Batman: Arkham Origins Dev Bypassing Patches In Order to Work on DLC

[Neverhoodian]

And here I was considering purchasing the inevitable "GOTY Edition." Guess I'm not going to buy it at all. I can use the money to buy a game that isn't broken by a publisher that actually gives a shit about that sort of thing. Thanks, WB Montreal!

Spoiler

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Is there some new rule that every article must have a question at the end? Because the answer to this one is fairly obvious.

Anyway, as a massive fan of DLC this is just making me facepalm. You will sell more DLC with a working game, guys.

It helps spark discussion in the forums.

True, but there is only so many time people will get angry and post before becoming apathetic and abandoning gaming altogether.

Believe me, if it weren't for my steady stream of Kickstarters I would have certainly slowed down in posting and buying new games. There is only so much crap I'm willing to tolerate.

 

[Quellist]

Well I'm sure glad I didn't buy it now but if I did I think I'd be considering if it might be possible to get a refund on the grounds that the game, as supplied is 'Unfit for Purpose'

 

[J Tyran]

Way for them to try and kill a well regarded series, don't these idiotic publishers ever think? Who is going to buy DLC for a buggy game? Are as many fans going to buy the next game?

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Good thing I never bothered to get the game anyway.

Still i need to actually get around to finishing Arkham City.

 

[Andy Shandy]

You know what, I would've been fine with them saying that if it was smaller bugs, but these are ones that mean people can't actually complete the game that they bought.

So yeah, fuck WB Montreal over this.

 

[Mahorfeus]

Huh. I'm kind of thinking that the Wii U is better off at this point. Everything I've heard about this game just sounds terrible, especially WB.

 

[cerebus23]

MMOs have been charging for patches for years, single player games have little excuse, especially as consoles become more standard to pcs the architectures are nearly identical anymore where decent q&a and testing should get most bugs.

They are not adding 1000s of lines of code to their game every few weeks, its the same code that been sitting there since the game went alpha most likely, rocksteady never seemed to have such issues how many game breaking bugs in their batman games?

Its an unreal engine game the same one people been using to make game for the last 8 years now or so.

And if anyone is going to stoop so low as to charge people to fix the broken ass games they release, its will be EA.

Test your shit, dont release it with bugs and you wont have to try and concoct reasons why we should pay you to fix the game you released that did not work.

 

[Gorrath]

The towns are specifically made to limit what you can build and place too, so you are limited by tiny towns with huge buildings with no scaling at all. Single objects with actual use can go up to 6 dollars. Just by themselves.

I'm a bit confused by this. I play Sims 3 extensively, [Insert jokes about me being a girl here] and have never had issues with patching up to the latest patch without having half of the expansions. With the town editor, you can place any kind of community lot anywhere you can place a lot of the proper size (barring some bugs in certain towns). I do agree that their store content is laughably over priced though.

 

[That Eeyore]

This is pretty disgusting. There are game breaking bugs that remain unfixed and blocking people from playing the game.

I'm serious, we are one step away from developers CHARGING for bug fixes. Capcom was halfway there. Who's gonna do it first so everyone else can follow? EA? Capcom?

EA did it with the Sims 3. Patch levels were pretty much locked with expansions, and expansions were rarely discounted on anything but origin.

So you are late by a couple years. No one cares because sim players are used to it.

They also patched a digital store and social network into the game post launch. single SMALL towns cost as much as expansions, with some going up to 40$ for a single town with a hand full of item reskins. The towns are specifically made to limit what you can build and place too, so you are limited by tiny towns with huge buildings with no scaling at all. Single objects with actual use can go up to 6 dollars. Just by themselves.

So EA monetized patches. years ago.

I suppose if some company had to do it first, it would have to have been EA.

 

[Lo Flying Frying Pan]

I've collected data-packs from the Riddler that refuse to register as being collected, thus preventing me from finishing that arc. Good to know that the fortitude of the Single Player Campaign, for which I bought the game much like the predecessors, is STILL the focus of the developing studio.

I liked this game, I really did. The efforts did not go unappreciated ... but Montreal, can you please work the #$%^&@^% bugs out of the game? Especially big breakers before release? I'd be fine waiting the extra few months or so.

 

[Tradjus]

Welp, now I'm updating my "Never purchase games from this studio again" list.
It's important too have integrity as a gamer.

 

[tangoprime]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- as soon as developers were given the ability to patch console games post release just like PC games, the industry was going to start sliding to shit. The PS3/360 generation was the one that moved me firmly back to PC gaming, because if both sides are going to put out unfinished bullshit and fix it later(tm), then I'm going with the platform that lets me use community fixes or fix it myself, as that's usually quicker and more reliable.

This is a whole new low though, further monetizing before fixing problems inherent in the product that has already been paid for is indefensible.

Welp, now I'm updating my "Never purchase games from this studio again" list.
It's important to have integrity as a gamer.

You took the words out of my mouth.

 

[Sanunes]

I know developers used to backdoor in bug fixes with DLC because of costs on the 360 and PS3, but I don't think that is the case now, but I really wish people would stop supporting developers that refuse to patch issues that break a game that require starting the game from scratch because of encountering an issue.

With that said I might understand why, but at the same time the severity of some of these bugs I have been reading about really need to be addressed, if it was a minor issue I could be more understanding, but when people are required to start a new game because of a bug that needs to be fixed.

 

[Lightknight]

I was actually waiting for a patch before buying the game. So the jokes on them, if I ever get the game it'll be in a year or so for a steal for both the game and DLC but not now while it's broken.

 

[DTH1337]

So first they take away the season pass for the Wii U version of the game, now they've decided to put DLC before patching bugs for all versions of this game.

Well WB Montreal, good luck trying to get people to buy any future products from you because after both of these unjustifiable and inexcusable stunts you've pulled, chances are a majority of gamers will boycott them.

 

[CriticalMiss]

It's hardly suprising that the game they made as cheaply as possible to cash in on an existing franchise is being handled poorly. I'm glad I didn't bother buying it and watched a Lets Play instead.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

and WB goes on the Ban List for games...

Seriously, it amazes me that devs keep getting away with this. What is it about Western game companies that makes them get away with making games as lazily and sloppily as possible and STILL getting millions for them? After the treatment WB gave the Wii U version they're going to have to whip themselves back into shape before I trust them again.

 

[Something Amyss]

This is pretty disgusting. There are game breaking bugs that remain unfixed and blocking people from playing the game.

So did they take the idea directly from the Army of Two developers or is it just a coincidence?

 

[immortalfrieza]

Welp, now I'm updating my "Never purchase games from this studio again" list.
It's important too have integrity as a gamer.

Too bad that there will be far too many idiots who will buy from them anyway for it to make a difference, and even if that wasn't the case it the studio would get the completely wrong message from it.

I know developers used to backdoor in bug fixes with DLC because of costs on the 360 and PS3, but I don't think that is the case now, but I really wish people would stop supporting developers that refuse to patch issues that break a game that require starting the game from scratch because of encountering an issue.

With that said I might understand why, but at the same time the severity of some of these bugs I have been reading about really need to be addressed, if it was a minor issue I could be more understanding, but when people are required to start a new game because of a bug that needs to be fixed.

I really wish developers would stop releasing games that are half-assed obvious betas as full games that even NEED to be patched to begin with. Why is the video game industry the only industry that can get away with putting out a product that doesn't work the first time?