 120+ FPS and did not see that the primary GPU was the only one being used it was a barrel of monkeys.

 

Speaking of garbage games and the trash loving peasants that are representative of the status quo... this gives a whole new dimension to the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure" LOL.

Candy Crush creator gets gobbled by Activision for $5.9B - CNET​

Goodness gracious, looking at how much money a joke like this fetches, it also emphasizes that talent is unimportant as long as you do really well in the popularity contest.

 

Christ. $5.9B for Candy Crush? Seriously? It's worth THAT much? WTF am I doing wrong in my life? It's a freaking puzzle game like those I used to play 30 years ago on an original IBM compatible, just fancier graphics. It's basically just gambling without the monetary rewards but all the addiction and careless spending. I always wanted gaming to get more popular, just not like this. At least Minecraft I could understand. But Candy Crush?

 

The sad part is if they somehow port Candy Crush to steam, it might end up in my steam library and people will never let me forget it D=

 

I'm enjoying the arkham knight game so far. It took me a little while to figure out all the controls and get the hang of it but it's kinda fun.trying to figure out the riddlers riddles makes it interesting. I think its an ok game besides things slowing down a little when driving around but it run ok on my laptop. I set the second gpu to physx , I don't really know if that makes a difference or not but it seams to work ok like that.

 

Candy Crush in and of itself isn't that bad. I've played it. But like any "fee to pay" er "Free to Play" title, it's annoying as heck with all the microtransactions. I'd pay $10 for the game and play it endlessly and make me earn an opt out of a level if I can't do it. But to spend real money to do so is really annoying.

 

Paging Dr. Jealousy. Dr. Jealousy, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

 

It's just the whole screwed up mindset. Here we have a AAA title like Arkham Knight that does great on consoles and they did a half-heinied job on PC, as if the PC Master Race didn't deserve their best effort on the front end, and then to see such an asinine value placed on a smartphone shareware piece of crap like Candy Crush is like the ultimate insult. The only way you can look at it without getting bummed out is to keep things in perspective and view it through the eyes of an elitist, with a shamelessly haughty level of smug superiority.

 

On the other hand, someone gave me ARK: Survival Evolved the other day, and I get below 60fps at times on the absolute minimum graphics quality I can get.

The level of unoptimization these days is disgusting.

 

BEJEWELED MASTER RACE

 

Strange to see any activity in this thread, I thought it was dead like the game. I abandoned this game a while ago and went off and played Witcher3, and replayed GTA 5-I'm stunned by the fact I missed doing so much the 1st time through, haven't even gotten to online stuff yet. So, I won't be returning to AK any time soon, but I think I did a lot-kicked redhoods ass, saved Gorden's kid freed cat woman got rid of gas covering city then stuttering and other problems got to be too much and I quit.

 

I think it was WB's recent announcement that awakened the thread.

 

Well, it did recently become available to buy again

 

not worth 60 dollars full price anymore to me lol. i want the game but i'm not shelling out that much

 

The price on Steam is now $49.99, was it higher?

I think a fair price would be $24.99

 

their excuse is they are giving out arkham city, asylum and origins for free. thats nice for people who have never played any of the batman games, but for most people interested in arkham knight, theyve played the other games. so that's disappointing. not to mention they wanna charge for the DLC still lol

 

Where are they giving out the other Batman games for free? They still are charging for them on Steam...

 

I haven't been willing to pay $60 for a game for as long as I can remember... even when it's a title that's not broken. That's a rip off... just wait and the price will drop to $20 or less before you are done playing all of the other titles in your game library. Get three to-die-for titles at the price of one if you're patient and don't care about monkey-chatter on Facebook. Last game I paid full price for was Crysis 3. Even though it's my favorite game franchise, it took me several months to forgive myself for bending over and taking it in the shorts for wasting money on something I could get for next to nothing in a short time.

Here you go... Premium Edition even... right here. I buy stuff from this place all the time. Including the versions of Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 that I am running on more than one system.. DIRT CHEAP. You can get the regular Arkham Knight for about 18 bucks.

 

Same here, I don't think I can remember the last game I payed full price for, besides I've still got Bioshock Infinite DLC, Wolfenstein, Shadow of Morder, Metro 2033 Redux to finish still!

 

any problem with this site so far? It's actually a few bucks cheaper than what I've found on http://www.funstockdigital.co.uk/batman:-arkham-knight-premium-edition-steam-key-pc-download

anyway, is this game playable yet? I really like the combat in Shadow of Mordor and wanna try/get into Batman series.

$23~$29 for Arkham Knight + Season pass, Asylum GOTY, Arkham City GOTY, and Arkham Origins + Blackgate. Good deal?

 

Definitely an excellent deal if you don't have the previous Batman games! If you end up enjoying Arkham Knight you'll enjoy the other games, although if I were you I'd play them in order, also that way you won't be disappointed with the graphics from the earlier games. Arkham Knight playable on my laptop, no stutters, just could do with increasing the minimum fps in some situations/areas.

 

that's good to hear. I want to play them in order (learnt my lesson from the Witcher series) so that's why I want to buy them before Nov 16th to take advantage of the Stream deal.

 

I would advice to space your playtroughs between each game. They are great but too similar, and you might burn out by the time you reach knight. Something similar happened to me with Assassins's creed series as well as with batman. Thankfully, waiting for them to "fix" Knight I was able to rest and now can fully enjoy it.

 

Got my refund from GMG for game and season pass. Had originally preordered, but they were easy to work with.... will pick up Fallout 4 with the money.

Figure I'll buy Arkham Knight again when it hits $5 for complete set.

 

Hmm... That's quite worth reconsidering. I'm playing Shadow of Mordor right now and it's kinda repeating. Just got into the second half of the game I think and it's basically the first half but with different characters.

 

Sooo guess what?

The devs are dropping SLI support. Their game is apparently so screwed up (on Unreal Engine 3) that they can't get multi-GPU working, so they're dropping the project. On Unreal Engine 3.

Did I mention they were using Unreal Engine 3?

I don't know if I mentioned that they were using Unreal Engine 3

Really really not sure if I made it clear that Unreal Engine 3, an engine known to love SLI without issues, is incapable of running SLI.

But it's on Unreal Engine 3.

 

Wow, just...incredible.

And to think, this was perhaps the game I was most excited for at the beginning of the year as I thoroughly enjoyed the first three. Origins had some issues and bugs, but nothing this horrendous. The game ran respectably well on my humble GTX 760M.

I thought that Rocksteady's returning to the franchise would ensure that the franchise finished strong. Instead, they gave up a kilometer from the finish line, producing what seems to be the worst of the four games by a significant margin and exemplifying the absolute worst of practices in the gaming industry.

 

That is awful with no SLI support. However, so far it has been running pretty flawlessly for me. A few hitches here and there but nothing horrendous. Then again I've probably restarted the game a half dozen times trying different things and running the benchmark, and haven't gotten too far into the game.

 

Performance does get a little worse further into the main campaign, with some areas of the city becoming a bit buggy once in a while - as in low GPU usage & low fps (on my laptop anyway).