Arkham Knight shows PC gamers are the first casualties of the AAA market

Batman: Arkham Knight is a new low for AAA PC ports. The game performed so poorly on PC that it has been pulled from stores and digital distribution platforms after its release. This brings up a lot of questions about the AAA industry and its constant pressure to force games out regardless of the condition they're in at launch. Chief among them, when will PC gamers be treated as anything more than second class citizens when it comes to AAA ports?

PC gaming has grown a lot in the past few years as gaming has become more socially acceptable and technology becomes an ever growing presence in the home life of every first world country. Valve's digital distribution platform Steam has become an integral part of the gaming world, just recently scoring 10 million concurrent users for the first time.

Even home consoles, once the almighty kings of the gaming world, after returning from the brink and overthrowing the mighty arcade cabinets, have become nothing but PC imitators. Look at the Xbox One, its entire gimmick was that it would be the "All-in-one Entertainment System" for gamers. That already exists, it's called a PC. Imitation of PC is soon to reach an all time high with the release of the Steam Machine later this year.

They might as well call it the PC-lite.

With PC gaming at an all time high, imitation coming in architecture and function, and the whole business world thinking console gaming is going to die in the next generation or so, why is it that notable AAA PC ports are at an all time low of quality? If anything, now should be when PC ports shine the most considering how much easier development has become across multiple platforms.

Quite frankly, it's all about money. The AAA market is a great example of the Church of the Mighty Dollar. If major developers thought that increased effort into their PC ports would substantially help the bottom line, then it would be done. Unfortunately, developers like Ubisoft clearly do not care about the PC platform.

It's no secret that Ubisoft's PC practices are as anti-consumer as they come. Ubisoft tries to justify this by their claims that only 5-7% of PC gamers playing their games are paying customers. In an effort to combat piracy they forced Uplay and shoddy DRM, not to mention security risks, onto legitimate players. This, in turn, has encouraged more people to pirate Ubisoft games to avoid having to deal with Ubisoft's attempts to combat piracy. It's a self-defeating cycle.

Why would anyone want to pirate instead of supporting this kind of high quality with 60 hard earned dollars?

Ubisoft could try making games that people want to pay for, fostering amicable relations with the PC gamers that aren't in the camp that won't play a game they can't pirate, or reducing the exorbitant prices on digital goods in light of the decreased costs in manufacturing, shipping, and storing said digital content brings. However those ideas aren't as financially viable in the immediate nature of the current market. It's easier on the bottom line to just integrate horrible, intrusive Uplay features into their games.

Ubisoft isn't alone when it comes to shoddy PC practices though. EA has Origin and a few scandals of their own, and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment is quickly joining the list of publishers to avoid on the PC platform. Don't forget Capcom, SquareEnix, Koei Tecmo, Bandai Namco, etc. have all put out some real stinkers too.

Just look at the awful ports we've seen for notable 2014-2015 titles: Assassin's Creed Unity, Dead Rising 3, Watch Dogs, The Evil Within, Resident Evil: Revelations 2, Dead or Alive 5 Last Round, Mortal Kombat X, and Batman: Arkham Knight off the top of my head were either busted garbage or missing crucial features when they were initially released on PC. That's not even considering ports that are just lazy and half-assed like Final Fantasy XIII.

Dark Souls is an amazing game, but the PC port was unbelievably bad until fans were the one to fix it.

Games like the PC version of Batman: Arkham Knight don't get released unless there is literally no consideration for the customer. I feel bad for the QA guys that had to waste their time filling out bug reports that were completely pointless. I say they were pointless because clearly nobody gave a damn that the game was a broken mess, they only cared that it came out on time.

The reality is AAA publishers see the paying PC audience as fairly insignificant. Sure Steam just hit its great milestone in concurrent users, but consoles don't have nearly as much trouble with piracy. They have a dedicated fan base that can be militant and openly brag about their blind loyalty to a platform. On top of that, console first parties like Sony and Microsoft will pay truckloads of money for varying levels of exclusivity.

Consoles are better money, and PC ports are just after thoughts to wring out a little more cash from that PS4/XB1 game they made. Don't think that's true? Then why is Sony okay with paying for just console exclusivity on something like Street Fighter V? It's because PC isn't a competitor and it allows a third party to earn a little extra on top of their console exclusive game.

The only good news coming out of this whole debacle is that Batman: Arkham Knight came out after Steam implemented a refund policy and the ensuing publicity black eye isn't the only consolation for those who bought that trash. Other than that, don't expect much to change for PC gamers. While developers/publishers can't sink much lower than this latest milestone, PC gamers will be getting the short end of the stick (at release) for a long while to come.