Batman: Arkham Knight Will Be Available On PC In A Few Weeks Claims WB Games

Written by Neil Soutter on Tue, Sep 22, 2015 4:30 PM
System Requirements Optimum 1080p PC Build Low vs Ultra Screenshots GPU Performance Chart CPU List That Meet System Requirements GPU List That Meet System Requirements

The wait has been long, and more than a bit arduous, but Warner Bros Games has finally announced the PC version of Batman: Arkham Knight will be available to buy in a matter of weeks. The eagle-eyed among you will note Arkham Knight was available on June 23rd on PC, but it was swiftly removed from sale following consumer backlash over its disastrous performance.

Since then we’ve had a teeny tiny update followed by the Interim update (Benchmarks) a fortnight ago, and if all goes to plan we should get a big proper update as Batman: Arkham Knight goes on sale. Then, and only then, do we have a fit for consumption Batman: Arkham Knight on PC. That’ll be October then, so just the four months late.

Warner Bros treatment of Rocksteady’s by-all-accounts excellent open-world adventure has left a sour taste in most people’s mouths though, so it would be quite the surprise if it could muster up a great deal of interest at this late stage.

If you are still waiting for Batman: Arkham Knight however, then rest assured Rocksteady is still beavering away on Season Pass content, which should be making it over to PC eventually. The newest additions are the 2008 Tumbler Batmobile Pack, which is the one from the Nolan movies, and the original Arkham Batman Skin.

Still to come as downloadable content for Batman: Arkham Knight is the Batman Classic TV Series Batmobile Pack, Crime Fighter Challenge Pack #3, and a new story pack where players can step into the highheeled boots of Catwoman. Dubbed Catwoman’s Revenge, it’s set after the events of Batman:: Arkham Knight.

If you're hanging on in there for the PC version, check out the exclusive graphical features you can expect, along with the performance hit. 

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
44
Offline
18:50 Sep-23-2015

Well its nice that a fixed version is coming out soon, now give me complete edition with all DLCs and you have my money.

5
Rep
8
Offline
23:48 Sep-24-2015

Either that or put it on sale for $20 pls.

3
Rep
75
Offline
13:30 Sep-28-2015

Don't you mean $10? :-p

0
Rep
8
Offline
01:41 Sep-29-2015

Wouldn't be a bad idea considering how they spat on the entire PC platform with their release.

1
Rep
75
Offline
16:41 Sep-29-2015

Oh look, someone heard you, complete with season pass....http://www.g2play.net/category/17496/batman-arkham-knight-premium-edition-steam-cd-key/

0
Rep
5
Offline
17:01 Sep-23-2015

so will we get it this month or next

0
Rep
35
Offline
17:03 Sep-23-2015

In few weeks so that's at the beginning of October.

0
Rep
12
Offline
15:50 Sep-23-2015

Trust me.i'll buy it.when it's 100% off.
em so excited.^_^

5
Rep
7
Offline
06:43 Sep-23-2015

I'll still buy it... When it's 75% off.

5
Rep
50
Offline
08:07 Sep-23-2015

what??

-3
Rep
139
Offline
admin badge
17:57 Sep-23-2015

HE SAID HE'LL BUY IT WHEN ITS 75% OFF lol

5
Rep
49
Offline
03:29 Sep-23-2015

just like to chime in a little here to defend nvidia "cant believe i said that lol" but alot of people blame gameworks for the state of this game when it isnt the case as stated below it was outsourced ect. back to gameworks tho people get hurt at the performance impact of the features but forget they r meant as addons

2
Rep
49
Offline
03:33 Sep-23-2015

for people who have spent serious money on the best gpus they offer, there not meant for like a 750ti as an example, i understand the frustration or whatever but to be fair those people with really expensive card/s should be entitled to the extra features after all theyve paid for them. . . just wanted to say that lol

2
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
03:05 Sep-23-2015

I wanted this game, but I waited. I am glad that I waited now after all of this crap happened. I am still interested in getting this game, but I will be waiting for a good sale on a complete edition.

0
Rep
7
Offline
02:32 Sep-23-2015

I didn't see what all the fuss was about... I was getting an avg 48fps on Ultra with 2 out of 4 of the Nvidia settings turned on. That's on a pretty modest rig. I think most of the complaints are from people running PC's that are too outdated to expect to play modern games with high settings.


Either that or I'm missing something in the conversation...

-1
Rep
11
Offline
11:58 Sep-23-2015

My game ran like a pile of sh!t, and i'm pretty sure i should be able to max it out on 1080p without problems with my rig.

2
Rep
35
Offline
16:59 Sep-23-2015

Stop talking out of your ass, there's no way you're getting that unless the CPU makes THAT big of a difference.

0
Rep
569
Offline
admin approved badge
17:39 Sep-23-2015

Maybe he is talking about what he is getting at the moment, not when it first came out. And yes, it's possible that his cpu is making that big of a difference.

1
Rep
35
Offline
18:26 Sep-23-2015

The keyword in his original post is "was", "I WAS getting..." which implies that it was before the patch. I might be wrong but that's what he made it seem like. And if his processor is making that big of a difference, then heck, I gotta invest not in a new graphics card but a CPU!

0
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
00:26 Sep-24-2015

It all depends on how the game is coded. Some games actually make good use of hyper threading. A lot more now days than a few years ago. Probably because these new games are being built for 8 core consoles first.

1
Rep
7
Offline
16:27 Sep-26-2015

Sorry for the confusion, I wrote "WAS" because I haven't played it in a long time. And yes, those are the frame rates I was getting shortly after it was initially released. Maybe I just got lucky, I don't know. It's been so long since I've even played that game though, I have no idea what kind of difference the patch made.


I don't see why I got the downvotes, just posting my experience with it.

1
Rep
35
Offline
18:11 Sep-26-2015

It sounds extremely unlikely to get more than 30fps on ultra with half of the Gameworks turned on with an AMD GPU, that's all... :D

0
Rep
7
Offline
19:29 Sep-26-2015

Thats ok with me. I was just reporting my own experience. Your thoughts on that don't affect me whatsoever

0
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
17:51 Sep-23-2015

When the console version (PS4) somehow looks better than the PC version on max settings, you know they ****ed up!

2
Rep
35
Offline
18:29 Sep-23-2015

Seeing that we have an almost identical rig, what settings are you running it on? I have it set on 1080p and I get 35-40fps but I have enormous stuttering issues, especially when turning around 360 degrees quickly. I'm running it on Win 7 Pro x64.

0
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
20:35 Sep-23-2015

No, I don't have the game yet. I'm buying when it re-releases next month.

1
Rep
35
Offline
18:45 Sep-24-2015

Ah... How do you know it looks better if you don't have a live side-by-side comparison?

0
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
19:26 Sep-24-2015

YouTube comparisons, but nevermind that the video I saw filled with bs. They switched the platform names, making it seem like the PC version was on the PS4.

0
Rep
35
Offline
19:29 Sep-24-2015

A YouTube video can still be tampered with, the only way to be sure the PS4 version looks and runs better than PC on similar hardware (eg. the GTX 660 and CPUs we have) is to have both machines physically in front of you, playing the game. But yeah, videos are fairly good way too.

0
Rep
97
Offline
22:25 Sep-22-2015

Already have the game did not play it till now, hope it will be worth after wait to play

1
Rep
-10
Offline
21:59 Sep-22-2015

Got that with my gpu upgrade #fail

0
Rep
3
Offline
00:01 Sep-23-2015

Me too...

0
Rep
212
Offline
admin approved badge
20:19 Sep-22-2015

Everybody is saying too late and I'm here biting my fingers off because I already chomped through the nails waiting for a proper release for this game. As a Batman fan and Arkham Series fan the wait is torture. I will play this till my eyes bleed.

0
Rep
1
Offline
18:27 Sep-22-2015

Too late, and with Mad Max and MG Phantom Pain, is doomed.

11
Rep
132
Offline
18:20 Sep-22-2015

Completed this game just last week, ran quite well without the Nvidia features. Too bad the game was plagued on release, otherwise a decent ending to the trilogy.

7
Rep
569
Offline
admin approved badge
19:10 Sep-22-2015

It is pretty sad. This game's reputation will forever be tarnished because of the original state it was in. It's definitely a very good game (depending on whose opinion you get).

4
Rep
-7
Offline
04:15 Sep-23-2015

played with everything on had to restart pc every hour to deal with frame drops but ill say even after all this trouble this was the best batman game ive played.

0
Rep
31
Offline
admin approved badge
17:42 Sep-22-2015

Ohhh , right , Arkham Knight.. Ain't nobody got time fo' that?

1
Rep
75
Offline
17:39 Sep-22-2015

Too late, too late...

18
Rep
47
Offline
17:36 Sep-22-2015

Oh good it's been way too long.We should've had this ages ago.

12
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
16:59 Sep-22-2015

I'm only getting this for a subscriber that requested a benchmark with the GTX 660. I disapprove with the unacceptable practice Rocksteady Studios had with the PC release. I would not be buying this if not for my subscriber.

4
Rep
569
Offline
admin approved badge
16:54 Sep-22-2015

The game runs practically flawless for me now (everything on highest settings without any Nvidia stuff and getting 60 fps). Hope everyone else gets the same results.

2
Rep
55
Offline
admin approved badge
16:55 Sep-22-2015

Ran fantastic for me to begin with (other than pop-in textures). I did see an small increase in fps with the interim patch though.

0
Rep
28
Offline
18:53 Sep-22-2015

Yeah, there was a lot of texture pop-in for me too, but otherwise it ran fine. Not really that surprising, given the similarity of our rigs. That said... even running well, I didn't think this game was that good. Way overhyped. Easily worse than Asylum and City, arguably worse than Origins.

0
Rep
0
Offline
21:53 Sep-22-2015

I know what you mean. if i were to rank these by all the arkham games, It would be fourth with 1 being city, followed by asylum and orgiins. Too much batmobile really killed for it me and took away from the fact i could glide faster.

1
Rep
3
Offline
00:04 Sep-23-2015

If it wasn't for SO MANY TANK MISSIONS, I'd say it would be right between AA and AC.

1
Rep
569
Offline
admin approved badge
16:55 Sep-22-2015

By same results, I mean runs flawlessly of course. :)

0
Rep
41
Offline
16:58 Sep-22-2015

yeah there's a reason it works so well on your pc. the same thing happened with ac unity. high end pcs ran it well with almost no problem everybody else not so much :/

1
Rep
60
Offline
20:59 Sep-22-2015

Wow don t you have a bottleneck ?

0
Rep
8
Online
16:47 Sep-22-2015

I completed the game 100% after the interim patch. I am not going to reinstall it again. Maybe after 2-3 years if i want to replay the Arkham games.

0
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
16:36 Sep-22-2015

After the whole fiasco with this game and how useless gameworks is you couldn't pay me to play this game. I wish amd did the same to cripple games for nvidia users because this is RIDICULOUS.

-5
Rep
262
Offline
admin approved badge
16:40 Sep-22-2015

BAK runs just as worse for Nvidia users, this has to do with the fact that the PC version was outsourced and had to be made in just 2 weeks, not gameworks

4
Rep
35
Offline
16:41 Sep-22-2015

I completely agree, I want to upgrade to an AMD GPU to get an all AMD rig but I'm concerned about performance of games because Nvidia pays the devs to cripple the games for AMD users...

-3
Rep
55
Offline
admin approved badge
16:53 Sep-22-2015

LOL

5
Rep
569
Offline
admin approved badge
17:03 Sep-22-2015

Your tinfoil hat might be a bit too tight I fear...

2
Rep
35
Offline
17:46 Sep-22-2015

Really...? I used to own an AMD card that was pretty much identical to the 660 I have now. I tried to play the Arkham games after upgrading to my 660, saw a +10fps change. And the last time I checked, there was no tinfoil hat on my head when I tested it...

0
Rep
569
Offline
admin approved badge
18:17 Sep-22-2015

The problem there is that you say "pretty much identical". There really can't be an identical match between the two companies.


The tinfoil hat remark was towards you saying that Nvidia pays devs to cripple games for AMD users. Where do you get this from? Gameworks? That has nothing to do with paying devs to cripple another competitors product. It's a business partnership. Nothing more. AMD worked alongside DICE for Battlefield 4 to have Mantle support. It's the same thing.

3
Rep
35
Offline
18:50 Sep-22-2015

The problem is that some people aren't as fortunate as you and can't afford that hardware (BTW killer rig! And that S5 to top it off... :3) and it really makes a difference if the game has been optimized properly for Nvidia AND AMD hardware. And I wouldn't even DARE to dream of Gameworks or PhysX on an AMD card.

0
Rep
35
Offline
18:55 Sep-22-2015

And for the AMD GPU I had/still have sitting in its box, it's the Radeon HD 6970 PowerColor 2GB Edition.

-1
Rep
569
Offline
admin approved badge
19:08 Sep-22-2015

You shouldn't assume I am more fortunate than others. I actually won my 970 in a bet. :P

0
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
04:47 Sep-23-2015

Gotta love this site, be honest and bash nvidia and here comes the downvotes haha. There was people with nvidia cards day one who could play it just fine. Face it that a lot more problems occured on gpu cards then nvidia.

1
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
11:37 Sep-23-2015

Mantle is totally different then gameworks or the fact that nvidia doesn't have open support for games they help develop and code. Why do you think for most games they have a day 1 driver and it takes amd weeks?

0
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
11:38 Sep-23-2015

Mantle is like dx 12 hence why amd pretty much helped develop it.Gameworks is gameworks its an add on just like physx was back in the day. If you don't think nvidia optimizes its games to work better with there cards youre ignorant.

0

Can They Run... |

Core i7-10750H 6-Core 2.60GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile 16GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 720p
Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Radeon HD 6670 v2 Gigabyte OC 1GB Edition 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 720p
Core i3-1005G1 2-Core 1.20GHz UHD Graphics 630 4GB
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Core i5-10400F 6-Core 2.90GHz Radeon RX 560 4GB 16GB
Ryzen 5 2600X 6-Core 3.6GHz Radeon RX 5600 XT Gigabyte Gaming OC 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-10700 8-Core 2.90GHz GeForce RTX 2060 6GB 16GB
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 7 4800H 8-Core 2.9GHz GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-9300H 4-Core 2.4GHz GeForce GTX 1650 8GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 3060 16GB
50% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-3470 3.2GHz Radeon RX 470 Sapphire Nitro+ 8GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-10870H 8-Core 2.20GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Asus ROG STRIX Gaming 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3400G 4-Core 3.7GHz GeForce RTX 2060 6GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 7 3750H 4-Core 2.3 GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-6800K 6-Core 3.4GHz GeForce GTX 1080 Asus ROG Strix Gaming OC 8GB Edition 32GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-10700 8-Core 2.90GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Gigabyte D5 2GB 8GB
0% No [1 votes]
Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 2070 Gigabyte Windforce 8GB 16GB
100% Yes [4 votes]
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core 3.8GHz GeForce RTX 3070 EVGA FTW3 Ultra Gaming 8GB 32GB
80% Yes [5 votes]
| 60FPS, Low, 720p
APU A8-7410 Quad-Core Radeon R5 7410 8GB
100% Yes [4 votes]