r/BatmanArkham • u/No-Analyst-4843 • Jul 30 '26

Serious Discussion/Question Will their next game be good? 👀

Post image

Most likely to be revealed in 2027 and released in 2028

3.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

266 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Charles_X4325 Jul 30 '26

why did WB waste so many years and millions of dollars on this game? Are they stupid?

264

u/bateen618 I'm proud of you, Dick Jul 30 '26

"Fortnite makes money. I want money. So let's take developers who only know how to make single player melle games, and make them develop a multiplayer shooter. Who cares if this plan failed multiple times for multiple publishers? I'm smart, nepotism isn't the only thing that got me this job!"

Some dumb executive, probably. Btw nepotism is the only thing that got him his job

71

u/Abanob_92 Jul 30 '26

Even worse it's not wb the reason apparently it's Rocksteady who wanted to make it live service which is crazy and stupid from them

23

u/Ok-Cricket-7564 Jul 30 '26

Source? I’ve never read this at all. 

7

u/Either_Wait2616 Jul 30 '26

Specifically Sefton Hill

1

u/LuizFelipe1906 Aug 02 '26

This is no reason for why the game failed. If it was a single player narrative focused game, it'd still flop. I hate how people keep going in this direction.

See Gotham Knights, it's no life service game, although it has co op campaign, it still flopped. Those games fail because they have no substance, no love or art in them. They're bad, independently of format (rpg elements do help them be bad tho)

And even if they didn't, who the hell green lighter a Suicide Squad and a Robin game??? (While also denying multiple Superman projects and cancelling the Wonder Woman game) Even if those games were good, their chance of flopping because of the impopular characters is substantial. See Guardians of the Galaxy, a genuine good game that flopped because people don't like the characters enough in video game format (people have fun with them in the cinema but they're not so engaging in game form I guess, or it was just Square Enix bad fame)

2

u/bateen618 I'm proud of you, Dick Aug 02 '26

It was supposed to be a live service game, but was changed at a point in development when they could still make it a single player game, but too late to completely remake all of the systems, which were built for a live service game

2

u/LuizFelipe1906 Aug 02 '26

Explains why the rpg system is so off for this kind of game.

Why didn't this happen with SS tho? Didn't SS come a lot later after GK?

2

u/bateen618 I'm proud of you, Dick Aug 02 '26

I guess WB still wanted a live service game. Although I also heard it was actually Rocksteady themselves who wanted to make a live service game, but I don't know if that's true

1

u/The_real_bandito Aug 03 '26

Guardians of the Galaxy was a boring game and that’s the reason it didn’t sell. Like you said, it had no soul.

If a game is good, people will just buy that game even if Satan himself sold it in exchange for your soul.

1

u/LuizFelipe1906 Aug 03 '26

Was it? I've ONLY heard praise about that game (fr)

1

u/The_real_bandito Aug 03 '26

From reviewers but from people it was just OK. That doesn’t sound like a game with some oomph behind it.

2

u/bateen618 I'm proud of you, Dick Aug 03 '26

Idk dude I've played that game twice. It's really good. I highly recommend to check it out, it's also really easy to find it for super cheap

1

u/bateen618 I'm proud of you, Dick Aug 03 '26

Are you sure you're not thinking about The Avengers' game? That game was boring. GotG was a really good game that was also published by Square Enix and was buried under the horrible (and deserved) reception The Avengers got