I'm fine with a delay, because that usually means they are improving it. If releasing it on their original date means we get a rushed game, I'll pass.
Media Batman: Arkham Knight
- Thread starter Johnny Utah
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
DarkKnightEnigma
Freaked Out
REPORT* on the future release date. Maybe it is 2014 after all? I'm not really sure what to make of all this.
https://gamesided.com/2014/04/19/report-batman-arkham-knight-delayed-2015/
https://gamesided.com/2014/04/19/report-batman-arkham-knight-delayed-2015/
batfan08
Super Freak
So, apparently, there's a Pfeiffer Catwoman suit in the Injustice mobile game. WB, if I don't get to play as Keaton or Bale in this game, I'll be very upset.
DarkMagic
Super Freak
That's how rumors on the internet get started and spread. Even the first "report" was second-hand information. Anyone can make up anything they want about what was said at that panel, and post it on the internet. Unless they also provide a video recording to back up what they "heard", or someone official (like Sefton Hill or someone at DC) mentions the changed release date on an official site, it is completely unverifiable.
It's really irresponsible for gameranx (or any gaming site) to report on hearsay and then defend it as it must be true / "Why would they lie about this?" --- without once pointing to a verifiable primary source. The better question is "why would anyone believe this report in the first place?"
GasparZizou
Super Freak
Well if it's a rumor, take it as such, it's not irresponsible, they're simply saying "oh hey, this guy went to WC and saw this..."
DarkMagic
Super Freak
^ I say it's irresponsible because they didn't list a verifiable source at all...unless you count "some anonymous guy at a con" as reliable. Printing unverified rumors, and then going so far as to defend them as "they must be true", is very irresponsible.
Heck, there is no reason to even believe the rumor was started by someone at the con, and not someone who said "heh, I'll email them, and say I was there and heard this, and the fools will print it, just like that." There is literally no source. The random guy at con isn't even mentioned by name (not that it would make much difference). Makes you wonder, do they do a write-up for every "rumor" they hear without checking with the official source first?
To be clear, I'm not saying it definitely isn't true. I'm just saying that there has been absolutely nothing presented so far that supports it being true.
Heck, there is no reason to even believe the rumor was started by someone at the con, and not someone who said "heh, I'll email them, and say I was there and heard this, and the fools will print it, just like that." There is literally no source. The random guy at con isn't even mentioned by name (not that it would make much difference). Makes you wonder, do they do a write-up for every "rumor" they hear without checking with the official source first?
To be clear, I'm not saying it definitely isn't true. I'm just saying that there has been absolutely nothing presented so far that supports it being true.
GasparZizou
Super Freak
You don't need to validate a rumor, it's a rumor, it's shady, they're not spreading it as factual information, hence why it's not irresponsible, besides, they're not printing anything, they can easily correct whatever article they stated it in.
I don't see it as "defending" it as much as it is trying to make some sense out of it.
Unless you mean it's irresponsible in the measure that if it turns out to be false, they'll look bad and people won't believe them in the future, then yeah it is, for their business, not ours.
I don't see it as "defending" it as much as it is trying to make some sense out of it.
Unless you mean it's irresponsible in the measure that if it turns out to be false, they'll look bad and people won't believe them in the future, then yeah it is, for their business, not ours.
DarkMagic
Super Freak
Don't get hung up on the word "print", that's just semantics. Of course they aren't newspaper or magazine literally printing hard copies of anything. The meaning of "print" here is publish---electronically or hard copy, anyone can correct what they published later.
In general, reporting on rumors with nothing solid to back it up is irresponsible. What is the point of reporting a rumor that may or may not be true anyway? If it turns out to be true they can be able to say "we told you FIRST!" before anyone else does? And if it's proven false, then they can say "well, it was just a rumor!" It's the perfect position to set themselves up in--no matter how it turns out, they were right! Yes it is a rumor, but for some reason, they saw fit to spread this rumor over any number of other possible rumors about Arkham Knight. What makes this one any more worthy of spreading?
In specific--yes they did defend this rumor. Instead of simply leaving it as "a rumor that started at WonderCon", they went so far as to argue against
So, from the writer's point of view, people seeing this as a rumor is "fans getting ahead of themselves", instead of the default reasonable position in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Instead, the fact that it was allegedly said at WonderCon is used to bolster the opinion that it is true despite those pesky skeptical fans....except they never proved it was even said at WonderCon in the first place. Why even take up a position like that, when the entire foundation of the position---that something was said---doesn't even exist?
I heard from a friend of a guy who once dated the sister of someone who went to WonderCon that Arkham Knight is going to be released way ahead of schedule. Next week, in fact. They better report on this rumor too!
In general, reporting on rumors with nothing solid to back it up is irresponsible. What is the point of reporting a rumor that may or may not be true anyway? If it turns out to be true they can be able to say "we told you FIRST!" before anyone else does? And if it's proven false, then they can say "well, it was just a rumor!" It's the perfect position to set themselves up in--no matter how it turns out, they were right! Yes it is a rumor, but for some reason, they saw fit to spread this rumor over any number of other possible rumors about Arkham Knight. What makes this one any more worthy of spreading?
In specific--yes they did defend this rumor. Instead of simply leaving it as "a rumor that started at WonderCon", they went so far as to argue against
So, from the writer's point of view, people seeing this as a rumor is "fans getting ahead of themselves", instead of the default reasonable position in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Instead, the fact that it was allegedly said at WonderCon is used to bolster the opinion that it is true despite those pesky skeptical fans....except they never proved it was even said at WonderCon in the first place. Why even take up a position like that, when the entire foundation of the position---that something was said---doesn't even exist?
I heard from a friend of a guy who once dated the sister of someone who went to WonderCon that Arkham Knight is going to be released way ahead of schedule. Next week, in fact. They better report on this rumor too!
GasparZizou
Super Freak
Printed media is usually a more serious platform because it implies more validated information, there's no such thing on the internet, hence why I got hung up in that word.
That's exactly how internet press works right now, that's my point.
Have you ever been on the Batman vs Superman thread? That place is fueled by nothing but rumors which various reputable websites report.
You're arguing with me as if I were defending them for spreading rumors, you got it wrong, I'm just saying what they're doing because that's what it is, and there's no reason to take the news as anything else but a rumor.
Why not?
tip them anonymously for better results.
Last edited:
DarkMagic
Super Freak
Fair enough.
Thorne
Super Freak
So, apparently, there's a Pfeiffer Catwoman suit in the Injustice mobile game. WB, if I don't get to play as Keaton or Bale in this game, I'll be very upset.
Who told you that??
I've unlocked every character you can in the mobile game - including all gold 'challenge' characters - and a Pfeiffer Catwoman ain't one of them...,
Sachiel
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 11,561
- Reaction score
- 642
batfan08
Super Freak
Look at the new episode of DC ALL-ACCESS. They debuted the trailer for Mobile Multiplayer and Pfeiffer Catwoman was one of the characters.
batfan08
Super Freak
Here it is:
I thought it was fueled by people who hate MoS/anything not from Marvel Studios.
pretty much.
DarkKnightEnigma
Freaked Out
I'm going to wait until there is an official announcement anyway, which should be soon enough anyway.
DarkMagic
Super Freak
An official announcement of what?
Since this is the last rocksteady Batman game for the foreseeable future, I saw they should take as much time as they need to perfect this game.
Thorne
Super Freak
Multiplayer update?!
With new characters?!
Sweet! Gonna finally get some more use from this game.
My Elite V lvl 40 Lobo, paired with Red Son Superman and Batman is an unbeatable so-and-so.
Rumor has it that the Game will be Delayed into 2015 !
https://www.spawnfirst.com/news/rumor-batman-arkham-knight-delayed-2015/
https://www.spawnfirst.com/news/rumor-batman-arkham-knight-delayed-2015/
Similar threads
