Warner Bros. Suspends Arkham Knight PC Sales

Subject: General Tech, Graphics Cards | June 24, 2015 - 10:10 PM |
Tagged: batman, wb games, consolitis, gameworks, pc gaming, nvidia, amd

Over the last few days, the PC version of Batman: Arkham Knight has been receiving a lot of flak. Sites like PC Gamer were unable to review the game because they allege that Warner Brothers would not provide pre-release copies to journalists except for the PS4 version. This is often met with cynicism that can be akin to throwing darts in an unlit room with the assumption that a dartboard is in there somewhere. Other times, it is validated.

View Full Size

Whether or not the lack of PC review copies was related, the consensus is that Arkham Knight is a broken game. After posting a troubleshooting guide on the forums to help users choose the appropriate settings, WB Games has pulled the plug and suspended the game's sales on Steam until the issues are patched.

TotalBiscuit weighs in on the issues with his latest "Port Report".

No-one seems to be talking about what the issue is. Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't have the game myself so I cannot look and speculate based on debug information (which they probably disabled from the released game anyway). I could wildly speculate about DX11 limits from the number of elements on screen, but that is not based on any actual numbers. They could be really good at instancing and other tricks to keep the chunks of work being sent to the GPU as large as possible. I don't know. Whatever the issue is, it sounds pretty bad.

Source: WB Games

Video News

June 25, 2015 | 12:16 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Oh no, there's a little bit too much bat poop in the bat cave, so its holy mother of gimped releases Batman! We need some serious pressure washing equipment to get those droppings cleaned up, Better don the level 4 bat biohazard suits!

June 25, 2015 | 12:52 AM - Posted by Danieldp

^ Yep, Nvidia gimp works strikes again! =)... Probably the same story as with Farcry 4, Unity, and whatever other games have gimp works... at least they don't release the game as they did with the aforementioned.

June 25, 2015 | 01:51 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Actually the game is reported to run terribly regardless of hardware configuration or in game configuration, it just seems to be a terrible PC port all around. I doubt Nvidia had anything to do with it being terrible, since it runs poorly even on Titan X cards.

June 25, 2015 | 05:16 AM - Posted by JohnGR

The fact that at consoles work, means that something gone wrong in the PC port. So, what if perfectly working and optimized code was replaced with Nvidia's proprietary one? What if that Nvidia proprietary stuff was not implemented right? Nvidia IS responsible IF it $convinced$ the game developers to replace code with it's own proprietary.

June 25, 2015 | 10:32 AM - Posted by Eric (not verified)

Supposedly it runs just as 'badly' on nVidia cards. I put it in quotes because somebody posted a video of how horrible it was, and personally I wouldn't have noticed the problem if not for their little add in showing frame rate ms variance from frame to frame. Maybe it's something that only shows up when you are playing it yourself and not in video.

Rocksteady apparently developed it for consoles only, and at least one comment I read said WB paid another company to port it to the PC and only gave the other company 2-3 months to do it.

June 25, 2015 | 12:17 PM - Posted by JohnGR

Iron Galaxy is that other company.

June 25, 2015 | 12:31 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

So, tell me, how is this Nvidia's fault when the game runs poorly on Nvidia hardware too?

June 25, 2015 | 11:34 AM - Posted by RenderB

It runs extremely poorly on my 3570k+970 ftw. To the point I have had to just stop playing it because the slowdowns make it unplayable even on low settings. There seems to be some huge memory leak, since the system takes a while to recover after closing the game.

June 25, 2015 | 03:45 AM - Posted by arbiter

Less you have some proof to back up your BS just don't talk. This is all on company made the game not nvidia.

June 25, 2015 | 10:49 AM - Posted by Evo01

Runs just fine on my 980 ti. Not even sure what issues people are having.

June 25, 2015 | 02:57 AM - Posted by Bianchi4me (not verified)

Ouch!Nvidia's decision to offer this game, well before release date, as a freebie w/ purchase of select cards seemed kinda risky. I commented at the time that Nvidia was showing a lot of faith in an unreleased title... which has now definitely blown up in there faces.

Currently Nvidia still has ads running co-promoting this non-available debacle of a game with a big ole Nvidia logo splashed on it. Not exactly ideal marketing fodder. "Buy Nvidia and get a free download code that you can't use, for a busted game that you can't play..."

June 25, 2015 | 03:47 AM - Posted by arbiter

i've played the game for about 16 hours. Yea there is some settings want to keep off for time being til they can update and fix some things. Other then that game runs pretty good.

June 25, 2015 | 04:44 PM - Posted by Bianchi4Me (not verified)

Glad it is enjoyable for you, but we both know there is no way the distributor would have pulled this off steam if there weren't MAJOR problems on a variety of hardware.

June 25, 2015 | 04:11 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Its a shitty port from a shitty game studio, nuff said. Nvidia has nothing to do with it morons.

June 26, 2015 | 01:45 PM - Posted by godrilla (not verified)

Lipstick on a pig then

June 25, 2015 | 04:13 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I got it for free with my 980 Ti and plays fine. Off Course some fps dips here and there like TotalBiscuit but very playable. After a patch or 2 it will be fine.
I'm not going to loose sleep over a fucking game like you nerd do. I have GTA V, Witcher 3, Far Cry 4 and a ton of other steam games to play thanks to the summer sale.

June 25, 2015 | 04:49 PM - Posted by Bianchi4Me (not verified)

Yep, your boasts about your giant collection of video games clearly differentiates you from us "nerds".

Now tell us about your pokemon cards...

June 25, 2015 | 05:12 AM - Posted by JohnGR


June 25, 2015 | 07:12 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Rebrandeons LOL

How's that Fury X beating going for ya huh. Loved how all the hype blew back in your face

I didnt see you yesterday in any of the other threads spreading more fud



June 25, 2015 | 12:18 PM - Posted by JohnGR

Your first orgasm in your life?

June 25, 2015 | 04:45 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

butthurt must be still stinging huh, poor fool. AMD won't help ya there

June 25, 2015 | 05:25 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud

Okay folks. Keep it clean. Everyone.

June 28, 2015 | 10:48 PM - Posted by -- (not verified)

its video cards, why in gods name do you pick a team and hate on the other guy.

I build systems all day up to my eyeballs, i pick the best performing video cards for the best price..... AMD wins out 75 percent of the time... and I don't care what brand it is... give me good stuff...for a good price.. so I can pass it down to customers.

You GPU camp people are silly, grow up.

June 25, 2015 | 12:36 PM - Posted by isawamidget (not verified)

give the drivers a bit of time on the furyx and it will be just fine, radeon get faster nvidias get slower... also you might wanna do a quick search for fury x shadows of mordor benches, or i could just tell you.. and i will it beats the titan x so 4gb vs 12 GG cool story. anyway nvidia have re branded before i cannot give an example cus i dont pay attention to their shit apart from that one time i got suckered in with that 970 hype and we all know where that ended, thanks for my refund scan.co.uk highly recommended.

June 28, 2015 | 10:43 PM - Posted by -- (not verified)

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm so you'd like AMD to just exit the GPU market and leave nvdia to charge you

*insert evil laugh*


yea that will backfire right in your face. Look at intel and AMD... look at the chip price difference.

LMFAO is right....when you can't afford to buy any GPU.

June 25, 2015 | 07:19 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Too easy for this clown. I will let the video speak for itself XD

June 25, 2015 | 06:49 AM - Posted by gamerk2 (not verified)

This is what happens when you have a third party dev studio handle the port.

June 25, 2015 | 08:35 AM - Posted by Tommy1331 (not verified)

UE3 is garbage when it comes to multithreading it also has issues with texture streaming so good luck fixing the driving stutter.
This is also supposed to get DX12 but the engine itself has no support so IDK how that is going happen.

Granted it could run better but people need familiarize themselves with game engines and pro/cons before purchasing games. This game would have been so much better on UE4

June 25, 2015 | 10:01 AM - Posted by BBMan (not verified)

Agreed. Am I biased if I have a UE4 developer in the house? Regardless, this is a game developer problem- no one else's. They are supposed to cover and test distribution and platform for issues.

Obviously someone didn't do their ummm- due diligence. Face it, it (with an sh) happens.

June 25, 2015 | 09:13 AM - Posted by funandjam

It's a really really bad pc port done by a team of 12 people who were only given a couple of months to do the port. The blame for this fiasco sits squarely on the game publishers.
Nvidia is guilty of releasing a game trailer that showcases the game running wiht ultra settings at 60fps, they had to have known that the game wasn't ready at release, yet bundled the game with their cards anyways. Even though this is a 'gameworks'title, it isn't nvidia's fault that the game runs like shyte and is missing various graphical settings. Again, that is the game publisher's fault for not pushing back the PC release date, but I think Nvidia feels extremely silly for being associated with AK.

Let this help teach people the lesson: DO NOT PREORDER VIDEO GAMES AND WAIT FOR PROPER REVIEWS!!!

June 25, 2015 | 10:18 AM - Posted by Morry Teitelman

You have to keep in mind that there was hype and expectations for this game based on the success of the previous titles (myself included in this).  The first batman game was ok, but also had some kinks to be worked out.  The second iteration was better with some obvious improvements to make the PC version playable from day 1 and the third was very well done.  So why would we expect anything different after the positive progression from the past?  Could be b/c the next gen consoles were not yet available when the previous batman games were released?

June 25, 2015 | 10:24 AM - Posted by BBMan (not verified)

And it's not like the studio isn't going to try and make good on it. It just may be a while.

June 25, 2015 | 11:17 AM - Posted by funandjam

I understand the excitement of a new iteration of a favorite game being released, I look forward to that too. BUT THAT SHOULD NOT SWAY YOU INTO BUYING A GAME BEFORE READING ANY KIND OF REVIEW ABOUT THAT GAME.

"So why would we expect anything different after the positive progression from the past?"

yes, you should expect a game that is finished when you buy it. That is why you do your research FIRST before spending your money, no matter what the product is.

Your last question is irrelevant because what is happening is a trend across the board, games are more and more being released that are not finished or outright broken at launch. Be smart, don't spend your money until proper reviews are out.

June 25, 2015 | 10:22 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Could've been worse...

June 25, 2015 | 11:37 AM - Posted by snook

gameworks is a cancer on pc gaming's ballsack. it's poorly implemented on nvidia's hardware, honestly wtf?

the bigger cancer is the ability to post as "anonymous", the pcper comments section has just become a place were exchange of opinion has been replaced with the saliva dripping off of the lips of mouth breathing dullards.

lastly, this is a truth that cuts through the fabric of space and time; tom peterson is a twat and will be for eternity.

July 2, 2015 | 12:45 PM - Posted by Rroc (not verified)

Implementation may be terrible, but I think that may be up in the air. However, I like that Nvidia is helping game developer to actually develop the game. People seems to forget that games are made by game developer who can only do so much with their limited time and limited skills has human beings. Why create a new engine from scratch when you can just licensed one and work on other things? Why have to implement new codes for certain aesthetics when you can just use these and work on other things?

Now, that's certainly no excuse for being completely lazy and letting a game port terribly to this piece of crap, not enough money being poured, what do you expect, game for the PC.

Gameworks may, or may not, be implemented bad, but I give kudos to Nvidia for attempting to make developer's life easier, even if their goal is just to cripple's AMD's hardware. I believe it should be a wake up call for AMD to be more involved in the process of game developing, though Nvidia and AMD may just compete to see which hardware is being crippled more by badly implemented codes. This scenario can be both amusing and really annoying.

June 26, 2015 | 01:09 PM - Posted by gamerk2 (not verified)

Whats going on is pretty much a repeating theme: Physics is hard.

What Gameworks is doing is trying to accurately simulate various effects, and as game after game after game is showing, it's REALLY expensive on the hardware. Be it hair in Witcher 3 or smoke and rain in Batman, the hardware can't handle it while also handling rendering.

I would be interested in the following test: Insert a second GPU (Say, a 980 GTX) as a dedicated PhysX card, and run the benchmarks a second time. I fully expect to see "normal" FPS once the load involved with Gameworks is removed from the primary GPU.

July 2, 2015 | 12:48 PM - Posted by Rroc (not verified)

Huh, a second GPU just to take the stress away from Gameworks. That solution may or may not work really well. Interesting.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.