220°

Batman: Arkham Knight’s Season Pass is a Milestone for Industry Abuse

Let it go on record that I firmly believe that the toxicity of today’s marketing and business strategies in the video game industry will ultimately lead to its downfall. Video gaming was once a simple, straightforward concept. There was no such thing as downloadable content or add-ons unless it was a PC title with an expansion pack; video games were released in their complete form after years of development.

Read Full Story >>
nerdbite.com
GreetingsfromCanada3256d ago

GG Rocksteady, you're probably launching the most overpriced season pass of all time.

RealFry3256d ago (Edited 3256d ago )

*For a single player game*

Remember COD and Battlefield still charge $50 for theirs. Even the previous $30 status quo is too much. Expansion DLC like this should cost $20 for a singleplayer game, and has to be PACKED with worthwhile content.

Im gonna wait until all the content for the season pass comes out and then wait for a sale.

sinjonezp3256d ago

Shouldn't skins and customization be a part of the game? Shouldn't people be able to enjoy things like skins for let's say, gathering hidden items in the game. Think of this reference. Tekken 3 or even the first soul caliber. When you played the game and Perform objectives, tons of unlockables happen. Now in order to get skins, and unlockables item types, it's a part of dlc. The only thing that I get is additional story missions AFTER the game is released. Other then that, they should have it where villains are in the game. That would have been a big selling point to say , as you play, in the days ahead , more villains will surface. That would give the game legs. Instead they look at us as cows and just throw us grass and we will eat. Granted you don't have to buy it, it would be cool if a lot of it was a part of the game. Maybe more people would buy the thing. Amen

mikeslemonade3256d ago (Edited 3256d ago )

The simple solution is to increase the price of games from $59.99 to $69.99 msrp. Then everyone can have access to the DLC.

We haven't seen a price increase since 2005. And even in 1996 the N64 was charging $60 per game at times.

ginsunuva3256d ago

It's WB's decision, not the developer's.

Magicite3256d ago

hopefully main game will deliver, I can live without DLCs and other additions.

Relientk773256d ago

Well I'm definitely not buying the season pass

Army_of_Darkness3256d ago

3 rich, clueless gamers disagree with you and will buy the over priced crap Gawd dammit!!

Satyre283256d ago

This is the kind of stuff that really worries me that they are taking content from the game and putting it into a DLC. This is kind of outrageous, 40 bucks for a season pass??!? Seriously? I need to really think now if i am even going to buy the game, i honestly refuse to give support to this garbage. I also have the witcher which i expect will last me months so i might not even need Batman.

Vandamme213256d ago

I'm buying it because it offers more story

affrogamer3256d ago

you're one of those idiots they target. Believe it or not they're cutting content from the $60 value and reselling it to u for $40 more, and if people like you keep supporting this the rest of the industry is going to follow suit. Gamers pockets lose at the end of the day!

Army_of_Darkness3256d ago

Vandamme is an exception cause he's ballin' with the cash he's getting from his B movies.

Papafynn3256d ago

The cost of making video games has increased over the years but its MSRP has declined if one factors in inflation. For publishers to make their money back on these AAA risk video games, prices either have to increase or the exorbitant DLC format will be the norm. This may not be a popular opinion but 1080p, 4K, 60fps cost a lot of money to make. Are you willing to pay more for the past time you love so dearly?

Bathyj3256d ago

Well this is why I never whine about the price of games. They are as cheap or cheaper than they were 20 years ago.

But

The market is a lot bigger and they sell way more units. Games cost more to make but they are selling more of them to recoup that and keep prices at what the market considers fair. The issue with this is people feel they are buying an incomplete product, as a lot of this DLC is ready to go and could easily be included on the disc.

Rebel_Scum3256d ago

DLC ready to go? You don't know that. But your comment below regarding day one dlc is spot on. That's taking the mick.

Bathyj3256d ago

Yeah I didnt mean specifically Batman has DLC ready to go, I meant in general that is why DLC has become such a bad practice, and charging this much for it is just testing the waters now, seeing how much we will put up with. Trust me, if people actually buy this and dont send a message in two years it will be just normal.

BattleAxe3256d ago (Edited 3256d ago )

Hmm, that's funny, because we always hear how new game engines like Unreal Engine 4 make it much much easier to develop games these days.

Not to mention the fact that game engines are being given away for free, with royalties being paid only after a certain amount of sales.

Also, I'm in my late 30s, and the bit about games being more expensive 20 years ago simply isn't true. Sure, I remember the odd game such as Final Fantasy for the NES being $100.00 at launch, but those prices were far and few between.

Papafynn3256d ago

I don't quite understand the logic that having DLC content ready at launch day means it should be included in the final game. DLC is produced by a different team with its own budget & has to pay for itself. It's only prudent to do so, having the original development team start DLC content after the game ships is suicidal. It will take good year plus to plan, develope & ship DLC if this were the case. By that time everyone would have moved on to the newest, latest, best AAA game. No publisher has that luxury of a gamer's attention span for than long! It's like asking if I'm saving my money for the Dragon Age DLC or getting Witcher 3.......Witcher 3 duh!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3256d ago
areisul3256d ago

I'd be MORE than happy to sacrifice graphic fidelity for less bullshit anti-consumerist practices. Especially considering we're in a time where there is next to no innovation in terms of gameplay.

poppinslops3256d ago

Sure, AAA develepment costs have risen - but $140AU?

GTAV cost $300mil to make and market, yet it's had countless free updates (including online Hiests) and it was sold for $70AU... made a LOT of money.

CDPR are already renowned for their approach to the Witcher 3's dlc, which they've been wholly upfront about... their paid dlc has more playtime than most standalone games, for a fraction of the price.

Rocksteady are cashing in - nothing more, nothing less - it's their 'last' Batman game, and it will sell regardless of it's dlc.

Rebel_Scum3256d ago

Are you too young to remember the cartridge era? 16bit games were around the $140 mark in Australia I imagine. They were 160-190 in NZ.

The 10th Rider3256d ago

Well, I do agree in a sense, people say MSRP of games hasn't gone up this gen...But the cost of DLC and things like that often add up, with the MSRP, to $100 or more.

The MSRP didn't increase this gen. Instead they try to subliminally pry more money out of you by releasing DLC that's often planned well before release.

_-EDMIX-_3256d ago (Edited 3256d ago )

Expansion was an add on, downloadable is merely the distribution method...that is really the only thing thats changed

I got to agree with Papafynn.

Games have stayed the same price, while becoming more and more complex. The DLC format is merely the expansion format in downloadable form and not many PC games even didn't do an expansion, most of my favorite PC games all had expansions.

Doom, Quake, Half Life, Myst, The Sims, Age Of Empire, Diablo, Never Winter Nights etc all had expansions.

Soo...were mad at the distribution method? Would it appearing on disk mean something different?

" video games were released in their complete form"

Neither of the older PC titles I listed would be "complete" as they had post launch content with that logic.

Using this silly logic. Then you never got a "complete" version of Street Fighter, I mean come on bro, "Super" is the "complete" version, no I mean "alpha" yea thats it....well no "hyper" is , no "Ultimate" is...

We've generally been getting more content per game release and not really less in terms of launch game.

Skyrim, bigger then Oblivion, more content.

GT5, more tracks and cars then GT4.

GTAV, larger then GTAIV, more missions.

Mario Kart 8, more tracks and karts then Mario Kart Wii

Witcher 3, longer and larger then both Witcher games.

Smash Bros Wii U, more stages and characters then any smash.

......all have post launch content. The hell do you mean with "complete games" and "were released"? Add in that those later games are much more complex graphically, conceptually and technically.

How can they already have THE MOST in series HISTORY, yet...not complete? Oh because DLC exist, it MUST have been from the base game? What evidence even suggest that?

Again...can't that be said about ANY expansion or even an edition released of a certain game? How many ports have come from Nintendo with extra content? That now the "complete" version? I mean...at some point we sorta need to let go that your not buying the damn team's soul, your buying what they are offering as a product. You don't NEED TO BUY DLC to play the um..."complete" version. That is an extra and a choice.

Games go up price in development, games have stayed the same price for years, post launch content in ANY FORM has existed for years and years, games have gone UP in content and size and in complexity. I'm sorry but those things just can't be disputed.

Some need to legit have real logical reasons why post launch content is bad. Not "assumptions" based on where they "think" the dlc came from. Last I recall... neither of us actually own the IP to those series, you agree to buy that game regardless if DLC is being made. No one here owns those IPs.

Mind you...I would like to here BUSINESS WISE why it would make sense. Most of you seem to think your legit owed the whole SERIES for buying 1 game lol.

http://www.ign.com/articles...

http://kotaku.com/36-years-...

and

http://arstechnica.com/gami...

No Way3256d ago (Edited 3256d ago )

The problem is.. if there is a season pass, the devs already planned content.
They already know they want to add content, after the release.
So, who is to say that they purposefully withheld said content from the disc?
On top of that, why are costumes, weapons, and etc not unlocks but downloads?

I think it looks better on the dev if a pass, or content, is mentioned after the game has been released and not before. This is what, I believe, upsets so many people..

_-EDMIX-_3255d ago

@No Way- How is that a problem? Its not your game ,They budgeted for extra content, based on knowing it will be sold outside the main game. This game is 5x bigger then Arkham City, I see most times its not even respected what gamers are getting, as suppose to what they are not getting for free. Why do they care? they again don't own the team and its extra content, not "withheld", that suggest that it was always going to be in the final game...but clearly if they budged for post launch content, it means it was NEVER going to be in the main game for FREE it makes no sense.

That is no different then McDonalds making fries based on KNOWING it will be sold. Should they give it to you for free based on them making it? I don't get it? Are you buying a Sandwich from them, or are you buying everything they create? THIS is what I mean by this strange entitlement that many gamers feel they are owed, content they did not pay for.

Why is it that a gamer is owed this? Are you again buying a game or buying the team?

"So, who is to say that they purposefully withheld said content from the disc?"

Because many, many examples of games have shown they are larger, more complex and have more content the previous entry's...like this game. ie I don't really just think that Skyrim, or BF etc where just going to have ALLL that content.

The content exist because it was budgeted to be sold, the publisher would likely NEVER going to make ALLL THAT JUST put it in a $60 game.

"On top of that, why are costumes, weapons, and etc not unlocks but downloads?"

Why should the be free? That is not for ALL weapon unlocks, I'm sorry but many, many, many games have weapon unlocks, Ratchet series, God Of War, Gears, Halo, Call Of Duty, BF etc yet still have DLC.

I don't really know what you mean, again....extras. You don't need to buy them. Your asking why should the extra content be for extra cost, why can't the extra content be for free as a "unlock" despite already having unlocks.....for free?

What if they just added those for free too? 2 years later they make some DLC, would you then still not be asking "why are they not just free unlocks"? LMFAO! I mean...at some point you need to get its not made for free, it was made to be an extra and charged for. Its existence was to be sold, not to be an unlock as they already have those.

Better yet, what game had unlocks, that took them out in favor of DLC? You really need to be specific because you just can't be vague about this...if its really a issue and really happening, what game did it that didn't do it with the exact same number of content prior?

"I think it looks better on the dev if a pass, or content, is mentioned after the game has been released and not before. This is what, I believe, upsets so many people"

Soooo ignorance? Soo if they "believe" it was made after the fact they will feel better? I mean....what does it matter? Its not their ip, team, company etc, they own zero rights to the game.

Any publisher, team etc can create what they want for DLC, you again are agreeing to buy THEIR game, not what you feel your owed. Why care that they made something else while making this game? Their funding doesn't back BOTH for $60...I swear I don't get why gamers don't fully grasp that concept.

Again...when you go to Mcdonalds....are you owed everything being made in the kitchen because you bought 1 sandwich? Again...we buying 1 product or the whole damn team and everything they created?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3255d ago
Show all comments (43)
120°

6 Games That Genuinely Deserve A Current-Gen Upgrade

Games such as Mad Max, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Batman: Arkham Knight desperately deserve a modern-day revisit.

thorstein1d 12h ago

Mad Max is underrated. Such a fun game.

Cacabunga18h ago(Edited 18h ago)

RDR2 still looks astounding on PS4 Pro. i cannot imagine how it could look with a next gen upgrade.

JonTheGod13h ago(Edited 13h ago)

Probably not very different.

No idea why this article is highlighting recent beautiful graphically-advanced games and saying they need current gen makeovers. They already look better than most new releases; just compare Arkham Knight and Suicide Squad!

Yi-Long14h ago

It's obviously never gonna happen since Sony killed the game and studio, but Driveclub. Even in its current state, 10 years after release, it still puts many competitors to shame ...

Demetrius3h ago

I'm not into racing games but yeah I even looked at gameplay of that sometimes

Demetrius3h ago

Mad max ikr! Far cry primal, it amuses me how ubisoft just left ac unity hanging, sadly most of the good staff left from rocksteady while being forced to make that abomination smh

160°

15 Single Player Games That Divided Fans

One way or another, these games provoked strong reactions.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
banger886d ago

I don't think Days Gone divided fans. For the most part, gamers loved it. It was the reviewers who were divided. Self-loathing racist pieces of shit that took exception to the main character being white. This was a fantastic game, one of the best open-world games I ever played, and I've played them all.

Cacabunga6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

Second you on this.. I had absolute blast playing this game!! Memorable!

TLOU 2 I thought was utter s***.. I still haven’t finished it and stopped about halfway (apparently).

It wasn’t fans divided around The Order, it was a period where xbox fanboys were thinking Rise was a more engaging game so they were spreading a lot of hate..
Today they are hibernating with nothing to play
The Order was short, no denying, but a great game with huge potential

shinoff21836d ago

I enjoyed days gone and last of us 2. PeoPke trippin.

I always thought the order was kinda whack seeming so I never tried it. Id like to now though.

Jon615866d ago

No thr order was a short, clunky mediocre yet visually stunning game. I thoughts so and pretty much every other reviewer did too.

thorstein6d ago

The Order, where length was a criterion for rating a game, but only this particular game and no others.

Demetrius6d ago

I agree on my 2nd playthrough, ps5 this time

RavenWolfx6d ago

While I enjoy what is there in Days Gone, I mourn what was lost. The first trailers for Days Gone showed a morality system that looked interesting. For example, in the beginning when you are chasing down Leon and after you caught him, you could choose to shoot him or leave him for the freaks. You can see hints of it in other places, like if you catch a bandit unaware sometimes they will disarm and it seems like Deacon had the option to shoot them or let them go (he automatically lets them go).

Crows906d ago

Whatever...those systems unless revolutionary don't add much...they rarely do in games that do have them.

anast6d ago

For the most part, when it comes to Last of Us 2, incels, homophobes, and closet national socialist types didn't like it. I repeat not all, but most.

Days Gone is a great game and it was attacked by the leftist socialist people that are actually closet fascists. As a great poet once said: "Socialism is the mother of fascism."

The Order got hit from anti-Sony Xbox fans.

Out of these 3, Last of Us 2 stands above as being a work of art. It's still generating a ton conversation to this day.

coolbeans6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

-"Last of Us 2, incels, homophobes, and closet national socialist types didn't like it. I repeat not all, but most."

It's so weird & cringe to see other gamers paint this broad brush of *who* didn't like Part II. Why take the "most who disagree with me are Hitler" type of mentality over game tastes?

-"The Order got hit from anti-Sony Xbox fans."

No other community I've dabbled in - be it social media or gaming forums - has built up such a dedicated defense for The Order like N4G. This attitude fundamentally blows my mind, especially in the face of similar older titles (hello Uncharted 1) that already did a marginally better job at storytelling and gameplay. It almost feels like some N4G group chat made this reflexive defense as a meme and a bunch of posters are still playing along with it. No offense to genuine Order fans, but I simply can't shake that feeling.

Yui_Suzumiya6d ago

Well to be fair, I remember being only one of a few people on this site that actually praised The Order when it for came out and got alot of flack for it. Over time it seems opinions have changed about it.

anast6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

saying something is "cringe" doesn't prove me wrong. You just throw words out and hope they stick. Bring some evidence to prove me otherwise.

I got:

Letizi, R., & Norman, C. (2023). “You Took That From Me”: Conspiracism and Online Harassment in the Alt-Fandom of The Last of Us Part II. Games and Culture, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/155...

You're up. Maybe you can change my mind.

Because NG4 defended it doesn't mean NG4 is the gospel of gaming.

thorstein6d ago

Yeah Yui, it was "the game to hate" at the time. What was bizarre was the, as usual, journalists that were lying about the game and their stories were approved.

It was all clickhate all the time for the Order. I defended it too.

coolbeans5d ago

@Yui

-"I remember being only one of a few people on this site that actually praised The Order when it for came out and got alot of flack for it."

That could've been the case right at release, but you should see more recent opinion articles on here. There's a pretty substantial cadre who defend it on here as being "unfairly tarnished" that I simply don't see elsewhere.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5d ago
Skuletor6d ago

Most of the backlash against The Last Of Us 2 was people upset that Joel was killed off, simple as that.

anast6d ago

There is that too, but the other groups pilled on too, which increased the numbers. I really don't see why we have to ignore everything but Joel being killed.

Inverno6d ago

I didn't like Part 2 and I'm not any of. The game sold like crazy, it's just hard for people to understand that most found the story to be arse.

anast6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

Prove what I say is wrong. I will need evidence. I didn't not say all. Your exception rule doesn't work. Find evidence that counters mine. So, we can have a real discussion.

Inverno6d ago

There are plenty of legitimate criticism in hours long analysis videos and reddit posts actually critiquing Part 2. The people you're talking about are such a minority, and they attack just about everything because they see the "wokeness" in the most subliminal ways. They're insignificant because the game still sold pretty well, and reviewed well regardless. Keep in mind the game released world wide, and western politics and views can't be applied to every corner of the world. I can agree that Days Gone was attacked, and unlike Part 2, due to these sites being so heavily political biased it did do some damage.

anast5d ago

I am at least showing the group was large enough of a concern for a journal to publish an article.

Where's your evidence?

Crows905d ago

He's not looking for evidence. Don't bother with him.

Crows906d ago

The last of us part 2 was bad story wise. Not some nonsense that you speak of...most of the negative people were random...lots of the critical reception from anything other than mainstream journalism thought that the game had huge problems.

Angry Joe and skill up being prime examples of that...unless of course like most socialists out there you wanna just lable people.

anast5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

Where's your evidence?

Crows905d ago

@anast

Oh geez...Twitter is full of trolls...common sense.
The YouTube critics I mentioned are innocent till proven guilty. And proven with facts not opinions. I gave you evidence of 2 prominent youtubers and yet you ask for more...either you can't read or you aren't looking for evidence.

As far as groups being "large" for journos to get their panties all tied up...well then again you must be extremely gullible. As if we haven't seen thousands of articles claiming players are offended, angry or backlashing based solely on 1 or 2 posts. They love grabbing very specific individuals and using them to represent a much larger base....whatever is convenient to them making the case that gamers bad and journos good.

coolbeans5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

-"saying something is "cringe" doesn't prove me wrong. You just throw words out and hope they stick. Bring some evidence to prove me otherwise."

It doesn't "prove" it, but I have a solid success rate with the term - which seems to be the case here too. With regards to your article, I should break this down into parts:

1.) For starters, bleating for countering "evidence" after brandishing a media analysis paper (or papers) shouldn't be treated as some kind of trump card. That's not to say these researchers did nothing, mind you. Only that expecting counter-ideologies within this field who'll make this specific kind of work for TLOU Pt. II is absurdly demanding on its face. Nevermind the probability of non-progressive types getting the administrative approval being next to nil, but that's another can of worms.

2.) While I have critiques about x or y (some anecdotes being more flimsy than others, GG speculation, etc.), let's say for this argument that it's a solid piece overall. Having read the whole thing, there is literally *NOTHING* that validates the broad brush with which you painted TLOU2 critics in your first comment (speaking as someone who thinks it's a good game). The discussion about alt-fans, anti-fans, etc. does paint an ugly picture about the TLOU subreddit, Twitter users, certain YouTubers, and more; however, there's no positive declaration about TLOU2's critics ending at these particular clusters either. Even if you say "most, not all" in your first comment, that still seems overly broad compared to the text I read. (EDIT: That's not to disregard the nastiness or modest size in its own right.)

It's also worth noting how much of that paper's material is inspecting a pre-/at-release sort of backlash. But the game's been out for several years now. More and more people who AREN'T incels, homophobes, closet Nazis have played it past 2020 and you don't really see this new broad consensus about its accomplishments; in fact, you see more of a continued split over whether or not it deserves such monumental praise. Here's just a few other sub-communities near its release that don't fit your description:

- https://www.youtube.com/wat...
- https://www.youtube.com/wat...
- https://www.youtube.com/wat...

-"Because NG4 defended it doesn't mean NG4 is the gospel of gaming."

Correct, but you're just solidifying my point. Even PS fans elsewhere (social media or gaming forums) don't go to bat for The Order with the enthusiasm and consistency they do here in my experience. That's what makes your assessment of "anti-Sony Xbox fans" so fascinating to me.

anast5d ago

1) Speculation and emotion

2) Speculation and emotion

2a) Might be an argument if you gave me something other than your own opinion and emotions over the subject, but it's left as an anecdote without any real research. By the way, we can't negate the at release behavior, because it fits your narrative. It existed and those groups were involved.

The article is not a trump card and the fact that you seem to think so is more troubling on your end than mine. The article was to see if you could find other people that researched this phenomenon and we can have a conversation, but you still refuse to do this. Instead you wrote a sermon, which is a shame because maybe you had something with point "2a: It's also worth..." But this point still tries to side step actual events.

The final point doesn't solidify anything unless you are trying to solidify your own opinion. Albeit, it is passive aggressive, which is strange.

coolbeans4d ago

-"Speculation and emotion"

I mean... okay? Where am I wrong on 2.) though? Asking for a conflicting media studies research paper on this specific topic is already a random ask, given the environment with which these are made.

-"Might be an argument if you gave me something other than your own opinion and emotions over the subject, but it's left as an anecdote without any real research."

Wait. Just so we're clear: a research paper that focuses most of its attention towards a subreddit and social media comments to Neil Druckmann means you get to sustain your overly broad claims while contrary social media sources that don't exhibit the same kind of "alt-fan/anti-fan" rhetoric can't be counted? Now I feel even more confident in my initial assessment b/c all you're after is just whatever can be found with some accreditation behind it - regardless of quality.

-"By the way, we can't negate the at release behavior, because it fits your narrative. It existed and those groups were involved."

That's the thing: I never said they wasn't a sizable contingent of that either. From the start, my response was just how wild it was to paint *MOST* detractors with such a broad brush. I still don't think I'm off-base in saying it's cringe to just say "most people who shit on x game are closet Nazis or bigots of some sort," especially when your research doesn't really validate that.

-"The article is not a trump card and the fact that you seem to think so is more troubling on your end than mine."

Bro, you literally responded with "Bring some evidence to prove me otherwise.... You're up. Maybe you can change my mind." I don't really see how I'm speaking out of turn there given this and your original comment.

-"The article was to see if you could find other people that researched this phenomenon and we can have a conversation, but you still refuse to do this."

If no other people *HAVE* researched this phenomenon, then I don't see how the next best option is highly-popular sources which counter your original claim. Given that all you're promoting is a media studies paper hyper-focusing on a specific cluster of media, why wouldn't other forms of media work as some kind of substitute? That's not side-stepping events in the slightest.

-"The final point doesn't solidify anything unless you are trying to solidify your own opinion. Albeit, it is passive aggressive, which is strange."

I don't know what that first sentence means, honestly.

Look, I'll just put it like this: try to have a frank conversation about The Order on some other non-N4G gaming forum. There isn't going to be this clean split between 'Sony fans' and 'Xbox fans' that love it or hate it. Ask Sony fans how they'd feel about paying full-price for it and you're not going to get the ardent defenses compared to some of its most popular comment sections here.

anast4d ago

Still no evidence. I ask for you to bring contrary evidence, so maybe I might change my mind, all research can be falsifiable. This is what you are missing. We are thinking in two different universes.

You are writing sermons, which is a waste of everyone's time including yours. Bring some research and we will discuss it. As of now you have only brought superstitions.

coolbeans4d ago

-"I ask for you to bring contrary evidence, so maybe I might change my mind, all research can be falsifiable."

But I literally read YOUR evidence and it doesn't support the broader claims you made at the start. I'm not sure where else to go with that.

-"Bring some research and we will discuss it. As of now you have only brought superstitions."

Bro, leveraging this kind of language is so wild in the face of what you've provided. It's like unless those different communities I linked where fused together in a random media studies paper, you'd magically consider it valid. I don't understand how you're leveraging that, especially when it doesn't fortify your initial claim. You're basically retorting to me writing too much, regardless of the content itself. Just the oddest conversation with you thus far and I don't quite get it.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 4d ago
D0nkeyBoi6d ago

Amazing gameplay, but TLOU2 had one of the worst, most convoluted and uneccessary plots I ever seen in a sequel. Terrible story and the characters were forgettable. I didn't give an F about anyone in the story.

Inverno6d ago

I don't think any of these divided fans, other than LoU2. The rest were either victims of biased reviews or just generally agreed that they weren't as good as they could've been or just overall disappointing.

160°

Batman: Arkham Knight Still Runs Poorly On Switch Despite Massive Update

Batman: Arkham Knight wasn't in the best shape when it swooped onto Switch at the end of last year. Fortunately, the game has today received a monster 16GB update, one that's guaranteed to fix all of its problems, right? Well...

Read Full Story >>
nintendolife.com
CrimsonWing6950d ago

I dunno, the game runs fine on PS4 and PS5… I think this might be a Switch thing.

_SilverHawk_50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

Batman arkham knight shouldn't be on the switch as well as many other titles on the ps4 and xbox one because the switch will have the worst version that always perform poorly

The switch 2 will have the same dilemma as the later years of the switches life cycle because any AAA multiplatform games on switch 2 will most likely be the worst version to own because that game will be available elsewhere with way better performance and visuals.

The switch gained quite a bit of success because it was the only portable console available to play a lot of AAA multiplatform games but today there are many alternative handheld consoles that are better than the switch 2. Nintendo will be Nintendo so hoping for the latest cutting edge technologies to be in the switch 2 isn't being realistic while knowing Nintendo likes to make quite a bit of profit on sales of their hardware

Knightofelemia50d ago

Because the game was built to run on the PS4 and the PS5 won't have issues because it plays PS4 games. It is a Switch thing this game is asking a lot out of the little hybrid hand held system.

_SilverHawk_50d ago

When it comes to Nintendos gaming systems people need to stop making excuses for games running poorly on it because the switch was made 4 years after the ps4 and xbox one. It doesn't matter that the switch is a handheld console that can also be docked to play on a television.

There are so many games I played on the switch where the performance is very poor dropping the frames per second into the teens constantly but reviewers and a lot of gamers excuse the issues as it's a weak Nintendo handheld.

I can already see that a lot of people will be making excuses for issues when it comes to the switch 2 when they need to be highlighted like games on other gaming platforms. These gaming companies have years to research and develop the necessary components to make gaming consoles and Nintendo shouldn't get a pass for making shoddy hardware.

Amplitude50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

Silverhawk: "the switch was made 4 years after the ps4 and xbox one. It doesn't matter that the switch is a handheld"

What? Yes it does. How do you have more agrees than disagrees? You expected a small inexpensive 2017 Tegra in a Nintendo handheld console with a heavy focus on battery life to be as powerful as a PS4 home console that's powered by a wall and plugged into a large TV? No offence man but that's psychotic. I doubt even the Switch 2 will be running anything close to God of War Ragnarok. The Steam Deck can come quite close in some aspects but jeeze. You're talking about a budget 2017 handheld lol seeing it run Arkham Knight at all is an insane feat. Probably shouldn't have even been attempted in the first place but it's at least kind of cool that it's possible

DLSS and potentially VRR could be a huge game changer for Switch 2 but power constraints in a handheld are a very real thing. Even in 2025 you're not gonna get what you're looking for in a handheld unless you go the expensive handheld PC route and suffer through brutal battery life. Certainly not from Nintendo lol that's not their thing.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 50d ago
Sgt_Slaughter50d ago

Another rushed port job, it's disappointing to see better looking games run/perform better than a game from 2015

Terry_B50d ago

To be honest. Batman Arkham Knight looked a lot better in 2015 than almost every..if not exactly every game released for the Nintendo Switch since 2017.

It needed a big downgrade like The Witcher 3 or Mortal Kombat 11, 1 to run well on this weak hardware.

Neonridr50d ago

if The Witcher 3 can run on this thing at a respectable framerate, there is zero excuse for other games.

But that's because the dev took their time and optimized it properly. It wasn't a rush job like so many 3rd party games.

Terry_B50d ago

@neoridr ..look how Witcher 3 looks in comparison to other versions. (Pretty much like a last gen version of it..but yes it runs well at least)

While Batman AK on Switch looks more like the PS4 /XB Versions but runs worse of course.

As said..it needed a big visual downgrade and did not receive it.Porting it to the Switch was a damn dumb idea anyway.

Knightofelemia50d ago

Dummying down a game that is meant to run on XB1 and PS4 is going to be challenging to run on a system that is probably as powerful as a PS3. I give them a congrats for bringing it to the Switch and I hope this challenge pays off for them. As for me grabbing Arkham Knight on the Switch I am good I have the PS4 version.

Phoenix7650d ago

Batman: Arkham Knight Still Runs Poorly On Switch Despite Massive Update........ But is still a better game than suicide squad *fixed the title*

Show all comments (16)