Batman: Arkham Origins has multiplayer?

Multiple sources say this year's Dark Knight game will be first in series to include multiplayer.

Batman: Arkham Origins will be the first entry in the Arkham series to feature multiplayer, according to multiple sources speaking with Kotaku.

In the game's multiplayer component, gamers will play as a member of Joker or Bane's gang and attempt to take down Batman and Robin, the source said.

Villains in the game's multiplayer mode reportedly include Killer Croc, Deadshot, Firefly, Black Mask, Deathstroke, and "some kind of Electroman character." Deathstroke was previously confirmed as one of the villains in Batman: Arkham Origins.

No further details were divulged and a Warner Bros. representative was not immediately available to comment.

Warner Bros. most recently brought multiplayer to the Batman universe in 2011's downloadable 6 vs. 6 online shooter Gotham City Impostors for PC and consoles.

Due out October 25, 2013 for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC, and Wii U, Arkham Origins takes place years before the past Arkham games. It stars a "young, unrefined" Batman and will highlight the Caped Crusader's first encounter with many noted villains, including Deathstroke.

Written By

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and would like to see the Whalers return to Hartford.

Want the latest news about Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate?

Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate

Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate

Follow

Discussion

545 comments
Beerminator1
Beerminator1

It's clear that this game will not be as good as Rocksteady's games, but I'm pretty sure that this WONT suck, because it still uses the same combat system. Let's hope that Rocksteady is working on a sequel and not prequel.  I also hope that the game will be only about Batman, not Superman. All thou Superman deserves a good game more than any other comic book character, I just hope that Rocksteady will finish the Batman trilogy before going after Superman...

Mathuin
Mathuin

Hmm a series going downhill after adding MP?  Sounds familiar....

Enforcer246
Enforcer246

Oh boy, looks like this game is going to suck. When is Rocksteady revealing their new game?

stev69
stev69

I'm wondering if maybe Rocksteady didnt want to do it, and exactly whose idea was it to put mp in there, seems like a suits decision to me are they interfering when they shouldn't? Good for the series? I'm thinking maybe not.......Tune in next week for the exciting finale! 

Seriously though getting a bad vibe about this.

Zero_resistance
Zero_resistance

I've seen this so many times, I'm sick of it !!!

Assasins creed, Tomb Raider, Dead Space have all fallen foul of the MP bug.  Batman is meant to be a single player game.  To tack a multiplayer mode on is shear BALLS.  And if that wasn't enough, watch if they don't put a few MP trophies in there just to piss me off.

CoD, MoH, Any racing games.  These were bred for multiplayer.  Leave MP games to the ones that were supposed to have it.

stev69
stev69

I will be getting this title anyway all I ask is that they don't fuck it up (especially as we know Rocksteady can do a quality job).

And if the Joker makes a significant appearance the voice acting must be done by Hamill. 

qewretrytuyiuoi
qewretrytuyiuoi

At least make the multiplayer a DLC so the people who won't ever use it don't have to pay for it...  why are all the game developers adding totally un-necessary game modes to already great games???     have you never heard of the phrase " if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

warhawk-geeby
warhawk-geeby

Not Rocksteady?  Not entirely sure I'm interested in the game in that case.. I'll wait to see, but those guys nailed to first two.

Multiplayer totally isn't needed either - i'll quite happily jump on that bandwagon.

asifah30
asifah30

I dont care of MP because I play pirated games ....:). But honestly I realy want to pay for B:Arkham games and I realy want to buy up coming game Batman games.

suplax
suplax

Why every game has to resort on multiplayer....

retsmot
retsmot

aaaand its the end of the best superhero franchise ever. 

see what happened to mass effect 3 when they decide to give us multiplayer? yeah.

some games just don't need multiplayer. period.

Keithy211
Keithy211

Please have Co-Op Campaign? :( Co-Op campaign games are so much fun playing with a friend, there's not enough of those type of games and having it for a Batman game would be AMAZING!

PlusFour
PlusFour

As long as it doesn't take away from the singleplayer and isn't an excuse to milk customers through dlc then i'm all for it. Could be quite interesting and fun to be honest. 

LeonRedfield334
LeonRedfield334

I do like some multiplayer. But this is stupid. We don't need multiplayer in every game. The franchise is better off without multiplayer.

stewarty77
stewarty77

If the new devs can not reproduce the great combat in the previous titles then this game will fail.

resident_jisen
resident_jisen

wow this insanely stupid of people to complain about mp.they say it make sp weaker. news flash people the sp mode will be the same with or with out the mp.the arguement they could put more into sp with out mp as far a i`m concerned is just them crying wolf.look at tomb raider the games sp is the best i`ve played in a long while it could it have been better with out it`s mp no not at all.the game would still have been the same with or with out mp in it.

MEFreak1984
MEFreak1984

One of my wishes is that they do the "Arkham" Treatment for other DC Heroes (Namely Supes and Green Lantern.)

quakke
quakke

@Zero_resistance

"Batman is meant to be a single player game."

Actually Batman can work as MP game IF, done right.

1996 SNES Batman Forever. Man what wonderful co-ops we had with friends. But seeing as how MP's nowadays are, im thinking adding MP to Arkham seriers is a bad idea. Probably an idea that came from a corporate suitman who doesn't know much about gaming.

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@stev69  

What is it with people and Hanill doing Joker?! Yeah, he did it for a while, and did an alrught job. But he doesn't want to do it any more - and even if he did, he won't be aronud forever. Someone is going to HAVE to take over at some point! Why not now?

The guy who voiced Joker in Injustice did a great job. I actually prefer him over Hamill.

Same goes for the movies. At some point someone else is going to have to play Joker - even though there are those people that keep saying nobody can play him but Heath Ledger. I think Batman fans would be more disappointed to never see Joker again than they would if someone else was to play him.

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@qewretrytuyiuoi  

That would work only if the price of the game was reduced after taking out the multiplayer. Which is won't be. So then people will get pissed because they have to pay extra for the MP.

Having it as a stand-alone product that is developed seperately could work, but they won't get enough sales for the MP game for it to be worthwhile for WB to bother doing that.

stev69
stev69

@warhawk-geeby Yeah Rocksteady totally nailed it twice, its a poor decision from WB not to give it to them to continue. Still ill give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@asifah30  

You, and people like you, are a part of the problem.

MP is added in a poor attempt at drawing in a bigger audience to buy the games, purely so they can make more money off it. Wouldn't be such a big problem if people weren't stealing for them in the first place.

GTFO and stop ruining the games industry for the rest of us who are willing to support it.

stev69
stev69

@asifah30  This ain't confession bro, take it outside.

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@resident_jisen  

The MP in Tomb Raider used the same engine as the SP right?

The SP in this Batman game will be nothing like the MP. The MP will be a generic third person shooter, while the SP will be similar to the previous Arkham games - no guns involved!

So essentially, they will be making two separate games here. It is naive to think that will not effect the quality AND quantity of both SP and MP experiences. They should be pooling all the resources into making the best SP experience possible. People are already doubtful of this game since Rocksteady are no longer developing it. The new dev will have to prove they are capable of making a Batman game better than Rocksteady, and it's already looking like that won't happen.

benelori
benelori

@Scorpion1813 @stev69 

Because Hamill isn't just brilliant, but he brings nostalgia, too...nostalgia is really powerful when people express preferences about something

benelori
benelori

@Scorpion1813 @asifah30 

Piracy is not ruining the industry...piracy was always present, even before the internet became popular and torrents were invented...

Here's an interesting way to look at it...piracy grows as the industry grows, and when I see million dollar and billion dollar sales, despite the piracy, then I can say the industry is doing just fine....many are disappointed in the current state of the industry, but that's because of the quality...

Money-wise they are doing fine...

resident_jisen
resident_jisen

unless you can prove everything you said about making 2 separate games and what it takes to make such games then you are just sucking wind about a lot of what you said and have no true facts to back it up.rocksteady as a company isn`t that great. they did great on first arkham game but the second was not as great as everyone is saying.they came very short on that game in many areas. one being the story just was all over the place and it felt less like batman and more like a spiderman game.

As for tombraider sp was made by one company the mp by another.and the resources for each mode were about the same.

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@benelori@stev69 

But there are those out there (such as @stev69 ) who say that Hamill "must" play Joker, and refuse to accept anyone else, regardless of how good they are, simply because they are not Mark Hamill.

I can understand nostalgia. I often look back on my childhood and think of all the good times, wishing there were more days like those around in the 21st century. But I can understand that having nostalgia for nostalgia's sake would just do more harm to the product than good.

I can't imagine the Joker's voice being an easy task for an actor to keep up all the time. Maybe Hamill's voice is starting to go in his old age, and finds it harder to give the performances he thinks the character deserves. This would be an example of the product suffering - but not only that, it would also destroy peoples nostalgia as he would be remembered for his struggling and weakening performances towards the end, rather than the greatness at the beginning.

Basically, you've got to know when to let go of the past and move on to see what the future brings

benelori
benelori

@Scorpion1813@benelori

"Like I said, would you rather never see Joker again, or have someone else play him?And considering the guy in Injustice did a good job, I don't see a problem with someone else taking over."

I don't really care....Hamill would be best though IMO....it's not just the nostalgia(even though for me there's none because of dubbing), but he is brilliant in capturing Joker, and the best in doing so.

But they can bring whomever they want...voice-acting isn't among the top things I'm looking to criticize or praise in a game...

stev69
stev69

@Scorpion1813 We oldies need love too mate ;) But for me Hamill brought a huge amount of personality to the joker, and that's one of the big reasons Arkham so far has been so memorable.

 Hamill captures the insanity of the character spot on.

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@benelori

But if you rely on nostalgia, your only really catering to an older audience. You may end up with a bad product that only gets sold on the premise of nostalgia.

It's like parodies - they only work it the audience has seen the original material in which it is based off.

As far as Hamill is concerned, he doesn't want to do it anymore - you can't force him just because of nostalgia. Also, he's getting on a bit - he won't be around forever, and he will have to be replaced at somepoint in the near future anyway. Heath Ledger is already dead, so he will HAVE to be replaced if they ever want to do a Batman movie featuring the Joker ever again.

Like I said, would you rather never see Joker again, or have someone else play him?And considering the guy in Injustice did a good job, I don't see a problem with someone else taking over.

asifah30
asifah30

@benelori @Scorpion1813 @asifah30 @stev69 @warhawk-geeby 


I totaly agree with Bnelori.

Actualy you guys got me wrong. Yeah I play pirated games but the reason for it is not the price but the game itself. 

The city where I live doesn't have any single LEGAL game shop/store. Amazon and other e-commerce webseites don't offer the shipping services. And for Steam, I've ATM,Debit cards but they are not accepted for Steam. Literally, I really want to buy games like GTA, AC series and Batman series. I can buy 3 +AAA game in a month.

Now, for Batman:AO I am planning to get (by paying) a Legal copy from my friend who live in USA.


Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@benelori

As far as money is concerned, the industry is doing terrible. Why do you think there are companies shutting down left, right, and center, despise the success of the games those companies release?! Most of the companies in the gaming industry have failed to bounce back after the recession. The only ones that have are ones that do business in other industries (Microsoft, Sony, etc).

I agree that piracy has always been around -- I never stated otherwise -- and as you pointed out: the industry is growing. The effect of this is that games become increasing more expensive to develop and publish. This mean fewer risks are taken in an attempt to maximise profit and minimise expenditure.

Now, let us look at the effect piracy (and to an arguably lesser extent - used games) has on the industy. Conpanies are investing a LOT of money in finding ways to combat piracy. Most of these strategies tend to harn legitimate buyers, while pirated copies come free of these DRMs. This essentially means legitimate buyers are getting screwed over with a broken product, and the pirate has none of these problems.

This actually leads to more people being likely to pirate the non-DRM version of the game, and therefore companies lose out on yet more sales. So what do they do? They invest even more money and time into developing new ways of combatting piracy, and who has to pay for all this? The legitimate gamers who are more than willing to fork out that extra bit of cash to support their favourite pasttime.

Here are a couple of videos I would HIGHLY recommend watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfZv_lPwBFI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZxXEidtxHk

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@resident_jisen 

Here is a video that mostly talks about Spec Ops: The Line, but also touches on tacked-on multiplayers. Extra Credits is made by veterans of the games and animation industry (if you don't believe these guys, you have issues that I'm not qualified to deal with). I highly recommend watching the whole series for anyone who is interested in games in any way.

Key quotes seen around the 3:34 mark:
"Any additional resources they might have poured into that multiplayer mode would have been diverted from the solo campaign. And the game would have absolutely suffered as a result."

"Multiplayer modes are a major investment of development resources."

"Other aspects of the game are guaranteed to suffer. Take this as a personal plea from a developer who has seen this happen too many times."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjaBsuXWJJ8

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@resident_jisen

I'm not claiming the game will be good or not due to developers abilities. That is a separate discussion. The discussion about whether WB can make the game as good as, or better than, Rocksteady.

You could have the best developer in the word, but if their time and/or budget is divided between 2 games - that have to be developed and released at the same time, and on the same disc. Both of those games will suffer.

resident_jisen
resident_jisen

@Scorpion1813 @resident_jisen your trying to prove that if the game has mp the game will be not as good if it didn`t have mp.and i`m trying to tell you having or not having mp doesn`t effect this since it all boils down how good the the people are who make the game. is that simple enough for you. even this is not enough to determain if sp will be good with or without mp. nothing is that simple. there a lot of factors that effect how good or bad a game can be with various of results.peoples perceptions,how much money that goes into it the developers skills and what put into not into the game.etc..... so just saying having mp means this game will suck and shouldn`t have it makes no sense at all.

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@resident_jisen

But what you are saying doesn't relate to this situation at all. What we are discussing here is whether or not including MP will have ANY impact on the SP - be that in both quality (how good something is), and quantity (how much content there is, and how long the game/story will be).

The same team will be working on the SP portion of the game, regardless of whether or not MP is included. So this whole argument about it depending on "who" is making the game is invalid pertaining to this discussion.

I've given several valid arguments for the various ways in which the MP could effect the SP. You claimed that it won't effect anything, and are yet to give a single explanation to back up that claim. But, apparently, I'm the one who doesn't understand "anything at all".

resident_jisen
resident_jisen

@Scorpion1813 @resident_jisen  i`ll say this one last time and only this time even with what you said it not the money or the resources that determain the game quality it the person or persons that make it.you ccan give 6 people a the money to make it and give 20 the same amount to make it both groups spilt up the money to make a sp and mp mode.but the group of 20 decide to not make the mp. the 6 people put everything into both modes while the 20 only into sp.they game is released. and the game with mp and sp does better than the one with just sp. why cause the 6 people were the best in there field while the the 20 are not the best in there field. are catching onto what i`m saying if not i`m not going to explain this again since if you don`t you don`t sound like you have any understanding of anything at all.

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@resident_jisen  

Lets give a team a set amount of money and time to make a game, and then give the same team the same amount of money and time to make two games simultaneously.

Do you really expect the second project (2 games) to have the exact same quality and quantity as the first project (1 game).

NO! It won't.

Even if a second team is brought in to make the second game (MP), that will have one of two concenquences. Either the budget will be split between the 2 games and each will only be working with a half of what they should have. Or the budget will be doubled so that both games are getting the budget they NEED.

Half the budget, means half the game. Double the budget means they will have to sell double the amount of copies to make their money back. They think that adding in MP will attract more buyers, but I highly doubt the MP community will bother with this game, and a lot of the SP community will probably pass it up due to lesser quality. There are people who have already decided not to buy it just because Rocksteady aren't involved.

Knowing how games are made is very different to knowing how the industry works. Like I said in my original comment, it would be very naive to think that this won't have any effect on the quality and quantity of the game.

resident_jisen
resident_jisen

i`m fully aware of how games are made.but you haven`t proven your point about why sp is bad because of mp is added.a games quality all boils down to those that make the game not the resources put into it. you can give someone little money and they can mke a great and amazing game. the same is true if you give out a lot of money to a lot of peopleand get a bad game. if the people making the game suck at it then the games they make will be bad plain and simple.

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@resident_jisen 

And as far as Rocksteady go, they've proven to make great Batman games, and a lot of fans are hurt over the fact the franchise has been taken away from the developer, and given to another.

This is going to put a lot of preasure on the new dev to make a BETTER game than the previous titles. They already have bias against them, so making the game equally as good won't cut it. They need to go above and beyond what Rocksteady have delivered, and dividing their resources between SP and MP could prove to be the very thing that golds them back.

Scorpion1813
Scorpion1813

@resident_jisen 

So, you don't know anything about game development? Because if you did, you would already know the answer to at least most of what you're asking.

Simply put, games cost a fortune to develop, and they take a lot of time to create. There are specific jobs that work on specific areas. These areas are usually divided into 3 main catergories: Art, Design, and Programming.

Artists make ALL the assets from character and scenery models, to animations, concept art, etc etc.

Designers design the gameplay, how the game functions and how all the gameplay features fit together. As well as how the player interacts with the game.

Programmers make those gameplay features work in game, using the assets that the artists created. This is usually done by using a game engine to create a specific experience as designed by the game designers.

Now, look at the gameplay of a Batman game. You have the ability to climb and reach areas using a grappling hook. There is stealth gameplay involved and unique takedowns from specific areas in the game. He uses a combination of that stealth, as well as hand-to-hand combat and various gadgets to take down opponents. He doesn't use guns, and he is certainly not limited to walking around on the ground. In fact, the majority of the game will be played from a higher point of view: On rooftops, or in the rafters of a building. Swinging from cover to cover.

So lets look at what we know about the multiplayer: "gamers will play as a member of Joker or Bane's gang and attempt to take down Batman and Robin".

Basically, players will take control of a generic henchman with a gun. Essentially, this is will be standard third-person shooter gameplay. But they would clearly need to add something unique to make the MP interesting.

So right here, the designers will have to design all new gameplay features and even a different HUD (heads up display - clearly they won't have access to the same kind of feedback Batman would have). And the programmers will have to create this whole new play style too.

So you have the games designers, and programmers dividing their time between two practically different projects. But they have the same amount of time and budget to complete it as they would if they were only working on one (Single player only). Most artistic assets from the SP can be used in the MP, but there still may need to be new things created (even if that is just animations).

As for Tomb Raide: they still used the same kind of gameplay for the SP as the MP. You run around shooting guns in a third-person free-running kind of way. Yes, game modes will need to be implemented, but that is no way near as much work as practically making a different game.

If you don't believe me, maybe do some research into the industry, and learn a bit about games in general: both in how they play, and how they are made.