Warner Suspends Sales Of Batman: Arkham Knight PC

In an absolutely extraordinary move, Warner Bros. have announced they’re to stop selling Batman: Arkham Knight on PC until they’ve fixed the massive technical issues so many are having. Posting to their forum, they stated, “We take these issues very seriously and have therefore decided to suspend future game sales of the PC version while we work to address these issues to satisfy our quality standards.”

News that Arkham Knight’s PC port was not good enough came almost as soon as the game unlocked on Steam. Negative reviews poured in as players realised it barely ran, even on top notch systems. After a while, people found workarounds, NVidia card users realised they could switch pretty much everything off and get a playable version, and then the voices of a confused few could be heard saying it worked fine on their system. But still, it was clear the game was not in any fit state to be released.

Rocksteady acknowledged the issues late on the first day, but underplayed them in the usual “some users” way, and then implied the blame laid at the feet of the hired hands who’d ported the PC version. This all sounds particularly sloppy when you consider how implausible it seems that Warner/Rocksteady didn’t know there were big problems with their PC code. No PC review code was sent out, while console code was with reviewers in time for a day 0 judgement – that’s always mighty suspicious. Further, people quickly realised the game had been locked at 30FPS, in what seemed like a rushed attempt to hide the framerate struggles. It clearly didn’t work.


Now, three days after launch (with all those crucial day one and two sales in their pockets), Warner have announced they’re pulling the game from sale on PC.

“We want to apologize to those of you who are experiencing performance issues with Batman: Arkham Knight on PC. We take these issues very seriously and have therefore decided to suspend future game sales of the PC version while we work to address these issues to satisfy our quality standards. We greatly value our customers and know that while there are a significant amount of players who are enjoying the game on PC, we want to do whatever we can to make the experience better for PC players overall.”

They go on to say they’re monitoring all the feedback on forums, and point out that you can request a Steam refund, before concluding,

“The Batman: Arkham fans have continually supported the franchise to its current height of success, and we want to thank you for your patience as we work to deliver an updated version of Batman: Arkham Knight on PC so you can all enjoy the final chapter of the Batman: Arkham series as it was meant to be played.”

We’ve repeatedly contacted PRs representing Batman: Arkham Knight, and haven’t received so much as a “no comment”. We’ve asked them if they knew about the issues before the game was released, and why it went ahead without any warning, but they haven’t replied.

Which brings us back to that repeated refrain: Never. Pre-order.

91 Comments

  1. Mr Coot says:

    Well done on the decisive action to prevent more unhappy customers. But how they got into the position of needing to do that beggars belief. o.O

  2. Doomstar says:

    It shows they really do care about their PC customers. Hell, if they cared any more than they might have fixed the issues before release. Luckily they faffed about so much with different versions and content locked to one platform I had decided to wait until a GOTY edition or similar. Lucky me.

    • mukuste says:

      I guess what they really care about is the constant stream of negative customer reviews and disastrous Metacritic score.

      • BobbyDylan says:

        And the refunds. I wonder if Steam didn’t allow for refunds if WB would be as “generous”.

        • Xzi says:

          They almost certainly wouldn’t. The ratio of people who have bought the game on Steam for full price to the number of people who have refunded is probably damn near 1:1 at this point. Losing a third of your sales and pre-orders is enough to force any publisher in to action. This wasn’t so much the smart move by WB at this point as it was the only move.

    • Moloko says:

      It would seem that they’re doing this more out of a business necessity due to the volume of refunds and that they’re losing money on every refund because Valve’s cut of every sale isn’t refunded to the customer, at least from what I’ve seen from devs talking about the details of the refund program. And that doesn’t even take into account the peculiar situation that as this is a digital product being sold the publisher doesn’t get anything returned to them from the refund process.

      With those two factors alone it’ll be really interesting to see how the market will react, especially if this sort of refunding on mass becomes a trend in response to how common these big ticket games are released in a near-broken state and many people are speculating whether it’ll cause publishers to make sure games are in a finished and playable state on release or if it’ll more concerningly lead to companies disincentized to port to PC or threaten to drop out of the PC market altogether like Ubisoft was talking years back.

      • BooleanBob says:

        Not that I think for a moment that it’ll come to it, but I expect many would rather publishers leave the platform altogether than stay on with the expectation that they can gives us afterthought ports, and technical horror-shows, and still pull in vast, untouchable sales from pre-order hype, review embargo and brute force marketing spend.

      • SuicideKing says:

        Publishers aren’t going to walk away from a 50+ million people strong market. They’ll clean up their act – the new consoles aren’t exactly the biggest market around. I’d argue that it’ll be cheaper to make 3 versions that are more closely compatible with each other than 5 different versions of the game. So if they drop PC, they’ll just be left with PS4/Xbone markets, which are much smaller than the PC market.

        Some publishers may myopically choose to withdraw, but I think Steam refunds are great and will force most people to toe the line.

        And to think that people thought refunds were a bad thing.

        p.s. Publishers also have a really, really large margin on digital sales.

        • mukuste says:

          Eh, I don’t think you have your facts straight. The PC market may be larger overall, but for any given AAA game the sales on consoles will typically outweigh those on PC by a large factor.

          Just picking a random example, Skyrim: link to statisticbrain.com

          XBox 360 59 %
          Playstation 3 27 %
          PC 14 %

          • SuicideKing says:

            I specifically mentioned PS4 and Xbone.

          • Premium User Badge

            gritz says:

            Pretty sure the board of directors would wipe out the entire executive leadership of any company that willingly dumps 14% of its existing customer base because of its own missteps.

          • jon_hill987 says:

            That is quite surprising to see such a large difference for game like Skyrim, a game series that started on PC and one where the mods make the game.

          • RumbleBee says:

            Regarding those figures
            XBox 360 59 %
            Playstation 3 27 %
            PC 14 %

            That would be retail only. Steamspy has Skyrim at 9,151,280 which is definetly not 14%

          • theq says:

            Those are the stats for the first two days. In June 2012 Bethesda reported 20mln sales and in January steam reported 5mln users logged in so PC owns at least a 1/4 of the market.

          • CptPlanet says:

            You guys also have to remember a lot of these sales come from heavily discounted prices so it’s definitely not as important as you think. I’ll wait and see if they get their act together otherwise I’ll buy it on PS4.

        • RumbleBee says:

          Indeed. GTA V has sold more on PC than Xbox One

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      I bought both Arkham Asylum, and City less than a week before tehy were in a sale. I’m not making that mistake again.
      (I really enjoyed both though, so I’ll probably pick up Knight in six months or so)

      • PancakeWizard says:

        In the meantime why not try Origins? It’s actually a very good Batman game, it’s just not a particularly Arkham looking one. Origins for my money still has the best DLC of all of the Batman games: Cold, Cold Heart.

    • SomeDuder says:

      Im glad that “releasing a working product” is equal to caring about your customers.

  3. Punning Pundit says:

    I’ve been calling this game “Early Access” for a while. The Game of the Year version with all the DLC will be the actual release version.

    • Alexrd says:

      I apply that logic to most games. I don’t have any rush to play them, and by the time I decide to do it, there’s already a complete, GOTY, Director’s Cut, Special, Enhanced Edition either announced or released.

    • golem09 says:

      It would be, if the DLC wasn’t useless bullshit. Don’t care about it a bit, and don’t see any reason to wait for it all. I actually got some DLC for preordering. Which I’m likely not gonna play.
      Those useless mini stories with other characters lacking any progression or what makes the game good are like giving me a bag of cheap potato chips for free for ordering that 50$ steak.

  4. Premium User Badge

    Capital-T-Tim says:

    I’m almost all on board with the Never Preorder mandate, except… games often have substantial discounts for preordering. The 40% off deal that Green Man Gaming has (had?) for Arkham Knight was too tempting for me…

    (Also: how is it that a gigantic AAA game is 40% off upon release?)

    • mukuste says:

      Is this a common thing? Honestly I don’t remember any AAA game being 40% off before release. One is really tempted to think that they wanted to get as many sales as possible before the technical disaster at launch became clear…

      • Premium User Badge

        Capital-T-Tim says:

        No – I’ve never seen 40% off a big title before now. (But 10% is common, and 20% isn’t unheard of.)

        • Xzi says:

          A fair amount of AAA games can be found before release for 50% off or more. I found Dying Light at $30 a week or so before its release, and I got Arkham Kerniggut for $20 from an Nvidia code. So it really isn’t that uncommon if you know where to look.

      • Optimaximal says:

        Think about it – A digital video game is an incredibly high-margin product. It’s just an legitimate key generator.

        With no retail channels or distributor cuts to worry about, there’s a lot of excess profit that can be acceptably lost in order to secure that sale.

        • iucounu says:

          I don’t know a lot about the economics of video game publishing, but in books: it’s true that there’s a very low marginal cost per each copy of an ebook, compared to running off a print copy (not that that is a particularly significant cost itself.)

          What’s important though is the huge setup costs you’ve incurred to produce the files in the first place, which necessitates selling as many copies at as high a price as possible to begin with (which is why hardbacks cost more than paperbacks – it’s not because they cost much more to make.)

          • malkav11 says:

            It is, from what I understand, largely the reason hardcovers exist and come out well before paperbacks on many books. Sure, they’re a bit nicer, but not enough nicer that most people would pay that kind of markup if there were a cheaper edition right there next to it.

        • Underwhelmed says:

          If development was free, you would be correct, but it is not. Most of the cost of a game comes from actually having it made, and later for the marketing needed to support it. Minting and distributing discs has never been a major component of the cost so this idea that publishers are making a larger margin on individual sales than they once did is preposterous. If anything, they make less considering that AAA games cost massive amounts of money to actually develop.

          • aepervius says:

            Actually developing is not the biggest part of the budget. Since msot AAA are using game engine, developing nowaday is industry wide not one of the biggest cost. The biggest cost for AAA are : marketing (in some case reaching as much as 30% or 40%) art (same size about as marketing) the rest is split and programming does take the lead but only by maybe 15-20%. There are a few infographic around here and link to statistic to some candid game developper. So. Yeah. If you count art in game developing (i do not – i only count programming) then development is on par with marketing. basically what i am telling is, drop all those expansive advertising, and you nearly halve the budget.

          • Hidden_7 says:

            It’s sorta weird to decide that the only part of development that counts as development is Software Engineer time. A huge portion of effort goes into art assets (as you mentioned) but also design, content creation (e.g. levels), QA, etc. What do you file that under if not developing the game?

            Also, SE’s have a ton of work to do even if you are working from an existing framework. And having ‘an engine’ is much less existing framework than you might think.

      • ran93r says:

        I picked mine up from cdkeys for something around £17 and that included the season pass. It’s the only reason I preordered.

        For AAA that’s fairly unusual but it was too good a deal to pass up, I guess I just hope they get it all fixed up.

        • popej says:

          Including the seasons pass!? I didn’t see that offer and my £16 on cdkeys.com only got me the game itself. Are you sure?

          • ran93r says:

            My mistake, just checked my mails, was £23 all in. £17 must have been for the base game.

    • Legion23 says:

      That doesn´t work for me because one year later after a AAA release when the game is actually finished and complete with the DLCs (or development stoped) you can get it with similar discounts (or better) in a sale. And the games are much more enjoyable then to me at least.

    • Apocalypse says:

      That is a common thing for games that are bad.

      No really, if the publisher knows that the game will be not matching expecations he will start to have all this special pre-order sales and you will find the game packaged with a lot of stuff for free. The AssCreed Unity coupons were down for $20-$25 pre.release on ebay for example. Legit codes that came from gpus, monitors, ssds, etc … people had like 4 to 5 copies of acu pre-release just from updating their PC for starcitizen ;-)

  5. MadMinstrel says:

    Let’s not kid ourselves that they have somehow seen the light and become friendly. It’s simply that the refund processing fees were hurting them financially.

  6. Malfeas says:

    Wow, this is unexpected. I am among the lucky few who haven’t had any issues, except for having to turn off a single graphics option for the game to run well and what little time I found to play it, I’ve had a blast with.

    • sansenoy says:

      So, you’ve attained 60fps from scaling down one setting? Explain further, please…

      • Mechorpheus says:

        The ‘Nvidia Enhanced smoke/fog’ is probably the one setting he’s referring too. Makes a significant difference on my rig (adding roughly 30fps on average with it off), although I do tend to leave it on and deal with the lower frame-rates, as those effects are just too pretty, and G-Sync helps me out a tonne as well. Running a 780ti here for reference.

        • Malfeas says:

          I don’t get constant 60fps but I don’t have any of the stuttering others get. I haven’t had the game drop below 45 fps yet. and that’s when lots of enemies are around, and I turn very quickly.
          I have no idea why the game’s been running well for me, especially after seeing Totalbiscuit’s video. His rig’s basically the same as mine, but better in every way. It’s baffling.

          I don’t even have it running on ssd’s as it’s been suggested that may help. But I am using a quick hdd, so I guess that is an important factor.

          The option I found made the most difference was surprisingly the rain. I also turned off the smoke, because that had a direct effect on my fps and made my game run slightly smoother. Not as much as I’d expected, but enough for the difference to be felt while playing.

          • aleander says:

            I don’t mess around with unlocking, but only spotted a few stutters (and very inconsistent – the scenes didn’t appear much more complex, and repeats didn’t have the issue). OTOH, while generally my computer isn’t all that much, it does have 16Gb of RAM because of reasons, and I’ve heard rumours that the severity of the issues is somehow correlated to memory size.

          • Malfeas says:

            Interesting. I’ve also got 16GB RAM.

  7. UncleLou says:

    If you ever reach a spokesperson, it would also be nice if you could ask if it isn’t a bit petty that people who got the game with their graphics card were stripped of all pre-order DLCs.

  8. BooleanBob says:

    Wow. Probably too early to say, but is this the Steam refund effect? If this is the beginning of the end of the Battlefield 4 era of broken on launch games, history will look very kindly on Valve.

    • LNO says:

      Indeed, this is the real story RPS should get on

      • moocow says:

        Perhaps it is just evidence that people are pirating the game so much via refunds that WB have withdrawn it from sale, as predicted in the initial RPS coverage of Steam refunds!

        • elevown says:

          That only applied to drm free games – which this isn’t. You can pirate this via the usual means just as easy or easier than via steam im sure.

          • moocow says:

            True, while some places did discuss convoluted ways of playing even DRM games and still getting a refund (offline/cache clearing etc), RPS did not; so I regret my needlessly snarky comment.

            On a constructive note, while I generally agree with the oft-stated No Refund mantra of RPS, perhaps the refund system in place now does provide enough of a safety net to change that position slightly. While pre-orders are still rather pointless, if you are really desperate for some piece of pre-order bonus tat it seems like that you now don’t have to worry so much about the game turning out to be hot rubbish.

          • moocow says:

            (edit – *No Pre-Order)

          • Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

            Actually it hasn’t been cracked yet, thanks to the modified Denuvo DRM. So there are no pirates to blame for this shitty excuse for a port.

    • Windows98 says:

      Really though, Valve should have had a sensible refund policy from the beginning, just to comply with the law. This game could be argued to violate your UK statutory right of recieving a product that is fit for its intended function, which grants you the right to a replacement or refund.

      • Tatourmi says:

        No. These laws are nothing to the publishers, every country has one, I am sure even the U.S has one, but in the realm of videogames a “product fit for its intended function” is too shady to be of any use.

  9. Pizzacheeks McFroogleburgher says:

    My knee jerk reaction to pre ordering is to judge that it’s a case of over excited ‘me first’ gamers falling for clever/aggresive marketing.. But in this case, the first two games were of such high quality, it was reasonable to expect similarly high standards for Knight. This is such an unholy fuck up, a dangerous breach of faith that may echo beyond rock steady and Warner in to the wider industry. A cautious consumer base is the polar opposite of the preordering mindset..

  10. Freud says:

    I very rarely buy games at launch dates with a few exceptions.

    Games usually become better after a while and in some cases it’s better to wait for the inevitable GOTY version instead of having to miss out on the scheduled extra content unless you want to buy the season pass in a bag.

    • Haxton Fale says:

      Better yet, if you buy into Borderlands Season Pass, you’re still not getting all of the content you would with a GOTY. Which means you have to buy all the small DLC one by one as there’s no catch-up pack!

      On the plus side, it’s not like many games adopt the same DLC-heavy model, or maybe I just stopped caring about games that do…

      • Jalan says:

        Borderlands 2’s GOTY should’ve included the second level cap DLC. It’s absolutely asinine that it didn’t/doesn’t. The remainder of the DLC it doesn’t include being skins is somewhat forgivable (although Gearbox should feel bad for going such a whorish route, but that’s another topic entirely) since it adds nothing to the game at large.

        • Jalan says:

          *and the Headhunter episodes (though not all of them were good, but still).

          Sure would be nice to have the edit function back one day.

      • Janichsan says:

        While I agree that it *should* have contained all the DLC, you cannot say they haven’t been upfront with what you can get with the Season Pass: they said right from the beginning that it only includes the four add-on campaigns.

  11. fish99 says:

    New drivers and unlocking the framerate seemed to fix the game for me, but I haven’t played enough to be really sure.

  12. Shockeh says:

    Expecting a piece of software to, y’know, ‘work’ isn’t the customer’s fault.

    Warner are doing the right thing here, but as John rightly notes, it’s after they’ve got the Day 1/2 sales, which have a HUGE impact on a title, and it’s not like this performance will have just happened to appear after release; They knew what a fucking mess they were shipping.

    This leads to one of two equally horrifying conclusions:
    1. They’ve become so incredibly jaded by the major publisher ability to ship whatever and have it sell, then patch it afterwards they thought ‘Ah, we’ll get away with it.’ AND/OR
    2. They knew full well this would happen, and actively took the decision to capture the Day 1/2 sales, then end sale knowing full well they’d capture the release window they wanted, get the Pre-order cash then build positive PR off the back of it ‘dedicating themselves to a quality release’.

    Both smack of an incredibly cynical mindset towards the buying public.

    • trn says:

      Agreed. The only other option would be 3. A lack of QC for the PC port prior to release.

  13. Jokerme says:

    Hail Gaben! Again!

  14. Jalan says:

    The weirdest method of announcing yet another delay, ever.

    Glad I didn’t actually buy it yet (I was ridiculously close to doing so yesterday until my internet provider decided to come down with lack of service-itis for a few hours and I completely forgot to do it when it came back up) so it looks like my initial pre-release plan to wait until the DLC choo-choo has tooted its final horn is the one I’ll be sticking with for it.

  15. El_Monkey says:

    Wasn’t the response to broken missions in Arkham Origins something along the lines of ‘ok, we’ll patch the bugs that stop you from progressing in the main plot line, but we’re not going to patch the broken side quests as we’re too busy making more DLC’? I know it was a different developer, but I suspect Warner would have had a hand in that…

  16. wyrm4701 says:

    It’s not even ‘don’t pre-order’ anymore, it’s ‘don’t buy games on release’. Games broken at launch are becoming the new normal, if the increased frequency is any indication. The worst part is, there doesn’t seem to be much punishment or consequence for publishers, outside of some bad press and a small number of refunds.

    It’s funny, too, given how the season passes, on-launch DLC, and pre-order bonuses have evolved with the Arkham games. WB has been quickly iterating predatory pricing models for these games – is it any wonder that this complete lack of consumer regard would be the result?

  17. Premium User Badge

    DuncUK says:

    I bought my copy of this game from a discount CD key site, so I really have no recourse for a refund. It was with some trepidation that I fired the game up last night to see how big a mistake I had made…

    The game runs perfectly on my system. I’ve turned on all the fancy options and it looks glorious, with not a frame drop in sight. My system is a 9 month old hi-spec PC (970, Quad i5 overclocked to 4.3 Ghz, 16MB RAM) so I’m probably close to the spec they were testing on, but… yeah, all’s fine here. I’m a bit perplexed by all this.

    • Premium User Badge

      IJC says:

      Wow, sick RAM-size. Thats like, omg, more than ten floppys :O

      • Knightwoolf says:

        God damn it, I just made an account to make that exact joke.

    • fish99 says:

      Yeah I got mine from one of those sites for £14.98, and that was after I knew about the issues. At that price I don’t mind if it takes a few patches to get it working right, but luckily enough mine is also running great with everything on since installing the batman drivers (GTX970). I’ve also got the game on SSD that so might be helping.

  18. IgorBaskin says:

    Just watched the video and the HORROR! Technical Director: Ben Wyatt.. It’s IceTown all over again!

    (Yes, I know the fault is with the port team, but couldn’t let this opportunity slide by)

  19. Solidstate89 says:

    I pre-ordered The Witcher 3 and don’t regret doing so in the least. But something about this game…the spidey sense in me told me not to. I’m glad I listened to it. Of course it’s probably biased because it’s Marvel, and Batman is DC – but I’ll take a win all the same.

  20. teppic says:

    I won’t pre-order any games, in fact, I won’t even play a game that is newly released because they tend to come with so many huge issues – I wait at least a month.

  21. vorador says:

    Well, i didn’t expect that. They’re also instructing people on how to get refunded.

    While it would have much better if they didn’t release the game in such a sorry state, at least they’re taking the proper steps.

    I would only recommend preordering if you’re looking for a limited edition, and i mean truly limited, the ones that banish in a puff of smoke in days, if not hours.

  22. statistx says:

    Thing is, I have a shit System for current games, BUT if they would just give me a reliable Option to turn of Depth of Field and Blur, i would be able to Play it.
    Here’s why: I turned both off in the config file and played the game for 2 hours. Sure it runs a little slow at times, when a lot is Happening, but its in a state where i can play it without Feeling “Ugh, i need a new Computer ASAP”
    BUUUUUUUTTTTTT: As soon as you turn of DoF in the config file, you lose your map, the holofaces when calling people and all the XRay effects in detective mode. (ie. you don’t see enemies through walls or highlighted at all)
    I played without them, which makes the game a little hard at times, but otherwise i enjoyed it.
    So yeah, they’d only Need to add more Settings and it would probably work for 80% more people

    (random caps, cause of stupid german Autocorrect at work PC which i can’t turn off)

  23. tomimt says:

    So, what prevented them to take these issues seriously before the game was launched?

  24. Lionmaruu says:

    it’s like ET all over again, Warner! get your shit togheter!

    I am glad the pc game community could get at least some, and late too damn late respect out of those fucking studios that release this kind of shit for pc.

  25. Sam says:

    It was initially unplayable for me, very like John’s video with massive stutter when moving/looking in outdoor scenes. I updated my AMD graphics card drivers, disabled realtime antivirus for the game’s install folder, and rebooted. Now it works fine. Still 30fps locked but perfectly playable. It’s also the first game I’ve played where I actually like the motion blur.

    And yes, I’m embarrassed to have bought it at release.

  26. jonahcutter says:

    GMG is granting refunds.

    link to blog.playfire.com

    It only took about two hours for them to respond (granting) my refund request. Kudos to them for stepping up.

  27. Martel says:

    My copy came free with my new video card (haven’t played it yet) but I sure wish I could trade it for Witcher 3 instead.

    • Grovester says:

      That’s an interesting point.

      Witcher 3 = hugely complex RPG open world, great graphics, small studio. Not bug-free, but certainly very playable on day one.

      Arkham Knight = vaguely complex not quite open world, great graphics, massive studio, AAA marketing, huge publisher. Complete omnishambles.

      Who thinks huge publishers are a good idea?

      • UncleLou says:

        Actually, CDPR is bigger than Rocksteady. Just pointing that out because I understimated CDPR’s size recently as well. German Wikipedia uses a 2015 source that says CDPR has about 450 employees (Rocksteady has 160 or so).

  28. Tssha says:

    I’ve actually been having a lot of fun with it. I’ve turned down the settings, installed the latest drivers, and aside from the occasional hitch and some slowness when driving, it’s been a blast. Tends to slow down after four or so hours of playing though…

    …yeah, really enjoying it so far. :)

  29. waltC says:

    Yes, never pre-ordering is great advice unless the following two conditions are true:

    1) You have no doubt you intend to buy this game within the first few weeks of its debut
    &
    2) There is a reasonable discount attached to pre-ordering (10% or greater, preferably greater.)

    Both of the above conditions must apply, and I’d even add the caveat that the game is produced by a AAA company you trust from having enjoyed its former releases.

    I had no idea the problems were as severe as demonstrated in the video. Obviously, the problems are engine-related and the game is choking on its texture pipelines. I’ve heard the game is using the console-specific UE3 engine and so I’m not surprised, frankly. Obviously they knew how bad the port was and having to hire a company to port the game to the PC tells us much (unflattering) about the game devs. Would be very interested in knowing who green-lighted the release of the game in this state–devs or publisher or both. Poor decision, can’t unring the bell, etc.

  30. JoeX111 says:

    “We’ve asked them if they knew about the issues before the game was released, and why it went ahead without any warning, but they haven’t replied.”

    Bit of a loaded question, don’t you think?

  31. Alness says:

    So… I know not every time it’s justified, that they can manage their resources better yadda yadda yadda, but next time a developer announces a delay to the release of a PC version can we say “It’s okay, take your time. We’d much rather you got it right”?

  32. Applecrow says:

    Some poor WB employee is probably getting grilled by the PR department about this, while he desperately tries to show them all the memos from QA that the Marketing department buried and ignored because “no one games on PC anyway”.

  33. Ham Solo says:

    Hat off to you for repeatedly advising against pre-ordering games, I can certainly tell it bit me in the ass only once, the other 2 times I was quite happy with it, but you’re right nonetheless.
    The times it worked for me was with Arma 3 (20 bucks for preordering, on release it went full price), Deus Ex 3, which gave me the silenced sniper rifle, which just fit my playstyle perfectly. The time it bit me in the ass was FlatOut 3, which is a trainwreck, from a different developer than the earlier ones, and I literally paid for that mistake.