Batman: Arkham Knight PC Players Are Still Having Problems After Re-Release

Players indicate the updated version still doesn't provide an optimal gameplay experience.

91 Comments

Batman: Arkham Knight players have reported the re-released PC version still has numerous performance issues ranging from stuttering to DLC compatibility.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Arkham Knight was originally released in June alongside the console versions, but was later pulled due to numerous bugs and other issues.

When the game was made available again on Steam, publisher Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment noted there is "a hard drive paging issue with some GPUs on Windows 7 that may occur after extended gameplay sessions." The solution provided to remedy this was to "re-launch the game."

Additionally, it advised players on Windows 10 that having "at least 12GB of system RAM allows the game to operate without paging and provides a smoother gameplay experience." Prior to launch, the game's PC system requirements indicated 8GB of RAM would be enough to run the game at Ultra settings, suggesting there have been optimisation issues.

Since the re-release the Arkham Knight discussion board on Steam has updated with numerous threads discussing ongoing issues with the game beyond those highlighted by Warner Bros.

"With the latest patch, my HDD indicator does not stop blinking at all and the game stutters everywhere," says user Rock1m1. "Especially when you try to drive like day one."

Sentled added: "Arkham Knight won't start/launch after its 're-release' patch. It keeps crashing after you click 'Play' on Steam and Windows shuts it down when Batman's portrait appears on screen."

Others have raised issues with frequent stuttering, issues with smoke rendering, and compatibility problems with downloadable content--many of these are running Windows 10.

"The game runs mostly at 60 fps for me, some frame drops in the batmobile, and i get the stuttering during cutscenes, but other than that it runs fine. But that was exactly how it ran for me on the day it launched, all these patches did absolutely nothing for me."

The lack of SLI and Crossfire support, meanwhile, is something Warner has said it is "still working with our partners to add."

According to Eurogamer's Digital Foundry, which has extensively investigated the game's performance since launch, "Batman: Arkham Knight [on PC] today has seen no further improvements from its interim patch back in September."

It also worth noting that some players have also said their gameplay experience hasn't been as problematic.

"No issues here either. 90 G-Sync Frames Per Second everywhere," said Vulcan.

ikarikun2015 added: "Runs fine here: 1080p, high settings, no gameworks, 55-60 FPS, i5-4400, GTX 970, 8GB RAM."

Given the complexity of PC configurations and the sheer number of them, persisting issues may be due to hardware or driver compatibility. Warner Bros. has said it is working with its partners to "address stability issues on certain cards related to the latest drivers."

$7.99 on Walmart
Buy

GameSpot may get a commission from retail offers.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 91 comments about this story
91 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
  • 91 results
  • 1
  • 2
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for Minamo
Minamo

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Minamo

AT LEAST 12 gigs of ram? How about instead they fire these developers, because they're obviously incredibly inept at their job. I've never heard of such poor optimization.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DAOWAce
DAOWAce

685

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Glad to see they did anything with those 4 months of work.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for eli150
eli150

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

well i can confirm the game runs at 60fps 1080p all settings on and high except for Nvidia game works (chromatic aberration and film grain are also off) on a Windows 10 gtx 970 i5 3570 and 8GB PC but there are some stutters here and there that can be sort of fixed with a restart(from main menu). It's not great but it's not that bad.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ferna1234
ferna1234

624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

rollerblading on gravel is funnier than playing this game.

3 • 
Avatar image for cornbredx
cornbredx

1879

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

Edited By cornbredx

It's weird how Mad Max looks incredible and runs fine, but this game requires more expensive hardware to get working properly- or so they like to imply. I don't really understand the logic behind that.

I've only really checked the settings since the relaunch and the test seemed fine to me (well wasn't solid 60, but it looked better and didn't stutter so we'll see whenever I get to playing it). They added a bar in the settings menu that tells you how much VRAM each setting is supposedly using.

For me it does seem to handle textures better, but that's still tangential as I still haven't gotten back to playing it yet.

It seems like this port is all over the place. It may end up being a wash for a lot of people. That's a shame, but at least the other games are pretty great.

2 • 
Avatar image for razor_rj
razor_rj

259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cornbredx: mad max was only published by warner brothers, just like just cause 3 ,after jc3 i will never get any game under wb banner. jc3 developers are awesome and respect the pc comunity.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Leria
Leria

155

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@cornbredx:

Yeah, the other installments were good if not great but this was supposed to be the 'piece de resistance', the big bang, the final act of the quadrology.

That it did not meet expectations is horrdenous and whoever made this game (Warner Bros. outsourced it to a developer) should be lambasted over this.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xsonicchaos
xsonicchaos

1389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

Edited By xsonicchaos

Just as I thought.

So the amateurs Rocksteady gave the keys to this game to butchered the code to its core, probably needing a total rework, which costs money, time and patience no one has anymore. Avalanche and Monolith did an amazing, fantastic job with their PC versions of Mad Max and Shadow of Mordor, respectively, talking about WB games, and Rocksteady is in a deep sh...ame because they couldn't be bothered to port the game themselves. This whole thing is unredeemable.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kusann
Kusann

231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@xsonicchaos: It seems WB games has a big issue regarding PC ports. MKX was not this bad, but it was bad, and even after numerous patches: it's still bad. Now Arkham Knight is having the same issue, it was REALLY bad, it was pulled off Steam and now it's back: people report it is STILL bad.

I was hyped to play this, but after all these issues, just thinking about downloading the game, then the patches to realize I can't play it because of bad porting makes me angry already. Skipped.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Leria
Leria

155

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@Kusann:

WB Games had a habit of 'letting the developers do their thing' with little to no oversight. That is problem one, you cannot micromanage but before the game is released at least you should have a playable demo on the average hardware out there for the people signing off on the game release to make sure the game works properly.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Mathesar
Mathesar

573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Mathesar

Game is "playable" but the biggest problem for me is frequent pauses which disrupt the experience, and even tho I have 12GB Ram I still have yet to see total system ram usage exceed 5GB while Arkham Knight is running. I'm seeing mostly 60fps but again its the frequent pauses / hitches that bring the quality of gameplay down.

i7 920 at 3.4Ghz / 12GB DDR3 1600 / R9 290X 4GB / Win 10

Upvote • 
Avatar image for serialkisser
serialkisser

300

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Mathesar: Not saying that it might be a problem but your CPU is pretty old, being 1st gen i7 and considering the game is poorly optimized i would be amazed to see if it can utilize anywhere above 2 cores.

But in the end, game is very badly optimized and thats the truth.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Peter_Eater
Peter_Eater

3721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

First- I'm a PC gamer. I have nothing against consoles, but I invested in my PC, and can not afford to have additional gaming systems. With that out of the way, here's my two cents:

I will not buy another WB game because of their approach to PC gaming with this game.

I will not fund a developer that develops games for other platforms, and then poorly ports them to PC.

Good bye WB. I am sorry I bought your games before.

8 • 
Avatar image for maitkarro
maitkarro

1498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@Peter_Eater: Blame the people who ported the game, not WB nor Rocksteady, well not that much.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Duttyhandz
Duttyhandz

121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@maitkarro: Publishers are the ones pushing deadlines, not developpers.

4 • 
Avatar image for maitkarro
maitkarro

1498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By maitkarro

@Duttyhandz: They set the deadline, but the ones who made the port made origins and that was riddled with bugs, rocksteady was busy with the console versions, and did a way better job with that with the same deadline.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for razor_rj
razor_rj

259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By razor_rj

@maitkarro: you realise WB hire the developers of origins to make arkham on pc right ? its their fault, publisher dont hire the most competents they cost too much, instead they make a pitch and hire the cheaper team, they dont oversee the results, only gives a budget and a deadline.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for maitkarro
maitkarro

1498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@razor_rj: That's what I said, aren't you able to read or what.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for razor_rj
razor_rj

259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@maitkarro: i was replying to your first post retarded ! unfortunelty gamespot does not have a quote reply.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zuckerton
Zuckerton

29

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Zuckerton

@Peter_Eater: WB is the Publisher, not the developer.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bobafetthatesu
BobaFettHatesU

2895

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Peter_Eater: But that doesn't mean you won't play them...;0

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Xirtahm
Xirtahm

1267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Xirtahm

PC gamers, it's okay to abandon the stubborn stance. Just say "**** it" and simply invest in the XB1/PS4 versions. We will understand. No gamer with an optimal PC deserves half-assed, mangled garbage when it comes to ports. It's been nearly four months, and it's still an unplayable mess?

Just let it go. You'll feel better.

2 • 
Avatar image for razor_rj
razor_rj

259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By razor_rj

@Xirtahm: nope, just say **** it, and buy another game.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hell_razr
hell_razr

42

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By hell_razr

@Xirtahm: I am a long time PC gamer and i agree with your comment. The only problem is i dont own a console.. so probably m going to skip this game.. it really sad coz arkham series was one of my favorite..

Upvote • 
Avatar image for serialkisser
serialkisser

300

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Xirtahm: Ok so in that sense PS4 players say **** it, i am abandoning this console because The Witcher 3 doesn't run smoothly on it and lags like hell while pc gamers can enjoy it at 1440p with 60+ FPS on average?

Typical console peasent. One game is poorly optimized and hey we should abandon the system.

2 • 
Avatar image for Xirtahm
Xirtahm

1267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@serialkisser: Typical "PC MASTER RACE" peasant. Not once in my post did I say ANYTHING about abandoning PC gaming at all. Man, you children are a defensive bunch. Since I have to spell it out for you, the "**** it" statement is implied towards Arkham Knight, and Arkham Knight only.

Hey, if you want to cling to your PC version of Arkham Knight for the next six months as you beg for it to work like it should have four months ago, that's your problem, not mine. Just so you know, all the Arkham games have had a troubled history with their PC ports.

2 • 
Avatar image for xsonicchaos
xsonicchaos

1389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

@Xirtahm: Yeah, because proving the point that WB can still make a profit while abandoning their PC version is the way to go. How about not at all and maybe someone... somewhere... will learn a lesson... maybe.

3 • 
Avatar image for Xirtahm
Xirtahm

1267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@xsonicchaos: Because I'm not someone who holds a personal grudge towards a studio over a game I really want to play. Kinda like people who tell me that I should boycott EA and Ubisoft, even though they still manage to publish a gem every once in awhile.

I skipped the PC version of Knight because I REMEMBERED exactly what they did with Origins and City years back. Console versions? No issues at all. But then you look at Mad Max, which was also published by WB, and that is an example of a PC port done right.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for se7en1989
se7en1989

605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Xirtahm: Sorry but I'd rather play one bug filled game on PC rather then play 50 bug filled games on console...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Xirtahm
Xirtahm

1267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@se7en1989: You're cute. You think that because I play games on console, I don't play them on PC as well. It must be really sad to be someone who only clings to one side an not embrace all platforms. Kinda reduces the bitching factor by quite a bit.

But hey, if you want to continuously defend your "PC MASTER RACE" stance, by all means, enjoy the frequent day one release problems that many games have bee issued in the past. You know, because I read people's feedback when a PC port gets lousy reviews.

Then it's like "okay, I can still enjoy the console version." It's nice to have that option rather than just being stingy and only playing games on PC.

2 • 
Avatar image for yeah_28
yeah_28

617

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Xirtahm: and give money to these people? you're just doing exactly what they want, get insulted, and move on to pay them for the only thing they cared about at all in the first place.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Xirtahm
Xirtahm

1267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@yeah_28: I don't get insulted because I know better. After Arkham City and Origins both floundered on PC with horrible optimization on release, do you really think I should be sympathetic when the same exact thing happened to Knight?

These are games that should have been ported PROPERLY, but apparently WB tends to be rather selective with their habits. I mean, look at Mad Max. That's almost a perfectly flawless port, and it runs amazingly. Arkham City and Knight? Two of the most anticipated games of their years? Lazy, half-assed ports.

But these are games I want to play, and since their console counterparts work just fine with zero bugs, I can enjoy them. Finished Knight less than a week after release on the PS4, and I was able to put the game behind me, while WB Games was desperately trying to resolve the fire started by their inexcusably defective PC port.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for yeah_28
yeah_28

617

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Xirtahm: Fair enough, I didnt meant you got insulted btw, was just speaking like someone who actually bought the pc version. I personally wouldnt buy until they redeem themselves, and in case of the game being a must play for me personally I'd torrent it or borrow it or whatever.

To me its insulting that a dev treats any of their available platforms unfairly, if the PC version would've been great, but the console version crap, I wouldn't buy it either, but like I said thats just me. I see console fans as my cousins, and I dont want to pay to some guys that dont give a f*** about them just because they happen to play on consoles, it could've been me.

Now of course, it usually is me haha, but you get me :P



2 • 
Avatar image for Drkoolbeanz
Drkoolbeanz

222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Let's get some things straight: This game was designed to run on consoles that have similar processing power to a next gen cellphone. Whatever they're doing in that dev studio isn't cutting the cheese here. If it can run on my PS4 it should be able to run on my girlfriends 680 with room to spare for her Skyrim addiction

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zerofrust
Zerofrust

1152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

lol There are still people running after this game on PC. You should have stayed away at the 1st dragged out debacle.

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58183aaaa31d8
deactivated-58183aaaa31d8

2238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I was going to say something sarcastic but I already had a dig at PC for this joke of a game initially. No point rubbing salt in this festering gangrenous wound any further.

Anyone who can't see what this game and developer is really made of by now really isn't worth the time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mikemurphy80
mikemurphy80

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dexda: Why would you have a dig at PC over an incompetent developer not knowing how to make a game properly?

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58183aaaa31d8
deactivated-58183aaaa31d8

2238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mikemurphy80: Sorry that was bad wording, not PC directly but the "master race" losers. You know about the glaring contradiction that the masterful platform still manages to get backhanded and urinated on by developers like this.

I just find it hilarious watching fanboys cry but like I said anyone who still can't see this situation for what it really is at this late stage isn't worth talking to so I'm not going to go back into it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for se7en1989
se7en1989

605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@mikemurphy80: Because hes a 10 year old.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58183aaaa31d8
deactivated-58183aaaa31d8

2238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@se7en1989: Think of that all by yourself did you?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gotrekfabian
gotrekfabian

5771

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 63

User Lists: 0

What a complete debacle this release has been. To get it wrong once was unacceptable, but twice? Warner Bros. really are going to have to work hard to ensure that games don't even need a day one patch from now on. (Yeah, right!)

2 • 
Avatar image for Gomtor
Gomtor

1334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 68

User Lists: 0

Shame.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for snugglebear
snugglebear

5009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

They're going to have to make a lot more Batman games to give people for free for this one.

4 • 
Avatar image for Gamer_4_Fun
Gamer_4_Fun

3862

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 139

User Lists: 0

I'll repost something I wrote yesterday:

The main culprit behind the performance problems of Rocksteady’s final Arkham game is due to streaming . Whatever they are using right now, it is not working AT ALL. Usually games stream-in and out game assets in accordance to the player position on the map. Arkham Knight is doing an incredibly lousy job of managing the streams. Essentially the game overloads a huge chunk of game data: once the RAM gets overflowed, the data spills and comes in contact with the HDD, which is A LOT slower than the RAM and this is when the performance degradation happens. This is most likely the reason WB is suggesting us to have as much as 12GB of RAM so that our RAM container is big enough for that spill to happen less often.

You will notice that for many of you, the HDD indicator is all red (mine does not even blink) when you play the game, suggesting that the RAM was overflown and our HDD is being used a virtual RAM. When I moved the game from my HDD to SSD, the experience was much smoother. Now this is not an excuse for a broken streaming engine though, there is absolutely no excuse why the game is having a hard time streaming from standard PC HDDs when it has no problem with the standard console HDDs which runs at a slower speed.

Now will they fix it, can they fix it, does it matter now? I would like to say YES to all those questions, but given how long the issue have persisted and countless failed attempts to resolve this, the answer to all those questions is NO.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for maitkarro
maitkarro

1498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@Gamer_4_Fun: Sounds like the same problem Skyrim had on PS3, that was fixeable, by getting a new hdd, or getting a patch. So seems they're just lazy at fixing it, or the textures are just way too big and people complain again like the first time with Watch Dogs, using settings that their pc is not capable of running.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mikemurphy80
mikemurphy80

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Gamer_4_Fun: right, except that the platforms this game was ported from both only have 8GB total RAM that is shared between the GPU and system. How does this translate into a system with 8GB's of dedicated system RAM and 4GB's of dedicated GPU RAM isn't enough?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Duttyhandz
Duttyhandz

121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mikemurphy80: I'm pretty sure that the PC settings equivalent to those from the console versions would be far from "Ultra" or "High"

Upvote • 
  • 91 results
  • 1
  • 2