Update On PC Version Of Batman: Arkham Knight

DPI said:
Look at the post before yours and then reconsider why PC development might be taking a backseat to consoles.

Even if they launched the game in a "perfect" state, the proliferation of the "derp I'll just wait for $5 sale" mentality still exists, and isn't really helping the cause.
Click to expand...

What I saw was it's broken, I'll wait till it's fixed and on sale. If they'd released it in a perfect state it would have sold well, just like GTA V. No doubt some people will wait, but so what? Some people go to the theater, others but the DVD, while others go to Red Box and pay a buck fifty.
 
I guess they took their own greenlight approach by releasing an alpha product as gold. Well I'm glad they'll have it beta in a month or so.

It really is nice of them to involve the entire gaming community in the software development process. It is so enlightening and enriching for everyone who spends their own money on making sure a project gets finished. That way we can all feel like we are part of the process of bringing a good game to market.

For myself, I guess I'll probably pick this game up (provided they fix this mess satisfactorily) when it goes on sale on steam for less than $9.99
 
looking at the gameplay videos, I can't tell which batman game it is.

They all look like the same shit to me.
 
They should have taken the same approach as Rockstar did with the GTA V PC port. Release the console versions now. Market all the advanced features (frame rate, 4k, effects, etc) while pouring resources into coding and QA. Release snippets of video showing how much better the PC port looks vs console to keep the audience hungry.

Then 6 months down the road release a stable PC port. Since the game is getting positive reviews, it would have helped with PC sales by functioning as a marketing program. Pretty much everyone is willing to wait for a quality product rather than deal with the current messed up situation with the PC version.
 
Wierdo said:
Yes it's middleware, meaning it affects stability and performance if you're not careful, or if it's buggy and no one but the vendor has access to the internals. It's not rocket surgery.

Drivers -> DX -> Gameworks -> Game

Gameworks = closed
Something breaks = Developers, Intel, AMD, Matrox, NewGPUco out of the loop. Only nVidia has the keys.

Means for dev:
The pro is less time spent developing those effects from scratch.
The con is it's closed, if something goes wrong or there's a bug in the stack then it'll take extra work reverse engineering a fix if even possible - unless nVidia is opening it up to the dev, in which case at least developing a workaround for a stack you have no control over the implementation of.

Means for gamer:
Lower quality ports.
Potential performance issues.
Locks out other vendors, potentially becoming a captive customer down the road, ala Voodoo Glide API.

If you see a Gameworks game, even if you don't care about your future options, it's something to be wary of, a sign of lazy porting work imho. We should be pushing for open technologies in such markets, ones that are industry-wide not specific to a vendor, it's a recipe for disaster doing so, anyone with half a brain can connect the dots.
Click to expand...

One thing about using Gameworks to port a console game to PC that I just don't understand at all is if the consoles of the current generation are all using AMD graphics chips, why would Gameworks even be a help when you port the thing over to PC?

I understand that the console graphics chips are all somewhat proprietary tech, but the current generation of AMD graphics cards have something similar to the technology that was put in consoles also imbedded in the graphics card designs by way of the current generation being a derivative creation of those AMD graphics cards that released around the same time as that generation of consoles were developed. There should be a lot of similarities which would make it easier to port to PC directly.

How would a closed ecosystem like Gameworks, managed only by the competing graphics card vendor NVIDIA, actually make the port easier (less expensive) for the game devs who already have a game that should be close to compatible with AMD cards based on the shared history of the current tech with the graphics tech in the consoles?

It seems like Gameworks (and especially coding it so the game only works through the Gameworks middleware) could only add an unnecessary layer of compatibility problems not unlike what we see many are experiencing with this latest Batman game.
 
CVNet1 said:
I guess they took their own greenlight approach by releasing an alpha product as gold. Well I'm glad they'll have it beta in a month or so.

It really is nice of them to involve the entire gaming community in the software development process. It is so enlightening and enriching for everyone who spends their own money on making sure a project gets finished. That way we can all feel like we are part of the process of bringing a good game to market.

For myself, I guess I'll probably pick this game up (provided they fix this mess satisfactorily) when it goes on sale on steam for less than $9.99
Click to expand...

And there you go just like everyone says, I won't buy a PC game until its on sale for $10, even if the game is patched. Why spend money developing for a game on a platform that those who purchase it wait for it to hit $10?
 
BoogerBomb said:
And there you go just like everyone says, I won't buy a PC game until its on sale for $10, even if the game is patched. Why spend money developing for a game on a platform that those who purchase it wait for it to hit $10?
Click to expand...

That's pretty much a strawman. This title sold a ton before it got pulled out, one wonders how many refunds were issued to pressure them into this move, their review page is about 70 percent negative.

The question now becomes: Can publishers get away with shoddy ports now that they have to issue refunds for them, and how many will decide to offer better ports vs exit this massive market and leave it to better quality outlets to take over?

My bet is on higher quality ports of course, it makes business sense considering the ton of (relatively) easy port money at stake.
 
BoogerBomb said:
And there you go just like everyone says, I won't buy a PC game until its on sale for $10, even if the game is patched. Why spend money developing for a game on a platform that those who purchase it wait for it to hit $10?
Click to expand...

I paid full price for GTAV, and the price barely has dropped on that game because of it's popularity.
When a game is done right people will pay, if not then people will wait.

If pre-orders didn't exist, there would be more pressure to deliver a stable game.
Devs are being rewarded by it's customers before finishing their work.

When customers pay upfront before release, what make them think the quality and urgency to complete the game will still be priority?
Games today are in better shape at $10 than they are at $60.
 
BoogerBomb said:
And there you go just like everyone says, I won't buy a PC game until its on sale for $10, even if the game is patched. Why spend money developing for a game on a platform that those who purchase it wait for it to hit $10?
Click to expand...
I don't understand your argument. If it wasn't profitable for them to release on PC, they wouldn't do it. Are you saying that because some PC gamers wait for sales, early buyers don't deserve a functioning game at launch?
 
Urg, no edit. I meant to reply to this one:

DPI said:
Look at the post before yours and then reconsider why PC development might be taking a backseat to consoles.

Even if they launched the game in a "perfect" state, the proliferation of the "derp I'll just wait for $5 sale" mentality still exists, and isn't really helping the cause.
Click to expand...
 
I just want to know how this hunk of shit made it out the door? Oh wait... It was a release it now fix it later attitude. Got it.
 
tetris42 said:
I don't understand your argument. If it wasn't profitable for them to release on PC, they wouldn't do it. Are you saying that because some PC gamers wait for sales, early buyers don't deserve a functioning game at launch?
Click to expand...

Well, that seems to be happening now doesn't it. Push it out to hit milestone dates or heads will roll. Marketing drives this shit, not engineering. Although lofty promises are made, but hardly ever kept. This game is a clear example of that.
 
Methadras said:
Well, that seems to be happening now doesn't it. Push it out to hit milestone dates or heads will roll. Marketing drives this shit, not engineering. Although lofty promises are made, but hardly ever kept. This game is a clear example of that.
Click to expand...

Happening in console markets as well, ala AC debacle, or the watchdogs bait and switch. Publishers are greedy and often do the least they can get away with to make a profit.

Now the PC market may have the protection it needed for so long in the form of Steam's refund policy, one hopes the console market gets a similar minimum degree of protection or they'll end up dealing with BS like this - ship buggy and update later business model.

One would hope the raised standards from the PC market side will trickle over to consoles as well for everyone's sake.
 
looks like the game needs a lot of work...I wouldn't expect the game to be fully patched until the 1st week of August
 
You're going to see more of this unless the PC version gets a tweaked renderer. The draw call limits on DX11 are pretty bad compared to console APIs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top