Batman: Arkham Knight BatDLC Batdelayed, Batobvs

Given that Batman: Arkham Knight [official site] is not yet back on sale, after publishers Warner Bros. pulled it from stores due to shonky performance, it’s no surprise that its DLC is being delayed. That is, however, now official. While next week will bring Batgirl and her own brand of Batbiffing to console versions in the Batgirl: A Matter of Family DLC, it’s delayed indefinitely on PC.

Warner Bros. have apologised again for the game’s shoddy state. “We are taking full responsibility for releasing a product that did not meet our quality standards”, they say. “We are modifying the internal review process for all of our games,” they say. As they jolly well should.

Yesterday’s update from WB on the state of the PC version explains that they’re still plugging away on fixes. “Once the PC version is fully updated, Rocksteady and all parties will agree that it meets a superior quality bar and we will then make the game available for sale,” they say.

“Our continued focus on getting the right PC fixes in place for the main game has had an impact on the development of all DLC content for the PC version of the game. This means that the Batman: Arkham Knight – Batgirl: A Matter of Family DLC will not be available on July 14th for those who are currently playing the PC version of the game. We apologize for the delay and only want to make sure that any content that we offer is up to the standards that PC players expect.”

Here, have a look at what Batgirl will get up to… at some point:

45 Comments

  1. Leonick says:

    it’s no surprise that its DLC is being delayed.
    In a way, it is, considering they’re still selling the season pass…

    • Jalan says:

      Which cannot be purchased from a number of retailers without owning the base game beforehand.

      Not to say I agree with it, but it’s clear they’ve left it there for those who did buy the game before it was yoinked from sale.

    • Lenderz says:

      I too am a jack that is alright. Had no issues running the game maxed, including the nvidia options at a solid 69 after unlocking the frame rate.

      i5 3570k, 8gig ram, 980ti, OS on a SSD but the game is running on spinning tin.

      Another lucky combo I guess. Was undecided if I was going to get the season pass, feel kind of batmaned out at the moment, the game has several odd design decisions too.

  2. Swabbleflange says:

    I was kind of expecting this to happen, and while I don’t want to be the ‘I’m alright Jack’ guy, I’ve had no problems with the game on PC, nor have any of the group I know that are playing it on PC. I was really looking forward to this particular DLC, and harboured a tiny hope that they’d stick to the DLC rollout plan for those of us playing with no issues.

    • karthink says:

      Curious: What hardware did you run it on?

      • Swabbleflange says:

        Well, I know it’s not particularly relevant because people with ‘better’ machines haven’t been able to run it, and people with ‘worse’ machines have, but for the record I have an i7-4790 @3.60GHz (not overclocked), 16GB RAM, running a 4GB EVGA GTX970. Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. I’m also running the game from a Samsung 840 EVO SSD.

        Some magical combination of ingredients, I suppose. I’ve played over 45 hours of it without a hitch.

        • Asurmen says:

          What res, what settings and what min/max/average FPS?

          • Swabbleflange says:

            Because I love you, I just ran the benchmark.

            No border windowed (just because I streamed it a bit and this is the only option that works)
            1920×1080
            V-Sync on
            Anti-Aliasing off (I don’t like it and always turn it off, but it doesn’t appear to have any performance impact anyway)
            Texture normal
            Shadows high
            Detail high

            Those are the highest options I can go to by the way. I don’t know if more would be available if the game recognised I had a 980, for example.

            Nvidia Gameworks stuff – I have the smoke off because it genuinely does kill the FPS (knocks it down to 30), and the other three on.

            It’s obviously limited by the V-Sync, but I get a minimum of 51 and an average of 59. I turned V-Sync off and got minimum 62, max 118 and average 80.

          • Vandelay says:

            I recall hearing that the benchmark tools, like much in the game, are borked and are not comparable to actual in game performance. Having said that, I get the feeling (from what I have read – I don’t own the game,) that if you are happy playing with the capped 30fps and have a powerful system you aren’t going to encounter too many problems.

            That isn’t to say it is in a fit state to have been actually released, but it seems to be a common theme for those that are playing without hitches (have you left the cap on in the ini file, Swabbleflange?)

          • Vandelay says:

            And then I glance down at the very next comment and see someone who is playing fine with the framerate uncapped, so that theory can’t be true.

      • SuicideKing says:

        Seems that a 4GB graphics card of the 970’s caliber, an SSD and 16GB of RAM is what’s required to run this game at 1080p…

        • Swabbleflange says:

          I have the frame rate uncapped, but set at 60 for my monitor’s refresh rate.

    • xGryfter says:

      Agreed, I’m also one of the lucky ones who haven’t had any problems with the game and was really looking forward to this DLC.

      For the record (and Asurmen) my PC specs are

      ASUS Z97-PRO GAMER motherboard
      i5-4690K@4.2GHz
      16GB GSKILL DDR3
      Asus GTX 970
      2x128GB SSD in a RAID 0 array

      I’m running it at 1920×1080 with the framerate unlocked at mostly 60fps. During some of the batmobile parts the frame rate will drop to 42fps. There have been some minor texture streaming issues and two CTDs in the 31 hours I’ve played.

      • xGryfter says:

        Also, all settings maxed, AA on and all the nVidia stuff turned on.

      • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

        Two people happily running the game then, both of them with 16gb of RAM.

        Couple that with all the internet talk about the extremely high system RAM requirements and we might have some nice clue there!

        • xGryfter says:

          From what I’ve read It’s the combination of RAM and SSD. Having one of the two helps but it will still have the occasional stuttering issues but having both (and an nVidia card) makes for a fairly smooth experience.

      • Ravenger says:

        Just got this via the Nvida promo as I’ve just ordered a 980Ti

        I’m surprised because though performance isn’t stellar, it’s reasonably solid on my machine with its current video card. Way better than I was expecting, especially as some people with better systems than mine had terrible performance.

        I7-4790k @stock
        Gigabyte Windforce GTX 770 OC
        16GB Ram

        Running off an SSD

        At 1920×1200 I get a reasonably solid 45-50fps on average with all the gameworks features off.

        No major streaming issues, and no stuttering except some minor hitches in the FMV movies.

        From what I’ve read AMD owners have a lot more trouble playing this at an acceptable performance level.

        Will be interesting to see how it performs when my 980Ti arrives.

    • fish99 says:

      Mine was passable on a 970 / 12GB ram / 3570K. Mostly 55-60fps but with dips to 30-40 when driving the batmobile. I stopped playing after 5 hrs though because I want to experience it without those dips. I was getting quite into the story though, and it’s god damn gorgeous.

  3. jon_hill987 says:

    The Batcomputer.

  4. subedii says:

    Warner Bros. have apologised again for the game’s shoddy state. “We are taking full responsibility for releasing a product that did not meet our quality standards”, they say. “We are modifying the internal review process for all of our games,” they say. As they jolly well should.

    It’s funny how they say that as if they were simply unaware of the issues in their own game before release, and simply chucked it out there without “review”.

    Let’s be candid: They knew exactly what the state of the game was. They released it regardless in the belief that whatever the backlash it wouldn’t be enough to cause a net negative financial outcome, compared to a delay. Considering that the game got straight out pulled from sale anyway, I’m guessing that didn’t work out too well.

    To be honest, even with this I’m skeptical that the delay of the DLC is so much to do with the shoddy release of the PC version in itself, as it is the impression it gives to be releasing the DLC whilst the game itself is still broken. The impression that they’re not working flat out on fixing the game when (let’s face it) the vast majority of the work on the DLC is already done and present if it’s hitting the other two consoles.

    Personally I can’t really blame them on that front, this whole thing is basically an exercise in PR control now.

    By this stage what annoys me isn’t even that, or that it’s been delayed so much, but that with the ridiculous amount of talk this game has had elsewhere it’s been basically impossible for me to read any gaming sites without the storyline being spoiled.

    Largely by article titles that authors think are being cleverly vague but are really freaking obvious and obtuse.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cooper says:

      I’d not even give them the benefit of suggesting they didn’t expect the backlash.

      I think the logic is as follows:

      – Game is in a very poor state
      – Release anyway
      — With no PC review code
      – Gather pre order dosh
      – Apologise for state of game
      – Remove from sale
      – Re-release game with some bundled DLC under a new name for a whole new set of Steam reviews and a new metacritic score.

      The alternative was delaying, which would be against their promise of simultaneous release and would lead to cancelled pre orders. By releasing and then removing you gather up a whole shit load of pre order and first day purchases, which can be the single largest taking of a major publisher release like this.

      • Baines says:

        I’d bet that their plan wasn’t even that complicated, because I doubt Warner Bros ever planned to pull the game.

        Most likely, they either overlooked what would happen if they released the game after Steam started allowing no-questions-asked returns, or more likely the people making the decisions didn’t even know about Steam offering returns.

    • Baines says:

      They knew enough to only give PS4 versions to reviewers, not even making PC code available for PC sites.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      It reminds me of the car recall thing from Fight Club.

      “A new car built by my company leaves somewhere travelling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don’t do one.”

      • Llewyn says:

        Or rather, the car recall thing from Reality.

        The Ford Pinto case is the classic high profile one, but not only was trading off the cost of safety recalls against the cost of compensation to victims’ families the norm in the US motor industry (and probably most other places), it was actively encouraged by US courts.

    • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

      My idea is that this kind of crap on their part started a lot of months ago, well before Steam implemented a refund policy. Times are changing now, but it was already too late for WB, they still had to ship whatever they managed to cobble togheter.

      This might be good news for ( not the same but still related ) Ubisoft though, between the Unity disaster and this new refund system, their next AC might actually work better on release.

  5. grimdanfango says:

    “We are taking full responsibility for releasing a product that did not meet our quality standards”

    If you released a game of a particularly low standard, then surely by definition your standards are low, how on earth do you release something that doesn’t meet your own standards?
    I’m consistently amazed how even direct apologies and admissions of guilt from large publishers can manage to come across just as bullshit-laden as all the rest of the nonsense they spew.
    They released a product that did not meet reasonable standards.

  6. Carlos Danger says:

    It is a shame that they had to make the PR move but completely understandable. It would have been nice to have those that can play it and have the season pass to get it on time but the crap storm would not have been worth it for WB.

    But in today’s society we are expected to spread the misery in order to magnify it.

    • XX says:

      Wat, like if they’d chosen to delay the PC release to make sure it actually worked on anything but a very specific set of hardware that would be “spreading the misery”. The game should never have been released in the state it was in. Be grateful that you could play anything at all.

      Oh, and I’m prty sure dog in a manger has been around long before “today’s society” but yeh whatever, WB delaying the DLC for their broken game must be a sign of the impending collapse of civilisation.

      • Carlos Danger says:

        See they had no choice the crowd was out for blood. Thankfully I had no interest in the Season Pass, for those that did and kept it you have my regards.

  7. mwoody says:

    I’ve been waiting to play until they patched it, but I was under the impression that Joker was dead. Is this a prequel or a spoiler?

    • subedii says:

      Prequel, even to Arkham Asylum (although it would appear to be set after Arkham Origins, which is understandable).

    • Artiforg says:

      It takes place after Arkham City.

      • subedii says:

        Hold on…

        ***************SPOILERS***************SPOILERS***************SPOILERS

        At the start of Arkham Asylum, Barbara is already Oracle, not Batgirl. Which suggests that she had her… “incident” before then.

        And Origins takes place when the Joker is just being introduced, and Barbara’s still learning about him and hasn’t become Batgirl yet.

        • Artiforg says:

          Sorry, I’m Barry Thickpants today. Thought mwoody was asking about Arkham Knight!

  8. MadMinstrel says:

    Meh. I’ve finished the game and I’m done with it. I don’t care about fixes or DLC anymore.

  9. montorsi says:

    Well damn, the game ran well enough for me. I guess I’ll forget about replaying AK till they finish fixing it and release all the DLC.

  10. Stevostin says:

    I am generally immune to “fighting chicks” but I have to say that this one is quite the thing. That being said the Catwoman bits in AC were already well put.

    But Joker’s back ?

    • seroto9 says:

      No, the Joker died in Arkham City. It’s not like RPS would commit the heinous crime of spoiling a major plot twist through an image…

    • notlimahc says:

      Joker is alive because it’s set before the events of Arkham Asylum. This also explains why Barbara Gordon is walking around as Batgirl.

    • PancakeWizard says:

      “I am generally immune to “fighting chicks” “

      o_O

  11. RProxyOnly says:

    Guys,

    isn’t it about time you stopped advertising for this game (even ‘negative’ articles continue the hype train of ‘please re-release it ‘cos we really want it’, when a lot of us wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole because of the garbage surrounding it)?

    The whole thing was abortive, they had they’re chance, will you allow us to ignore a bad game/purchase and move on to something else, instead of doing WB’s continued advertising for it?

    Those who REALLY want it, know what to look out for and the rest of us want it to die as a lesson to arrogant devs/publishers in how not to screw your customers over.

  12. Palladian says:

    I have a continuity question, though I haven’t played Arkham Knight so forgive me if it’s explained there:

    How is that Batgirl Barbara Gordon? She was already in both Arkham Asylum and City as Oracle, a wheelchair-bound adviser. In the comics, this is because she was permanently crippled by Joker. Moreover from her picture in the older Arkham games, she seems much older than she does here.

    So how is it that the same character is walking (and seemingly young) again? Is this set in the past? I presume not since I’ve heard this is designed to explain where Batgirl and Robin are while Batman is doing his thing.

    • UppityTeapot says:

      Yup, you’re right – the Batgirl BatDLC is set before Arkham Asylum – before she became Oracle. :)