Holy Framerates, Batman: Arkham Knight Is A Mess

Edit: Further in-house RPS testing is inconclusive. I’ve rolled back my Nvidia drivers to the previous release and now have a steady framerate (with Gameworks switched on and settings maxed) until I hit a Batmobile sequence, at which point I’m experiencing dips seemingly at random. Alec, on similar hardware, is using the latest drivers and having a better experience., though still has Batmobile problems. John is on AMD – we’ll check back with him soon.

There was no pre-release PC code for Batman: Arkham Knight [official site] so I started the crusade through another long Halloween early this morning to bring you a full judgement as soon as possible. As I loaded the game, I spotted the “mostly negative” regarding Steam reviews and resolved to pay close attention to any stuttering, glitches or other technical issues. Close attention wasn’t necessary.

Even half an hour into the game, I’m seeing the framerate fluctuate wildly, even during cutscenes. The benchmark test (which reports highs of 47fps even though the game itself is locked to 30) reckons my average fps is 38 but with single digit lows. Once the game starts, the framerate is about as steady as Harvey Dent’s moodswings.

I’m running a GTX 970 on a quad core 3.5GHz PC with 16GB of RAM, using the latest Nvidia drivers (the ones that have Arkham Knight slapped all over them) and I tried running the game with all of the settings on max, including the fancy Nvidia smoke, rain and whatever else effects. Weirdly, textures can only be set to ‘low’ or ‘normal’ and the default settings were all low, including a resolution of 1280*720. I switched to 1920*1080 and started a new game.

As soon as the face of [REDACTED] appeared during the intro, the framerate plummeted to single digits. In a cutscene. A vaguely interactive in-engine cutscene but a cutscene nonetheless. The next scene is first-person perspective and everything was fine as long as I didn’t look to the left, where I could see the streets of Gotham outside a window. Maybe it was the rain, maybe it was the crowds, but looking out of that window brought the game to a near standstill. Only momentarily but enough to send me scurrying to the menu.

I disabled the Nvidia effects and tried again. There’s a mild improvement but the framerate is still far from (ahem) rock steady whenever I’m moving or looking around.

When the game proper starts, things seemed to improve until I could see farther than half a city block. Gliding causes framerate whiplash.

Hopefully these are problems that can be fixed because right now, as a game that relies on both spectacle and precision timing, Arkham Knight might well be unplayable. Our advice would be to hold off on buying, whatever rig you might have, until the problems have been addressed. I’m going to dial all of the settings down to see if I can plug through the game that way and will keep a close eye on any developments. As is often the case, Neogaf has a thread full of people reporting problems and possible solutions that you might want to look at if you’re in the same situation that I am.

John suited up and stepped into Arkham this morning as well, to see if his experience would match mine. It did and, being a far greater detective than I, he’s gathered some video evidence.

Weirdly, that same sequence grinds to a halt for me when the camera pans around Batman for his close-up. Even the erratic nature of the framerate is erratic.

138 Comments

  1. Syme says:

    I played for just under an hour and It seemed fine to me, but then I realize I’m not like a lot of PC Gamers and frame rates aren’t a big deal to me. I’m running on lower settings anyway because I’m on a GTX 750 ti, but it seemed solid enough. It’s not like it was throwing off my timing or anything but I’ve only been in very simple battles so far.

    • PoulWrist says:

      “wuh i dont care bout framerates cause i run on low settings, im like al ot of people” yeah, your luck in running it fine really makes it all up for those who are afflicted and those who have highend hardware and expect to run a console port at results that are not absurd stuttering. That in the video isn’t something that’s indicative of an inability to run the game at the settings used.

      • Fanbuoy says:

        Yeah, Syme, how dare you post your experiences with a problem in a discussion about that problem, while stating that it is your own, subjective experience!? You disrespectful rectal thermometer.

        • parkourhobo says:

          Mostly because they made it sound like the people complaining were just being picky and didn’t have a real problem.

          To be fair, that’s often the case with these things. However, at least according to that video, this is gamebreaking, and it isn’t cool to tell all the people that can’t play their game that they’re just being picky. I don’t think that’s what they really meant to imply, but then again it doesn’t look like they watched the video before commenting either, which also isn’t cool.

    • niki.c says:

      Woah, what’s your resolution/settings?

      I have a GTX 750 SC (non Ti), and I also have a similar experience, namely with Watch Dogs. I ran that game beautifully and mostly smooth with little to complain about at 1080p, low-medium settings and getting 50fps on average (oscillated between 40-60). People with two or three or more times as powerful rigs as mine were complaining left, right and centre. Unlike you, smoothness and framerates do matter to me. W_D curiously ran better and looked better than Shadow of Mordor for me.

    • icarussc says:

      I’m not usually that keen on high framerates myself, having spent half my gaming life on a 386, but I can’t play the game in its current state. I don’t mean it looks bad, I mean that the game jolts and stutters through periods of 1-2 frames per second several times a minute. You can’t fight bad guys like that — you can’t see what’s happening and you can’t get into any kind of fighting rhythm. It will need to be patched before I can do *anything* with it.

      All that to say, YMMV. Mine certainly did.

    • king0zymandias says:

      To be fair, every battle in these games is a simple battle.

  2. Baltech says:

    Thank heavens for RPS or I might have bought this an hour from now.

    Wasn’t there a 3.5GB day one patch? Did it – just like the goggles – nothing?

  3. Syme says:

    I certainly wasn’t getting anything like the stuttering in that video though.

  4. stoopiduk says:

    My dad has a computer.

  5. MajorGunther says:

    Goddammit. I couldn’t resist the 40% off sale at GMG a week or so back.

    One of these days I’ll learn to not pre-order.

    • Niko says:

      Please, folks, stop preordering. It just tells publishers that it’s acceptable to release broken games and patch them later.

      • montorsi says:

        They’re going to release broken games and patch them later whether you preorder or not.

        If you want to argue that you should look before you leap, ok then, that’s a reasonable argument.

        • Raoul Duke says:

          If the market punishes them for doing this, then they will stop doing it. Pre-ordering them is basically rewarding them for doing it, and gives them an incentive to limit the resources they spend making games actually work.

      • NarcoSleepy says:

        Seriously. Stop pre-ordering. Except for some angst from not getting the extra goodies for pre-ordering, my satisfaction with gaming has increased exponentially (I measured!) since I stopped with the pre-orders. Except Fallout 4, because, dammit, it’s Fallout 4 and I must hAVE IT NOW!!!!!

        • Xzi says:

          Fallout 4 is one of those games you definitely shouldn’t pre-order. Tons of DLC and a GOTY edition are guaranteed, plus we’ll need at least a year of mod development to fix all of Bethesda’s easy/simplistic gameplay mechanics.

      • Applecrow says:

        That is what it should tell them. What they will hear is what they want to hear, and that is just that PC gamers aren’t a lucrative market anymore and they should just focus on consoles.

    • Xzi says:

      I one-upped you there, bought an Nvidia coupon code for $20. I’m sure a fix will be out the door within a week or two, and at that price I don’t mind simply not playing it until that fix comes.

  6. mashkeyboardgetusername says:

    Ooh, how exciting. I was wondering what might be the first big release to have issues following Steam refunds, (I’d assumed it’d be a Ubisoft,) it’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.

    • anHorse says:

      Can you actually refund Ubi games?

      I’d think you wouldn’t be able to thanks to the steam purchase then activating them on uplay

      • nasKo says:

        Yes you can. Sometimes the actual playing time could be skewed if Steam only launches the Ubisoft launcher, but other than that it was fine in my case

        • Cantisque says:

          What happens to the game after it gets tied to your Uplay account? Does the game stay there for you to play even after Steam gives a refund? I am not sure how they would be able to enforce that…

  7. Dawngreeter says:

    The Witcher 3 saved me from this, literally. I would’ve bought it had I not bought Witcher and realized I’ll probably have time for Arkham Knight, like… this winter? Next year? I have no clue. It seems like I could play Witcher 3 more than most MMOs.

    • MrPin says:

      Indeed. The Witcher 3 saved me from the Steam Summer Sale too, only bought a couple of cheap games for the kids.

      • montorsi says:

        Hay guys lets talk about Witcher 3

        • king0zymandias says:

          Witcher 3 is awesome. The combat actually feels like I have some real agency. It’s not just about pressing the counter button every time someone is about to punch me, I actually have to position myself, every time I get hit it’s because I failed to dodge, every time I hit it’s because I seized the opportunity and struck back. Batman on the other hand is too cool for me, doing all those cool punches and kicks all over the screen, effortlessly moving from busting someone’s crotch to someone else’s face. And all I have to do is press the counter button when someone’s about to hit me and then press the punch button in sort of the right direction. And then just sit back and enjoy. Also helps a lot that the goons are so chivalrous, even when they surround you they will come at you one at a time.

          On top of all that, there’s the Jim Lee inspired design, which does nothing for me. Too much steroid, too generic, too uninspired. This is the sort of batman I would like to see- link to pinterest.com

          To be fair, Witcher also has some pretty annoying aspects in combat, the input lag makes no sense. And I wish Geralt was spinning around a little less, and by that I mean not at all. I know very little about sword-fighting, but even then it seems very clear that doing a 360 degree spin before striking would only work against you.

          • Aldwin says:

            I’ve done about 16 years of swordfighting, and whenever someone tries a funky spinning move like that, I laugh and stab them in the back.

          • Zenicetus says:

            Yeah, the spinning is silly. It’s why I’ve been using a fast attack build, to avoid the slow attack wind-up like Geralt is using a big hammer or something. And I stopped before taking Whirl because that’s another silly-looking animation (and also way OP with a certain decoction that restores Vitality on every hit).

            One of the fun things I’ve been enjoying recently is that alchemy skill tree (I forget the name) where if your toxicity is over zero, time will automatically slow down whenever an enemy starts their special attack move. You have a couple of seconds to dodge to the side instead of blocking (and you can’t block monsters anyway). It feels very “swordsman like,” and fits into the context of Geralt having superhuman ability to react in a sword fight. It might also be a little OP, but it’s fun.

            What I don’t like about the fighting in Witcher 3 is that I still sometimes feel a little lag on keyboard input that makes the melee fighting feel less “tight” than the Batman games. At this point, I think it’s not so much poor optimization, as the way CDPR has tried to give Geralt a feeling of weight and mass, so he doesn’t instantly move or stop. I get the idea, but it puts the player at a disadvantage vs. the computer-controlled opponents. I’d like to see a version of the game where Geralt responded just a tiny bit faster.

        • Dawngreeter says:

          Witcher 3 is the coolest guy evar!

  8. Flappybat says:

    I have a similar setup but with 8GB of RAM and it runs ok except with the Nvidia effects on. It can behave with them on but the smoke really kills it and it’s almost as bad as your video when in the Batmobile. The benchmark claimed a minimum of 39 with them on but it’s far worse in the car.

  9. bikkebakke says:

    Well, something is weird with your computer/installation because I’m running batman on GTX-970, 3.5GHz and 16 GB of ram and that game is running as smoothly as a calm river.

    • Premium User Badge

      Adam Smith says:

      Weird. Do you have the Gameworks stuff enabled?

      • bikkebakke says:

        Ye, I’ve tried both off and on and I could run the game well enough.

        • Premium User Badge

          Adam Smith says:

          Thanks! Are you using the new Nvidia drivers? I rolled them back and it’s running smoothly now – except Batmobile sections, which are all over the place: sometimes fine, sometimes stuttering badly.

          • GAmbrose says:

            I recommend rolling back the drivers as well, as the new ones were awful. They even crashed my Windows (10 tech preview), twice, with a bluescreen of death.

            Not had one of those for donkeys years.

          • SuicideKing says:

            To be fair, I’d expect that with drivers for a Beta OS.

          • GAmbrose says:

            Windows 10 Tech preview Build 10130 and official Windows 10 Nvidia WHQL 352.84 drivers are great though

            70+ hours of Witcher 3 gaming with not a single problem.

            The new Gameready driver is bad on Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 by all accounts.

          • skorpeyon says:

            Strange thing, I’m running mostly the same specs (though I have a 3.2 Ghz quad-core Intel processor not a 3.5) and I’m running fine on the new drivers. I’m on 8.1 and not Win10, though, so perhaps that has something to do with it, since Win10 is beta?

            I was reading your specs and my eyebrow was slowly going up the whole time. I had some slight stuttering here and there, but it really wasn’t horrid. I, too, turned on the smoke effects even though Nvidia’s “GeForce Experience” recommended I keep them off because screw that, I wanted to play with it. That was the only thing it suggested I turn down, though, so you may want to try toggling that off to see if it helps?

            The one other thing I wondered, which I doubted should have anything to do with anything, is most reports aren’t commenting what brand processor they’re running. Mine’s Intel, perhaps there’s some kinda hinkiness going on with AMD’s processors?

      • astroscope says:

        Playing on a 3570K OC’d to 4.3GHz, GTX 970 and 8Gb system RAM. Benchmark averaged at 50fps maxed out, Gameworks all on, in-game is steady at the locked 30, but with very minor stuttering, very rarely. The worst problems seem to be not universal on similar hardware. How odd.

        • skorpeyon says:

          This is the same experience I had with my 3.2 ghz Intel i5 that otherwise has identical specs.

    • Carlos Danger says:

      Have a similar rig and getting similar results. If I take off all the Gamerworks options I get a stable 60fps with them all on it is a stable 30fps. Game does look amazing.

      I do question how “Batman-y” the Batmobile is, it just seem to be much more of a killing machine then what I have expected from Batman. The tank mode makes a very nice Gundum though.

      • skorpeyon says:

        I kind of laughed about that, since they had to mention unmanned vehicles to justify it. If that doesn’t happen ALL THE TIME, though… why build so much firepower into the vehicle? It’s a fun gameplay mechanic, at least, so I’m okay with it.

  10. golem09 says:

    I bought and, and I’m excited for it, would even play with all these problems, but good thing I still have about 90 more hours of witcher 3 to play before I start with the next grumpy hero. That should give them some time to weed things out.

  11. James says:

    ‘including a framerate of 1280*720. I switched to 1920*1080 and started a new game.’

    Don’t you mean screen resolution not framerate?

    I have to wonder if the devs tried to actually play their game on a PC. This is a mess on par (or greater than?) AssCreed: Unity. However this is Warner Bros so good luck on getting any sort of compensatory Far Cry 4 out of it.

    • Premium User Badge

      Adam Smith says:

      Ooops. Yes. Framerates on the brain. Ta :)

      • CodeThief says:

        Working OK for me too. I only played for 15 minutes this morning but I didn’t have any stuttering or single-digit framerates. All settings as high as they’d go and all Gameworks stuff turned on too.

        i5 750 @ 4.2Ghz
        GTX 970 @ Stock speeds
        12GB RAM
        Windows 8.1
        Nvidia Batman drivers (353.30)

        Weirdly I also don’t have any problems with Witcher 3 with Hairworks turned on?!! Maybe I have some sort of black-magic PC ….

        • astroscope says:

          Same! Hairworks works great and is indispensable to me. The mane: so luxuriant, yet flyaway.

    • PancakeWizard says:

      They deliberatly didn’t release PC review code. Wonder no more.

      • Fanbuoy says:

        This does seem to be a somewhat decent indicator. Someone should compile a list of which upcoming games provide PC review copies before release and which don’t.

        • PancakeWizard says:

          PCGamer were uncharacteristically ahead of the curve on this one for once. They put up an article explaining they weren’t able to review it because there was no review code a couple of days before the release date. That’s the only reason I a) knew about the review code issue and b) didn’t buy it on day 1 in an unholy destruction of my own willpoower.

      • Dawngreeter says:

        Witcher 3 didn’t have a PC review codes released ahead of time and it was mostly fine.

        But, in general, I agree. If you’re going to preorder (don’t preorder!), at least wait for PC review copies to be sent out and some tech impressions posted.

        • DanMan says:

          Same thing with Shadow Of Mordor, and that also was a WB game.

  12. thelastpointer says:

    And it’s not an early access title… WHO ARE WE GOING TO BLAME NOW?!?!

    (P.S. thanks for the heads up!)

    • Not_Id says:

      Yeah thanks RPS. Saved me the hassle of buying and getting a refund. See what state it’s in come Saturday…

  13. GAmbrose says:

    Those Arkham Knight ‘game ready’ Nvidia drivers were awful for me, Windows even blue-screen with them whilst playing other games.

    Rolled back the drivers and system is stable again. I only had a chance to run the benchmark before work, won’t be able to play the game for a week due to Glastonbury so hopefully they can patch it by then.

    Bit bizarre though. Game has a 30fps lock (which you can edit in the .ini file) – Arkham Asylum and Arkham City didn’t have that.

    And why no ‘High’ texture setting? All very odd.

    Looks like the developers have a lot of work to do, and maybe Nvidia’s driver engineers as well….

    • geisler says:

      You might want to re-enable the FPS cap, unlocking it makes the game very glitchy, and at certain points you will see artifacts and weird behavior from game assets. See here: link to i.imgur.com

      • mashkeyboardgetusername says:

        That isn’t just a thing the batmobile can do?

  14. Laurentius says:

    I liked Arkham City, two years after completion I actually went and completed riddlers trophies, it was really fun. It looks really murky though , do I want to go there when I have so much fun in colorful and sunny worlds of GTA5 and Witcher 3 ? Not really, at least not now.

  15. geisler says:

    This thing eats RAM and VRAM, i’m seeing usages up to 10GB of RAM and 6.3GB of VRAM, playing at 1440p. The stuttering a lot of systems are seeing, are possibly related to the saturation of said RAM.

    My system runs it “smoothly”, at the abysmal 30 FPS cap, after i set one GPU as dedicated PhysX, and disabled SLI (which is also broken anyway at this point). This allows me to enable the Gameworks stuff as well. If i run the game on a single Titan X (without the other one to dedicated PhysX), the game is almost unplayable.

    • gunny1993 says:

      If you actually run out of Vram, FPS goes down to single digits or the game crashes, stuttering may be related but its unlikely. That 6gb is probably Vram allocation not actual usage, most programs measure Vram allocation rather than usage, I believe MSI Afterburner is one of the few which measures usage, but i’m not sure on that.

      • geisler says:

        I use Afterburner, and it does show actual usage, trust me. Google it, check the NeoGAF thread, many people playing the game are seeing these numbers. I used to get VRAM limited on a GTX 680 SLI setup, and what i saw was stuttering in combination with FPS drops as data got swapped into VRAM, not crashes.

        • gunny1993 says:

          Strange that the ULTRA requirements given for the game are a GTX 980 with 3GB Vram (1440 doesn’t increase Vram requirement that much) … something tells me that something is wrong when there’s a 100% jump in requirement from what the devs say to reality.

          Either those numbers are still wrong and its still not actual usage, or this is the most inefficient game releases ever.

  16. Henas says:

    Does anyone know anything about the developers that handled the port? Read it was some mob called ‘Iron Galaxy’ which sounds more like a CounterStrike clan.

    Very disappointed. Should have known something was up when retailers were selling the PC version heavily discounted.

    • GAmbrose says:

      Dissapointed that Rock Steady didn’t make the PC version themselves.

      They made Arkham Asylum and City (AFAIK) – Arkham City might not have been perfect (DX11 version was always dodgy) and it had a few bugs but quality wise it looked better than the console versions and ran pretty smoothly.

    • iucounu says:

      Iron Galaxy is an old Cannibal Ox tune: link to youtube.com

  17. xGryfter says:

    This is the norm for Rocksteady, all their games have been a mess at launch on the PC.

    @Adam Smith
    I seem to be one of the lucky ones (for now) I’m getting a steady 30-32 fps @ 1920×1080 with everything on/maxed. I haven’t noticed any stuttering either. I’m running an i5-4690k @ 3.8KHz with 16GB of RAM and a GTX970 on Windows 7. I’m using Nvidia’s GeForce experience to monitor frame rate.

    I’m going to edit the .INI in order to see how it performs without a frame rate cap.

    • xGryfter says:

      I meant 3.8 GHz not KHz.

      • SuicideKing says:

        And I thought you were using a home-made chip. :p

        • xGryfter says:

          Looks like I’ve spent too much time on audio forums and not enough time on PC forums.

          Anyway, I’ve unlocked the frame limiter and turned on V-Sync which seems to keep my frame rate consistently between 48fps and 60fps. Without V-Sync it would jump as high as 93fps making the dips into the 40s far more noticeable.

  18. Holysheep says:

    So, about these steam refunds….

    • astroscope says:

      I got it free with a graphics card. The perfect crime. But yeah, this is such a perfect test case for mass rollout of Steam refunds.

  19. Asiel says:

    B-b-b-b-b-b-batman

  20. OneTwoWho says:

    I have been a PC gamer for 20 years. I gotta admit I am getting tired. Games were always a big part of my life. I hate the fact I have to think every single time I buy a game, will it run? I have a GTX980 and a ridiculously
    unnecessary i7-4790, SSDs in a raid, more RAM then I will need in the next 10 years and yet… it’s somehow not enough.

    It’s just tiring.

    • Nereus says:

      The irony is that is what drives many to seek consoles, terror at the prospect of troubleshooting games that won’t run or won’t run well on your hardware (when by all accounts they should), and that lack of market is what causes PC iterations to be strangled for QA attention and funds for a proper conversion of the game.

      Almost seems like some kind of conspiracy to drive console sales by making PC games as broken as possible while still technically being a game.

      • Xerophyte says:

        Eh. Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

        In defense of the incompetents: the mindbogglingly huge number of hardware combinations that can make up a computer is a big part of the problem. At work we recently had an issue where a specific vendor GPU, on a specific popular model laptop for a particular OS would silently fail to allocate a 32-bit floating point framebuffer over a certain size, even though the driver claimed that plenty of video RAM was available.

        Which, in practice, meant that if people made the window of our CPU renderer bigger than 2000×1200 or so it would immediately stop displaying anything other than garbage until the program window was shrunk back down and the program restarted, and we could do bugger-all about it. Though we love ’em, PCs are just fundamentally evil and we need to live with that.

        Of course, in this case the cock-up is a lot more general. I’d bear in mind that as with a lot of AAA games your video card drivers include rewritten, vendor-optimized versions of the games’ shader code. These reimplementations usually target maximum improvement on the latest and greatest GPUs over older models to make the comparable upgrade bigger and drive sales. The game developers might not have any control over specific shader-related performance issues.

        • ResonanceCascade says:

          I’m willing to forgive some performance hiccups on weird hardware, but when you have a major release that runs like absolute dogshit on the most standard setups (recently released Nvidia GPUs with Intel processors) AND shows all the telltale signs of being a rushed, inadequate port (30fps lock, really? No graphics options? Textures only have low and medium settings?) then you know you’re the victim of a publisher who simply didn’t give a fuck.

          Please excuse my run-on sentence. :)

    • Kempston Wiggler says:

      I’ve really enjoyed the last few years or relative system-spec stability. As a PC gamer of 20+ years myself I’ve proudly and enthusiastically wrestled with both hardware and software to get games to work (and still enjoy getting older games working on newer PCs) BUT it’s been great to install a game and, 9 times out of 10, find it works out of the box. I’ve also enjoyed the fact that my ageing rig has kept good pace with the graphical shinies.

      I guess this is one reason why I’ve completely topped buying games day one as well. I’m tired of the battle to get a title working, tired of scouring support threads, and tired of paying to sit and wait for patches, particularly with the release-at-beta culture we can’t seem to rid ourselves of. Big warning sign for me? When GFX manufacturers get in on the act, releasing ‘for the game’ drivers. I’ve seen one of those go smoothly. There’s always something that doesn’t work as advertised until a subsequent release.

      Such a shame, as both Asylum and City run like a dream (Haven’t gotten around to Oranges yet). If it ain’t broke…?

      • ResonanceCascade says:

        I just want to take this opportunity to say that Oranges is actually a pretty good game, especially now that the price has dropped. It was clearly developed by the B-team over at Warners (the lack of Rocksteady shows) but it’s still definitely worth playing. I don’t understand why it’s so hated.

      • Kempston Wiggler says:

        I think it’s the game I’m going to tackle next from my backlog. It’s been sitting there for ages tempting me. I do like to form my own opinions about games so I’m looking forward to it. :)

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      And with consoles, you can be assured that your game will run poorly, at medium/low settings, 30fps at some strange resolution below 1080p.

      There’s crap to deal with all around. At least with PC games, you can be pretty sure that it’ll get patched eventually. Forever-broken major releases are extremely rare these days.

      • OneTwoWho says:

        Yeah, that’s true. Consoles are not the answer for me personally. I do own a PS4 but it is mostly my Last of Us & Bloodborne machine (there might be some interesting exclusive titles I have missed or those to be yet released). It also collects dust very efficiently.

        There was a time when the struggle to make certain titles run well on PC was satisfying to me. I guess I got old and now it sucks the life out of me.

    • Morcane says:

      All of the people having no issues have quite a bit of RAM…I suspect either a very memory hungry game or just plain old memory leaks. I have 12Gb myself and after playing a while, I noticed it was nearing like 9-10Gb memuse.

      • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

        This might be due to “redundant” caching when detecting a lot of memory, other games do that. It’s pretty nice actually, you might “only” need 4-6GB at high resolution but since you have a lot of spare RAM the game simply loads some more into it.

        COD even has an option for that. Yes, COD, i know, but still.

        • GAmbrose says:

          Op was talking system RAM, are you sure you aren’t referring to VRAM?

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            I think he is the one who actually meant VRAM, but then 12gb means he has a Titan X and thank god that performance appears solid at least on that!

  21. CaesarNZ says:

    No frame rate issues here.
    Win 7
    i7-3820
    16g ram
    2 x 980s OC model.
    Everything including Nvidia gameworks on, but no AA, playing at 2560×1600.

  22. JayG says:

    Didn’t work well at all for me until I tried verifying the local cache. Seemed to be a lot of files missing from the pre-load, redownloaded and now it works a lot better. Not sure if it fixed the crashing yet though.

    • Hyetal says:

      As far as I can tell, attempting to verify your files through Steam simply finds fault with the entire game and replaces all the files. It’s really messed up.

      • JayG says:

        Yet since I’ve done that and it’s redownloaded it’s the first time I’ve been able to play more then 10 mintutes without a crash.

  23. florus says:

    Shocks; My no1 anticipated game this year and I held off buying on a gut feeling (and the damn well overpriced-dlc no less). Got the Witcher 3 to hold me over for a long time. I could even finish the DLC campaign of Arkham City (somehow never got around to it back then) if I need Batman-styled action instead of this mess. It’s pretty definitively not Rocksteady. Oh my god that pun…

  24. TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

    I got shafted ( my fault ), supposed to have the game with the 980ti and then realized i bought it from the “wrong” store.

    Then again at least i had the card without the need to wait another couple months, plus i prefer to use it on TW3 anyway. Good thing i have to play all the other Batmans first, so a sale it is!

  25. PikaBot says:

    Game won’t even start for me. Keeps flickering between a black screen and a lighter black screen with my cursor visible. I can hear sound int he background and actually if I pop over to the task manage I can see the game’s starting menus in a little borderless window, but I can’t actually interact with it.

    Mind you, I got the game for free (I didn’t even buy the graphics card! My friend bought it and then gave me the steam key!) so I suppose I can’t complain too much.

    • dasayeve says:

      Did you find a Fix? My problem is exatcly what you said and I got my key as gift to, please help me.

  26. Asurmen says:

    i5 4690K
    8GB ram
    290X 8GB
    Win 7 64 bit
    Installed on SSD
    1440p with everything on that can be except v sync/all settings high
    Running AMD beta drivers released last night for Arkham Knight, 15.6 on overclocked monitor.

    No frame rate issues here. Benchmark shows average of 61FPS. Gameplay was even smoother after changing MaxFPS in ini file.

    However, after noticing the sheer amount of options in the ini file, I found out why you can’t change them in game. As soon as you start turning options off, the game becomes an unstable mess. Turning off Motion Blur and Depth of Field causes near instant crashes, as does Bloom. The only thing I can change and remain stable in the

    • Asurmen says:

      Shouldn’t press reply so soon. Meant to finish with that MaxFPS option seems to be the only thing I can change and remain stable.

      • Geebs says:

        I know your computer didn’t really crash mid-post, but I choose to believe that it did for reasons of comedy

      • jonahcutter says:

        Yeah, be wary of this.

        I absolutely hate motion blur. I found it particularly distracting during fights. As well, there are huge frame rate dips when spinning the camera. So I went to turn it off in the .ini. Crashes upon crashes. Crashes when loading. Crashes when trying to fly. Put it back, big frame rate dips.

        Worst of all, some people trying to fix the same issues have found if they verify their game files after fiddling with the .ini it redownloads the entire game. Make a backup first!

        I’m on mid to low settings with a mid-range (perhaps low-range now after this, I guess) rig. Still within the minimum settings and equipment though, I think. I would recommend anyone without a top-end rig to hold off on buying for now. Sad to say this as I’ve loved the Rocksteady Batman games so far, and the bit I played the game itself seems like fun, but it’s one of the more negative AAA release experiences I’ve had.

        • Asurmen says:

          There’s no need to do either backups or verify. As a game always replaces generated files such as settings if it sees them missing, just delete the settings file you’ve messed around with and launch the game. It will auto-magically generate a new settings file from default settings.

  27. giei says:

    Latest Nvidia drivers, no frame rate problems with or without gameworks.

  28. trn says:

    A shame, but hardly a surprise. Another major dev who realises they need to cash in on the PC market making a guff effort at it. Is this also the case on consoles?

    Tbh, I am happy for another excuse not to buy it. I enjoyed Arkham Asylum, but felt Arkham City was just a bloated version of the same game with Assassin’s Creed style ‘collectables’ tacked on. This looks like a re-skin of Arkham City with a car and some atrocious dialogue.

  29. Sigh says:

    Staring eyes tag please!

  30. fp581 says:

    i would just say never get an nvidia gameworks games they all run like crap and never gonna run any better… we need to shut it down before it will be too big to stop!

  31. icarussc says:

    Let’s hear more about AMD. My game looks like John’s in the video — totally unplayable. Are there any fixes for AMD players?

    • Jeeva says:

      Hm. So, I’m on AMD processor, ATI card, and got 54-61fps throughout the benchmark. Ingame seems to hover around 54-60, except when it locks to 30-31 (which is odd, because I wouldn’t expect it to go above 30, based on what others are reporting), with none of the amazing stutter exhibited by the video above.

      It might be the tool I’m using to check FPS (Steam Overlay)?

      Oh, but I’m starting to anecdotally think that stutter is fixed by having massive amounts of RAM, as most people boasting that their game is fine seem to have >12GB. I’ve got 32GB, for some reason.

      • icarussc says:

        I only have 6G of RAM and a slightly older processor, but I have the same video card you do, and I’m getting annihilated on framerate, no matter how low I put the settings.

    • Asurmen says:

      My AMD card is running it fine as I posted above. Are your specs different? Only thing I did was install beta drivers released last night.

      • icarussc says:

        Whoops — my reply above was meant to be a reply to you. So … er … yeah. But I also am using the updated drivers, to no effect.

        • Asurmen says:

          Dang, that sucks. Either the 8GB on my card is making some kind of difference, or I managed to win the hardware/software lottery.

  32. SuicideKing says:

    @Adam – looks like lots of textures are loading and unloading every time the scene changes or you look somewhere else. You *may* be running into a VRAM bottleneck, or the game just handles textures really badly.

    Probably use something like MSI Afterburner, GPUZ or HWiNFO to log VRAM and RAM usage. HWiNFO logs disk activity as well, so you could check that out too.

    • gunny1993 says:

      The ULTRA requirements released by the devs state 3GB VRAM, and witcher 3 proves that you can have a detailed open world game with low VRAM requirements if you can be bothered to try.

      • pepperfez says:

        I wonder if CDPR are as delighted as they ought to be at their game being used universally to shame all other developers.

        • TimePointFive says:

          Not as much as the devs of RTSS, which many of us HAVE to use to get Witcher 3 to not stutter all over the damned place.

      • icarussc says:

        Heh … those aren’t the ULTRA requirements, friend. Those are the new (as in, updated the day before launch) MINIMUM requirements. Sad day.

  33. Paxeh says:

    Thanks to Steam refund I will now get my money back. I’m not going to be supporting a developer/publisher who still fucks around like this in 2015. I advise people to do the same.

    I’m sorry, Warner and Rocksteady, but you done goofed. Now sit on the naughty chair.

  34. scudly says:

    I’m oddly not having much of an issue with my setup:

    Windows 7
    i5 2500k @ 4.0 ghz
    GTX 780
    16gb of Ram

    I’m running at 1920×180, everything on Normal, No AA and all the NVIDIA gameworks turned on. It’s pretty steady @ 31fps ingame with a minor dip every so often but nothing crazy.

    I have a feeling that at max resolution for textures it’s probably churning through VRAM on almost every card.

    • phelix says:

      1920*180 must be a really squinty resolution. At least you get the super-widescreen everyone’s raving about, and then some.

  35. montorsi says:

    So is there a 30 FPS cap? I usually disable vsync or other FPS limits and set a 100 FPS limit in Afterburner. Will that not work? I know some of the TES games have issues running at higher framerates because of the engine, but I wouldn’t expect that from a Batman title.

    • w0bbl3r says:

      You can change a .ini file I believe, according to steam forum posts.

  36. mrhidley says:

    Running pretty decently for me on my 980(non ti), framerate wise anyway, averaging around 60 with everything maxed out, with the odd drop below 40. I’m running the windows 10 technical preview, for what that’s worth. Played the first 45 minutes and then the game crashed, so I thought I better leave it until they patch it.

  37. w0bbl3r says:

    And a guy working at WB has stated quite clearly that PC gamers are a bunch of babies for whining about this.
    We should shut up, be realistic and wait a week or two for some patches. What’s the big deal, he says?
    Fuck you and your company from this point on WB unless you fire this asshole, I say.
    I can’t play, since my download seems to reset every time it gets to the last 2GB, so I am enjoying a loop downloading this ridiculously broken game so far for over 24 hours. Probably more fun than the game though from what I can see with how it runs.
    I guess rocksteady figured this is their last go-round with the series, so why bother with QA? It’s not like they are worried they won’t get funded for a sequel if this doesn’t work, because they are done now anyway.
    I just hope they are done completely, and go out of business for this horrific abortion.

  38. chrgeorgeson says:

    I’d be curious if RPS, PC Gamer, IGN, GameSpot took a stance on this behavior.
    The nice part about PC is you can build “like” hardware that they used to test.
    Let me elaborate.

    My suggestion would be talk with WB/Rocksteady.
    Ask them to provide the specs of some of the PC’s they used for QC. Build those PC’s in your own lab. Run the game.
    If the game runs well to the point that you can see how the game made it through Quality Control then report on it.
    If not (which we know that it didn’t perform well in QC) penalize the Developer and Studio by not reporting on there games for X/months or until they show you how they have actively fixed there QC department.

    This behavior won’t change until ramifications are in place.
    The users are doing there best by getting refunds for there copy from Steam but plenty of users (understandably so) want to just wait for a patch.

    I think reporters have a right to demand a thoroughly vetted/tested game, and god knows customers do to.

    • SuicideKing says:

      Well, I like this idea. Probably more likely that a Polygon/Eurogamer/RPS/Kotaku alliance would work, though – IGN-likes, not so much.

  39. lovcol says:

    GTX 970 with AMD FX 8350 and 8GB ram here. Running smooth as butter at 1440p. Fog disabled.

  40. CaptainDefault says:

    I think the intermittent frame-rate drops are being caused by problems with the Steam cache. I pre-loaded, hit problems during most of the story sections and when driving quickly around the city, and lowering the resolution didn’t affect that. I used the Verify Integrity option through Steam, and it reported 7000-odd files that needed re-downloading, which I think is the entire game. I’m hoping that the reinstall will fix the issue; the general (not entering a new area or loading a new asset) framerate seems consistent.

  41. rakara says:

    Not having issues. Im sure there bound to fix it in the inevitable flood of information. But the “thanks for saving me on posts annoy the crap outta me. People are acting like its a crash on launch bug or something.

    • Jenks says:

      But they can’t play their game for a little while so it’s time to boycott the company forever!

      Reminds me of the river of tears in the hours between the release of Dark Souls and dsfix.

      • jonahcutter says:

        How long was it before the actual developers of the game fixed it?

  42. Flea says:

    But, but… they tested it on three computers in their office and it worked just fine!

    • DanMan says:

      Oh, don’t be silly. There’s just Intel, AMD and Nvidia anyway. What could possibly go wrong?

  43. parkourhobo says:

    Looks like you need a little bat-spray lag-repellant!

  44. whothefoo says:

    I just upgraded my system and this game came with my graphics card, I had an old AMD running windows xp and a bog standard drive, so my upgrade is a massive step up..
    Because of that, I just assumed that people were used to the amazing things these computers can show and that my experience was the same as everyone elses.. but…

    Apart from the semi cut scene when I call the batmobile, this game runs smooth for me, textures seem good, no blur, everything is on max settings (res is a standard monitor res though), appreciate there has been an upgrade, but it looks literally nothing like the video above in terms of stuttering and blur..

    Windows 7 pro 64bit, FX8350, 8gb 1866 mem, GTX870 G1, Samsung EVO SSD drive, Asus mobo, seems to do the job.

    I’m guessing its down to the update, rather than any particular piece of hardware for me, because I appreciate that as new as it is, its still not a top spec system I own.