J wrote on Sep 12, 2017, 02:55:

Cutter wrote on Sep 11, 2017, 23:39:
How the hell would you have a multiplayer Batman game with thousands of Batmans running around the same city? Give your head a shake.

Asymmetric. Many people playing as villains. One Batman. Holy profits, Batman!

Yeah, but it doesn't fit the combat style Rocksteady created. Or any of the gameplay Rocksteady created.

They can do a Batman MMO, whatever, Rockstead (who is owned by WB) will almost definitely not be involved.

And, anyway, "we're going to do a multiplayer game" doesn't seem like a very good excuse. WB is doing like 14 different Batman movies right now, I don't think they'd have much of an issue doing multiple Batman games. They own the IP. They own Rocksteady. Doing another Arkham would be fairly low risk/capital yet high reward.

I think, for once, they're acknowledging people are burnt out on the concept, one of the games wasn't well received, and sales had been dwindling. If each entry had been equally well received and sold equally well we'd be getting a fifth.

If they recast him, I hope we at least get Will Arnett..

Ravenus wrote on Sep 12, 2017, 02:35:
They're probably shifting from Conroy to Ben Affleck (or a BA clone) for future Batman games that will tie-in with the DCCU.

Oh... my... god... Please don't. Do not remind DC fans of those cinematic failures. Wonder Woman was the only movie that was okay (the first two thirds were good, the final third was as bad as all the current DC movies), but Batfleck? Really? No. Just no. There are many, many great Batman comics that can be used as a background for new games, so WB could produce many more great Batman games. But I am afraid that they will go with Ravenus' plan to support the fledgling current DC movies universe resulting in lackluster games AND movies.

Cutter wrote on Sep 11, 2017, 23:39:
How the hell would you have a multiplayer Batman game with thousands of Batmans running around the same city? Give your head a shake.

Asymmetric. Many people playing as villains. One Batman. Holy profits, Batman!

They're probably shifting from Conroy to Ben Affleck (or a BA clone) for future Batman games that will tie-in with the DCCU.

How the hell would you have a multiplayer Batman game with thousands of Batmans running around the same city? Give your head a shake.

CJ_Parker wrote on Sep 11, 2017, 21:38:
They ain't gonna do more "classic" Arkham games cuz those games had single player. What they are gonna do instead is create some Arkham multiplayer garbage with microtransactions, DLC and loot boxes out da azz.
The sad part is that just like Destiny 2, GR Wildlands, R6S, ME:SoW, CoD, BF1, SWBF, Division etc. people are gonna buy it like hotcakes, too.
Single player is dead these days. It's gonna take a number of costly failures to reverse the trend (hopefully soon).

Wildlands was solid single and multiplayer and didn't have loot boxes or microtransactions (unless you wanted more clothing options).

They ain't gonna do more "classic" Arkham games cuz those games had single player. What they are gonna do instead is create some Arkham multiplayer garbage with microtransactions, DLC and loot boxes out da azz.
The sad part is that just like Destiny 2, GR Wildlands, R6S, ME:SoW, CoD, BF1, SWBF, Division etc. people are gonna buy it like hotcakes, too.
Single player is dead these days. It's gonna take a number of costly failures to reverse the trend (hopefully soon).

How about a prequel of Batman and Robin. Online co-op.

It'll be a frosty day in hell before WB doesn't do anymore Batdude games. They may not be Arkham but there'll be Batdude games.

Billions? I think that's literally not true, but even so, it does seem kind of odd that they'd turn their back on such a cash-cow.