Support NeoGAF

[Kezen]

I said 'core' of a last-gen engine - it's going to have limits, heavily modified or not.

How technically impressive you find it I guess depends on your perspective, but I find the scaling options and subsequent performance of whatever engine Shadow of Mordor uses to be much more commendable. I do think it is impressive that Rocksteady got AK working so well on consoles at least, given the low performance GPUs but they have ample VRAM so optimising for less was never an issue with those platforms. It is a nice looking game but I don't see it as technically impressive on PC.

For my part I'm really in awe. You can tell immediately it's UE3 but Rockstready have managed to make so much with it it's incredible. SoW does not have anywhere near as much going on, so it's no surprise it runs better overall.

Really as much as the game had unpredictable performance before the patch, post-patch it's nearly perfect on my system. Once again I put emphasis on "my", because I can't guarantee to anybody else a good experience even on beefy specs.

 

[Drama Zed Nod]

Texture quality and the sheer visual quality on display.


I don't know how you can compare those two to AK really, it's irrelevant how X game runs, what matters is what are the technical reasons behind the performance. MGS 5, to me, is really not in the same ballpart tech wise. To the surprise of no one it's less taxing.


I do, therefore the VRAM requirements don't surprise me in the slightest. Next : Assassin's Creed Syndicate which is probably not going to look very good with only 2gb of video memory, again not suprising considering how the scope.

I guess my point is are the technical reasons legit because of the graphical quality or is it due to continued bad optimization? It's not a secret that AK launched essentially broken.

I think AK looks great but i also think Witcher 3, MGZV, Mad Max, Dying Light all look equally as great and the performance on those games is vastly superior. They also have working SLI profiles. I understand this still isn't fixed on AK after all this time?

 

[Kezen]

I guess my point is are the technical reasons legit because of the graphical quality or is it due to continued bad optimization? It's not a secret that AK launched essentially broken.

It did launch broken but it's no longer in such a pitiful state, on my PC at least. I firmly believe the game justifies its requirements which was decidedly NOT the case until the second patch.

I think AK looks great but i also think Witcher 3, MGZV, Mad Max, Dying Light all look equally as great and the performance on those games is vastly superior. They also have working SLI profiles. I understand this still isn't fixed on AK after all this time?

I would not say either MGS game or The Witcher 3 look as "good" in my eyes, the latter is more massive in scope but AK is quite the stunner on a more limited scale.

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any reasons to be upset by hardware demands of such a game.

Technology costs.

 

[Spirited]

If the lowest settings use 2 GB of VRAM then it's not good yet, I hope they fix the VRAM issues in the next patch.

Also I still can't wrap my head around how someone with a 980 can defend the crazy amount of VRAM this game uses for textures that is about as good as most games have nowadays, like come on, you shouldn't have to shell out 500€+ on graphic cards just to not have stutter in this game.
It seems like the devs agree as they havn't put it up for sale yet.

 

[Kezen]

If the lowest settings use 2 GB of VRAM then it's not good yet, I hope they fix the VRAM issues in the next patch.

And why is that ? 2gb is not much at all. You get what you pay for at the end.

Also I still can't wrap my head around how someone with a 980 can defend the crazy amount of VRAM this game uses for textures that is about as good as most games have nowadays, like come on, you shouldn't have to shell out 500€+ on graphic cards just to not have stutter in this game.
It seems like the devs agree as they havn't put it up for sale yet.

You seem confused.

Yes, I don't think there is anything wrong with a game using 4gb of VRAM at 1080p considering how it looks. I also assume (perhaps wrongly) that some textures must be physically resident in memory even though they're not near the player because streaming from system ram to VRAM is not always fast enough. Hence why the game, maybe, stores more textures than actually necessary for safety reasons.

Don't forget that you can travel the environment at blistering speeds and this puts quite a lot of strain on the streaming system.

Overall I'm highly impressed by how well this game runs on my system. I was not expecting such drastic performance improvements.

You also don't need "500€" worth of GPU gear to have a stutter free experience as long as you accept the limitations of your hardware and set the texture setting accordingly.
I'm sorry if you thought VRAM requirements would not go up, they did and they will continue to do so.

 

[Mad Season]

why does it say im using an outdated video card driver when I have the latest nvidia driver?

 

[c0Zm1c]

If the lowest settings use 2 GB of VRAM then it's not good yet, I hope they fix the VRAM issues in the next patch.

Also I still can't wrap my head around how someone with a 980 can defend the crazy amount of VRAM this game uses for textures that is about as good as most games have nowadays, like come on, you shouldn't have to shell out 500€+ on graphic cards just to not have stutter in this game.
It seems like the devs agree as they havn't put it up for sale yet.

To be fair, 2GB of VRAM is the minimum requirement. I don't think it's a comfortable minimum though and I expect the system requirements to change (be higher) when it goes back on sale. It did seem a bit weird that the minimum for AMD cards was 3GB and only 2GB for Nvidia cards. Was any reason ever given for that?

It's ironic that 2GB is also the minimum VRAM requirement for Mad Max, yet that game runs at max settings very easily on a 2GB card. It stole all of AK's frames haha!

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

I would not say either MGS game or The Witcher 3 look as "good" in my eyes, the latter is more massive in scope but AK is quite the stunner on a more limited scale.

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any reasons to be upset by hardware demands of such a game.

Technology costs.

You are mistaking art direction for actual tech.
MGS5 is definitely ahead of AK when it comes to textures, character models and lighting, it just isn't as crowded or heavily stylised like AK.
The difference is performance is straight up because of UE3, it was never meant to be an engine for massive open areas, heavily modifying it so it can is the main reason why it doesn't run as well as it should and why the vram/ram requirements are so high.

Same thing happened to MTF when capcom had to modify it for dragon's dogma, there was a bunch of pop in and slugglish-ness because the engine was designed for smaller areas, which is why RE5 especially still looks fantastic.

I'd say AC:Unity is justified in its requirements, it's a giant world packed with activity and really impressive tech (the lighting is still just the best yet), AK however has its requirements clearly bloated by this frankestein monster of an UE3.

 

[Dmax3901]

So everything was going relatively fine with this new patch, but I've just had two crashes in the last hour Just "AK has stopped working" windows errors.

 

[jett]

Okay, AMD's beta drivers seem to have done the trick. I'd qualify this game as playable right now. It still stutters occasionally when you drive the batmobile but it's manageable. This game is still a technical disaster as far as I'm concerned. Whenever I turn the camera or when I'm in motion in the batmobile, the framerate drops, but as soon as I stand still again the framerate crawls back up. What is this shit?

It seems that the average framerate on my 280X is 50~55fps on foot, drops to 45~ on the batmobile. I actually believe this is somewhat worse than what I had before, where I seemed to constantly reach 60fp son foot (before the game eventually crapped out). But I'm not experience unplayable drops to 0fps for lengthy periods of time anymore, so the memory leak seems to have been relatively contained. I'm just running everything on normal and on 1080p. Lowering the resolution improves the framerate but fuck no that. Overclocking the CPU does exactly zilch, as usual. Are there any modern games that give a fuck about CPU power btw?

Oh well. It's too bad these uneven framerate always feel so much worse on a PC than on a console, for some reason, to me, anyway. I guess I'll finally play this game...after I'm done with MGSV.

 

[Luftwaffle]

Okay, AMD's beta drivers seem to have done the trick. I'd qualify this game as playable right now. It still stutters occasionally when you drive the batmobile but it's manageable. This game is still a technical disaster as far as I'm concerned. Whenever I turn the camera or when I'm in motion in the batmobile, the framerate drops, but as soon as I stand still again the framerate crawls back up. What is this shit?

It seems that the average framerate on my 280X is 50~55fps on foot, drops to 45~ on the batmobile. I actually believe this is somewhat worse than what I had before, where I seemed to constantly reach 60fp son foot (before the game eventually crapped out). But I'm not experience unplayable drops to 0fps for lengthy periods of time anymore, so the memory leak seems to have been relatively contained. I'm just running everything on normal and on 1080p. Lowering the resolution improves the framerate but fuck no that. Overclocking the CPU does exactly zilch, as usual. Are there any modern games that give a fuck about CPU power btw?

Oh well. It's too bad these uneven framerate always feel so much worse on a PC than on a console, for some reason, to me, anyway. I guess I'll finally play this game...after I'm done with MGSV.

I've experienced the same thing on a 970. The game is playable, but it is a mess. Looking around drops my FPS from 60 to 30, but after a second of leaving it still, it will go back up to 60. Makes no sense.

 

[Delt31]

after playing it, I realized to keep 60 fps at 1080p on my 980 (i3750k) I can have everything maxed including gameworks EXCEPT for interactive fog. I can also turn shadows to normal and keep fog on. Which one would you choose - keep interactive fog, shadows at high or turn off the interactive paper?

 

[Needlecrash]

Game seems to run much better when the driver is updated. Game ran fine when it's running at 60FPS.

 

[SliChillax]

after playing it, I realized to keep 60 fps at 1080p on my 980 (i3750k) I can have everything maxed including gameworks EXCEPT for interactive fog. I can also turn shadows to normal and keep fog on. Which one would you choose - keep interactive fog, shadows at high or turn off the interactive paper?

I would choose the fog and shadows to normal. Depends though, do slightly blurrier shadows distract you? I don't mind them personally, would rather have more atmospheric effect than crispy shadows.

 

[Buburibon]

I would choose the fog and shadows to normal. Depends though, do slightly blurrier shadows distract you? I don't mind them personally, would rather have more atmospheric effect than crispy shadows.

IIRC the high shadows setting includes more accurate AO, doesn't it? If that's indeed the case it's a tough choice. If not, it's a no brainer, fog over higher resolution shadows any day.

 

[M_A_C]

Maybe I'm crazy but turning off AA seems to help FPS a lot, and it doesn't negatively effect the image quality much if at all.

 

[paolo11]

SLI in Arkham Knight still needs to be fixed. SLI is not working on this game.

 

[Delt31]

I would choose the fog and shadows to normal. Depends though, do slightly blurrier shadows distract you? I don't mind them personally, would rather have more atmospheric effect than crispy shadows.

forget it - I thought it was one or the other but I can't get a stable 60 with that interactive fog on. In fact even with it off, the game has stutter here and there. It's def better but should be even more so. At least now I can play it and have 60 80% of the time.

 

[Pepiope]

So, I was looking to get back into this game since the patch came out, but steam says I already own it despite getting it refunded. Is that just because it's not back on sale, or did WB let the early adopters keep the game as an apology for their fuck-up?

 

[ST3K3LLY]

Just to catch up before I start this game again, does the High texture setting not make much visual difference?

 

[Call Me A Hero]

It seems to work fine after the patch for high end PCs, mid end PCs are not able to run the game smoothly and low end PCs are suffering a lot and can't run smoothly at all even on the lowest settings with every effect turned off.

The game is still not optimized for PC.

 

[demolitio]

It's nice finally getting to play this as it's now 100000x better than it was at launch. Still not perfect, but I don't feel like I'm missing anything anymore.

What a gorgeous game. The only issue I have no is occasionally freezing for a second or two when entering a new area and I can't tell if that's a common game issue that others have or because I moved the game off of my SSD.

 

[TheVampire]

Is it much better with CA and Film Grain turned off?

 

[23qwerty]

Is it much better with CA and Film Grain turned off?

That would be entirely personal preference my friend, unless you're asking about performance where the difference should be negligible.

 

[lordfuzzybutt]

Is it much better with CA and Film Grain turned off?

Imo, it is much cleaner and sharper.
However, the city and lights in the distance can look a bit flat.

 

[Kezen]

You are mistaking art direction for actual tech.
MGS5 is definitely ahead of AK when it comes to textures, character models and lighting, it just isn't as crowded or heavily stylised like AK.
The difference is performance is straight up because of UE3, it was never meant to be an engine for massive open areas, heavily modifying it so it can is the main reason why it doesn't run as well as it should and why the vram/ram requirements are so high.

Same thing happened to MTF when capcom had to modify it for dragon's dogma, there was a bunch of pop in and slugglish-ness because the engine was designed for smaller areas, which is why RE5 especially still looks fantastic.

I'd say AC:Unity is justified in its requirements, it's a giant world packed with activity and really impressive tech (the lighting is still just the best yet), AK however has its requirements clearly bloated by this frankestein monster of an UE3.

I don't think character models look better in MGS 5 at all, maybe the lighting, but overall I would say AK is significantly ahead, many reflections, a stunning amount of geometry on display, superb rain effects as well. MGS 5 looks rather dated, its cross-gen roots rearing their ugly heads at every turn.

I'm impressed how well it runs on my 980/I7 4770K. Wasn't expecting it to be so smooth, but I'm running the game off my Samsung 840 Evo SSD. No idea what happens on a mechanical drive.

 

[Awntawn]

Played a little more today. Don't seem to be having the rain glitch on my end.

Noticed that fullscreen mode got rid of the microstutter on my 970. Runs smooth at 60 for the most part with everything on except smoke, except...

There are some parts where the framerate tanks to the 30-40 range, particularly around Wayne tower and a few other spots. The odd part about it is that my GPU usage also tanks and doesn't go over 50% at these points. It's like it's being bottlenecked elsewhere, but the VRAM usage is under 3.5k and CPU usage isn't anywhere close to 50% either. Very pre-patch style performance. Everything goes back to normal once I get far enough away. Wonder what's causing it.

Anyone else notice this issue?

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

I don't think character models look better in MGS 5 at all, maybe the lighting, but overall I would say AK is significantly ahead, many reflections, a stunning amount of geometry on display, superb rain effects as well. MGS 5 looks rather dated, its cross-gen roots rearing their ugly heads at every turn.

It's stylistic differences that make you think AK is ahead, but it really isn't, AK is filled with hard surfaces, which is pretty much the easiest thing to make look good.
It's soft surface models however lag behind MGS5 severely because they can't make full use of the lighting engine; or well they can, but the lighting itself is dated.
I'm sure they have higher polygon counts (which work wonders on hard edges), but there is more to good models than just polys.
MGS5's models were made to work in tandem with the fox engine's wonderful lighting, same thing with AC:U.

Weather isn't dynamic in AK, the rain is, again, a stylistic choice, it's part of the world, it's very much a personality of the world.
But aside from the rain being affected by light (which Unity does significantly better), it's not really that impressive tech wise, what you are seeing are art assets.

Also reflection wise I'm not really sure what you are refering to, the mirrors for the puzzles are pretty much exclusive to those areas because they are super intensive processing wise, this tech has been around since UE2 (well even before that, but nothing had the power to run them) and hasn't really improved till UE4.
The other reflections are just diffuse/specular and local reflections which MGS5 is again very much ahead in because of it having a far more advanced lighting model.

Also stunning amount of geometry on display, doesn't really mean anything, polycount limits in engines are pretty high, much higher than what they put in games, I'm sure you can take all of AK and just render it in Fox engine (or any other newer engine) just fine, it's again a stylistic choice which will have to deal with the decrease in performance.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Yeah. Arkham Knight is incredibly visually impressive but there is a ton of fakery going on. It's UE3 which immediately limits the lighting solutions and stuff.

It's absolutely gorgeous but I don't think it should require sysreqs like this, when other games using more sophisticated light calculation require much less.

 

[Kezen]

It's stylistic differences that make you think AK is ahead, but it really isn't, AK is filled with hard surfaces, which is pretty much the easiest thing to make look good.
It's soft surface models however lag behind MGS5 severely because they can't make full use of the lighting engine; or well they can, but the lighting itself is dated.
I'm sure they have higher polygon counts (which work wonders on hard edges), but there is more to good models than just polys.
MGS5's models were made to work in tandem with the fox engine's wonderful lighting, same thing with AC:U.

Weather isn't dynamic in AK, the rain is, again, a stylistic choice, it's part of the world, it's very much a personality of the world.
But aside from the rain being affected by light (which Unity does significantly better), it's not really that impressive tech wise, what you are seeing are art assets.

Also reflection wise I'm not really sure what you are refering to, the mirrors for the puzzles are pretty much exclusive to those areas because they are super intensive processing wise, this tech has been around since UE2 (well even before that, but nothing had the power to run them) and hasn't really improved till UE4.
The other reflections are just diffuse/specular and local reflections which MGS5 is again very much ahead in because of it having a far more advanced lighting model.

Also stunning amount of geometry on display, doesn't really mean anything, polycount limits in engines are pretty high, much higher than what they put in games, I'm sure you can take all of AK and just render it in Fox engine (or any other newer engine) just fine, it's again a stylistic choice which will have to deal with the decrease in performance.

It's hard to justify tech stuff without intimate knowledge of rendering which I do not possess in case that wasn't obvious enough, I'm merely stating what my eyes see. Maybe I'm being deceived by Rocksteady's superb visual work but frankly when I run both games I can clearly see why one is significantly more taxing than the other....

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

It's hard to justify tech stuff without intimate knowledge of rendering which I do not possess in case that wasn't obvious enough, I'm merely stating what my eyes see. Maybe I'm being deceived by Rocksteady's superb visual work but frankly when I run both games I can clearly see why one is significantly more taxing than the other....

Well I'm not saying AK isn't gorgeous.
But MGS5 is actually more taxing with everything on extra high, the 4+km drawdistance plus dynamic lighting/shadows over a massive distance/area are actually more demanding than AK, safe for enabling paper/smoke.

 

[c0Zm1c]

I'm impressed how well it runs on my 980/I7 4770K. Wasn't expecting it to be so smooth, but I'm running the game off my Samsung 840 Evo SSD. No idea what happens on a mechanical drive.

I would not be impressed. Not with that kind of high-end hardware. You're getting great performance probably only because your system is far in excess of even the recommended requirements for the game and is merely brute forcing through the game's issues. If your earlier remark about getting with the times means throwing better hardware at a troubled game as a means to fix it then that is not an ideal solution, it never has been and never will be.

 

[Kezen]

Well I'm not saying AK isn't gorgeous.
But MGS5 is actually more taxing with everything on extra high, the 4+km drawdistance plus dynamic lighting/shadows over a massive distance/area are actually more demanding than AK, safe for enabling paper/smoke.

I still don't think so at all, MGS 5 does not look bad but it's very flat, with low poly environment and characters from what I can see at least.

I would not be impressed. Not with that kind of high-end hardware. You're getting great performance probably only because your system is far in excess of even the recommended requirements for the game and is merely brute forcing through the game's issues. If your earlier remark about getting with the times means throwing better hardware at a troubled game as a means to fix it then that is not an ideal solution, it never has been and never will be.

I'm not sure why I should expect better, it's not like my setup is unlimited in its power. It would be very easy to bring it to its knee with high-end tech. I can see very well optimized games running pretty badly on my system because it has its limits just like everything. For all I know there could be further room for performance improvement but I'm not at all disappointed with how it runs on my PC.

So, sorry I don't buy the argument that high-end hardware should never struggle with a game, it all depends on what's being rendered. See Crysis 3 which even a Titan could not "max out" at a consistent 60fps at 1080p.
And there was a very good reason why that was the case.
Although, I would not say AK is as technically proficient for its time than Crysis 3 was back in 2013.

That said AK is still not in a perfect state, there are bugs and crashes for some, and performance is not flawless even when settings are reduced on lower end machines.

PCgameshardware.de have ran a benchmark on the latest versions, the results don't seem bad at all to me but as per usual this is not 100% representative of the actual experience (stutter etc).
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Batman-Arkham-Knight-Spiel-54131/Specials/Benchmarks-Interim-Patch-Test-1170419/

 

[Dictator93]

One thing sthat is very easy to notice in AK is that it has no global shadows.

 

[c0Zm1c]

I'm not sure why I should expect better, it's not like my setup is unlimited in its power. It would be very easy to bring it to its knee with high-end tech. I can see very well optimized games running pretty badly on my system because it has its limits just like everything. For all I know there could be further room for performance improvement but I'm not at all disappointed with how it runs on my PC.

So, sorry I don't buy the argument that high-end hardware should never struggle with a game, it all depends on what's being rendered. See Crysis 3 which even a Titan could not "max out" at a consistent 60fps at 1080p.
And there was a very good reason why that was the case.
Although, I would not say AK is as technically proficient for its time than Crysis 3 was back in 2013.

That said AK is still not in a perfect state, there are bugs and crashes for some, and performance is not flawless even when settings are reduced on lower end machines.

PCgameshardware.de have ran a benchmark on the latest versions, the results don't seem bad at all to me but as per usual this is not 100% representative of the actual experience (stutter etc).
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Batman-Arkham-Knight-Spiel-54131/Specials/Benchmarks-Interim-Patch-Test-1170419/

I think you misunderstood me.

I mean, that with an i7/980/SSD I would expect it to run well (no stutter or such issues), and I would not be impressed that a system like that can run the game smoothly - because smooth performance is something I would expect with hardware like that. So my argument is what do you need to run the game comfortably - if it's high-end hardware, well above the requirements (as is yours), then something isn't right.

But perhaps my expectations are at fault. Those minimum requirements were reportedly based on a 720p target haha!

It is at least better since the patch. So that's a plus.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

I still don't think so at all, MGS 5 does not look bad but it's very flat, with low poly environment and characters from what I can see at least.

It really doesn't matter if you think so or not, it is what it is, if we leave out the nvidia features, MGS5 is more demanding if you crank it up to max.
Also the models aren't low poly at all, they aren't as high poly as AK's, but they are by no stretch of the word considered low poly; mgs5's world is also much bigger with a far larger draw distance, if it was pushing geometry like AC:U or AK, performance would just be horrible.
The game has found a perfect balance between looks and performance.

 

[Kezen]

I think you misunderstood me.

I mean, that with an i7/980/SSD I would expect it to run well (no stutter or such issues), and I would not be impressed that a system like that can run the game smoothly - because smooth performance is something I would expect with hardware like that. So my argument is what do you need to run the game comfortably - if it's high-end hardware, well above the requirements (as is yours), then something isn't right.

But perhaps my expectations are at fault. Those minimum requirements were reportedly based on a 720p target haha!

It is at least better since the patch. So that's a plus.

I would not necessarily expect it to run well actually, it's extremely impressive what Rocksteady have managed to make with UE3 and understandably when you want to push tech you always end up taxing the hardware. I'm certainly not going to whine when my hardware will struggle with some new games ahead : it's bound to happen if I push the settings higher than what my hardware can handle.

It really doesn't matter if you think so or not, it is what it is, if we leave out the nvidia features, MGS5 is more demanding if you crank it up to max.
Also the models aren't low poly at all, they aren't as high poly as AK's, but they are by no stretch of the word considered low poly; mgs5's world is also much bigger with a far larger draw distance, if it was pushing geometry like AC:U or AK, performance would just be horrible.
The game has found a perfect balance between looks and performance.

I appreciate their work on lighting but I'm afraid it's not enough to blow me away, I stand by what I said : I really believe AK justifies its higher requirements.
MGS 5 is well optimized for sure, but I would not expect it to run any worse considering how dated it can look.

 

[scitek]

I would not necessarily expect it to run well actually, it's extremely impressive what Rocksteady have managed to make with UE3 and understandably when you want to push tech you always end up taxing the hardware. I'm certainly not going to whine when my hardware will struggle with some new games ahead : it's bound to happen if I push the settings higher than what my hardware can handle. .

The fact that the game went from 35-45 fps before the last patch to well over 60 in most cases on my PC afterward tells me it's really not taxing my hardware, it was just that poorly done to begin with.

 

[dk_]

Bought it yesterday and it's 60fps max settings on my 970 wihout the NVIDIA stuff. Finally!

 

[Kezen]

The fact that the game went from 35-45 fps before the last patch to well over 60 in most cases on my PC afterward tells me it's really not taxing my hardware, it was just that poorly done to begin with.

I absolutely agree that it did not make good use of hardware ressources before the patch. In its current state I would say it does, or at least I didn't find myself saying "wow this really should run better!".

Hoping for more performance improvements with the next few patches.

 

[c0Zm1c]

I would not necessarily expect it to run well actually, it's extremely impressive what Rocksteady have managed to make with UE3 and understandably when you want to push tech you always end up taxing the hardware. I'm certainly not going to whine when my hardware will struggle with some new games ahead : it's bound to happen if I push the settings higher than what my hardware can handle.

If you're implying that's what I'm doing then you're still misunderstanding me. :\

 

[Saiyan-Rox]

after playing it, I realized to keep 60 fps at 1080p on my 980 (i3750k) I can have everything maxed including gameworks EXCEPT for interactive fog. I can also turn shadows to normal and keep fog on. Which one would you choose - keep interactive fog, shadows at high or turn off the interactive paper?

My rig with an overclocked i5 and GTX980 still drops frames like a bitch when in the batmobile. can't have any Nvidia stuff on otherwise it drops to 30

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Well there has been some dlc activity on the depot, perhaps we'll finally get them soon.

 

[Kezen]

Well there has been some dlc activity on the depot, perhaps we'll finally get them soon.

Do you think there is chance some of it will be free for those who still own the game ?
Not that I'm entitled to anything in particular, I just wanted my game to be fixed but I would not be unhappy with some free season pass content. :d

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Not unless they do something for SP owners.

 

[Backlogger]

Why does it take to long to launch now? Anyone know of a fix for this?

 

[pahamrick]

Do you think there is chance some of it will be free for those who still own the game ?
Not that I'm entitled to anything in particular, I just wanted my game to be fixed but I would not be unhappy with some free season pass content. :d

Not unless they do something for SP owners.

Don't suspect WB will do anything. I suspect it would be too much effort for them to give away the SP to those who just own the base game and set something up for people who own the SP.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

So how is the game now? I just impulse bought it from CDKeys for £7 with HQ DLC, I figured when it's fully fixed the price will jump up, if not who cares, it's £7. I only went there to buy Mad Max which was also a steal at £10.

I'm using a GTX 970, i5 3570k @ 4.3GHz, 8GB DDR3, SSD, Windows 10. 60fps without dips is always my goal with every game as I hate dips, and I don't mind tweaking the graphics down a little to achieve that.

 

[Ashtrax]

Finally tested the new patch on my rig (I7 5820K @ 4.2GHz, 16GB DDR4, Titan X with Dedicated PhysX Titan Black, SSD, Windows 10) and it runs at an average of 90fps at max settings & gameworks @ 1440p, but dips to between the 70s and 80s when in the batmobile with smoke effects (Skidding, etc).

Microstutters are pretty much non existant now which a definite plus! Got to hand it to Rocksteady's efforts, because not even my setup could run the game well with brute force hardware.

 

[PeterVenkman]

Got this for free with my 980ti. Running an i7 4790, and at 1080p with everything max I can average 59 in the benchmark. lowering some NVIDIA settings makes it a bit more solid. 1440p at 60fps would require some concessions, as it was averaging mid 40s in benchmark.

Haven't played he game, only run benchmark, so no idea about stutter.