Sections

New Batman Arkham game due in 2013, Warner financials confirm

Tuesday, 12th February 2013 13:39 GMT By Dave Cook

Batman: Arkham City is getting a follow up later this year, as confirmed by license holder Time Warner’s investor call last week. Seems it went under the radar.

The full transcript of the investor call can be found via Yahoo! Finance.

During the call, Time Warner’s CFO and chief administrative officer John K. Martin stated, “And we also have a strong games release this year, which will include the next release in the Batman Arkham franchise. So all in all, we expect Warners to post another very strong year in 2013. And with a little luck, the year should be as good or maybe even a little bit better than 2012.”

VG247 own sources confirm that Rocksteady Studios is not developing this particular game. This could nod to the rumoured ‘Silver Age’ Batman prequel that was touted last year.

This could mean a new game in the ‘Batman: Arkham’ franchise is due before the end of the year, or as part of the next financial year. We’ve contacted Warner Bros. to confirm.

Thanks dex3108.

Latest

41 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. datass

    It’s not rumour, it’s official…only thing uncertain is release date

    #1 1 year ago
  2. dex3108

    Wee i am on vg247 :D Here is transcript where you can find that quote

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/time-warner-management-discusses-q4-191012645.html

    #2 1 year ago
  3. daytripper

    If Rocksteady are not making it that’s disappointing and I wonder why they are not.

    Perhaps they are making Ninja Turtles for Activison ?

    #3 1 year ago
  4. mickey2002

    @3

    Time Warner own Rocksteady so no Ninja Turtles for activision.

    Also I believe that Edios (well now Square Enix) still own like a quarter of the studio

    #4 1 year ago
  5. Beta

    Rocksteady aren’t developing it?..

    Then the dev that is has some massive boots to fill. Hope they don’t try and cram multiplayer in because this is one of the series’ that doesn’t need it.

    #5 1 year ago
  6. Moonwalker1982

    I am probably one of the few that didn’t like AC as much as AA. The flow of AA was better, it was still open but not as open as AC and i guess the more linear approach of AA was better. In general i didn’t AC as much as AA and it’s hard to put my finger on it.

    #6 1 year ago
  7. ps3fanboy

    only one thing is certain.. this is gonna suck ass. as we goes to an end of this gen and the ps4 on the horizon. a lot of these game developers and publishers, are gonna take short cuts to squeeze out the last drop of earnings from the ps3… like what we did see happen to ‘aliens colonial marines’.

    #7 1 year ago
  8. Beta

    I enjoyed AA, I adored AC. :)

    But different people have different gaming tastes.

    #8 1 year ago
  9. lexph3re

    i preferred AA ove AC as well. The story in AC was pretty weak and the most redeeming aspect for me was the gameplay. It was fun but I just felt AA was a much better game

    #9 1 year ago
  10. OnionPowder

    Hopefully this is one of the games on showcase on February 20th :)

    #10 1 year ago
  11. naffgeek

    Wow I thought I was the only one who preferred AA to AC.

    I just thought it was a tighter design. First game I ever 100% on xbox360 and as much as I enjoyed AC I just didn’t feel the need to go back after I had completed it, maybe I will in the future ad I sure as shit aint buying a new console for a few years.

    #11 1 year ago
  12. Moonwalker1982

    Ah i’m surprised to see more people preffering AA. While AC really did make you feel like Batman as much as that is possible, the story was indeed not very interesting. It seemed really interesting at first though. It just felt different and odd to go to buildings and start a mission there or continue the story, it was more natural in AA. I for one wouldn’t mind it one bit if the next one is linear again.

    #12 1 year ago
  13. Dave Cook

    AA felt like a 3D take on Metroid, which I enjoyed. AC was ace in its own way, but different, less contained.

    Both excellent examples of how to correctly handle a third-party license.

    #13 1 year ago
  14. tmac2011

    not buying it if rocksteady isnt making it nuff said

    #14 1 year ago
  15. Dave Cook

    @14 what if it’s really good man? :)

    #15 1 year ago
  16. Bill_E_Talent

    @15 Let’s hope so.

    #16 1 year ago
  17. Beta

    I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt until I see some footage. But I’m slightly worried by this.

    #17 1 year ago
  18. lexph3re

    I just want the Bat wing and Batmobile like we were originally promised in AC and then was cut out in the end

    #18 1 year ago
  19. DSB

    I was blown away by the fact that Rocksteady were able to make Arkham City in just two years.

    I think it’s a pretty tall order for anyone to follow that.

    #19 1 year ago
  20. Moonwalker1982

    It’s a bit weird in the way this got announced. Why the hell didn’t we know about this last week? This should be big news. But it sounds like ‘Ah yes..right before the next-gen comes out, we just shit this game out real quick’ . Kinda like that, let’s wait and see.

    #20 1 year ago
  21. Max Payne

    @19 Well when you think about it, combat,stealth,gliding was already in the first game ,they only made new city, story/quests and upgrade existing stuff..

    #21 1 year ago
  22. DSB

    @21 Yeah, that’s a good point, they had most of the assets already too.

    Still, I spent 10 hours beating it and I loved every minute of it. Somehow it managed to feel like a true sequel more than just a rerun.

    #22 1 year ago
  23. xxJPRACERxx

    AA > AC for me as well. I didn’t even finish AC.

    #23 1 year ago
  24. bitsnark

    Loved AC to bits.

    I’m also one of the few people who didn’t despise the shoe-horning of almost every Batman villain ever into the game, as I found it to be genuinely exciting to see who would crop up next to oppose me.

    Top game.

    #24 1 year ago
  25. Beta

    @24 I loved the fact that there were so many villains in the game.

    What sort of boring person complains about that? :P

    #25 1 year ago
  26. Sadismek

    “Silver Age” Batman? Now I’d like to see them successfully pull off that. Shame Rocksteady isn’t working on it, though.

    #26 1 year ago
  27. bitsnark

    @25 Heh, yeah, I really enjoyed it.

    Plus the game gets bonus points from me for having the Mad Hatter in there too :)

    #27 1 year ago
  28. Edo

    Rocksteady’s absence is worrying me…guess we’ll have to wait to see what the other team can bring to the table.

    #28 1 year ago
  29. DSB

    @24,25 I don’t think it helped the story, but I don’t think it hurt the game either. It really wasn’t about the story.

    Sometimes it’s good with a bit of ADD, this was definitely one of those cases for me.

    “Oh, okay, I’m in an alternate universe with a guy who can’t die? Sure, why not”.

    #29 1 year ago
  30. SplatteredHouse

    What are Epic up to, right now? I could see them on Batman.

    #30 1 year ago
  31. mistermogul

    Both great games but I must say I also preferred AA to AC too…

    #31 1 year ago
  32. YoungZer0

    Naw, I like AC way more. Aside from it being a horrendous port, the game itself is a lot more fun. I love how they managed to make it bigger, yet keep the thick atmosphere. What i didn’t like were some of the enemies and designs. They really need to get this shit sorted out, their female characters always look horrendous.

    #32 1 year ago
  33. ZANIACK

    I’m desperately yearning for a prequel, considering how pure shit and superficial Arkham City was. If any dev, whether it’s Rocksteady or not, can recapture the essence of what made Arkham Asylum so excellent then I might forgive them for the Arkham Shitty abomination.

    #33 1 year ago
  34. Edo

    @33 That’s an awesome story you got yourself there.

    #34 1 year ago
  35. hypeb147

    I hope it’s as good as the Rocksteady outings.

    #35 1 year ago
  36. YoungZer0

    @33: I agree. I simply can’t forgive that Rocksteady changed Batmans hai- oh wait a second, got something confused here. What’s the problem with AC?

    #36 1 year ago
  37. Beta

    @33 Anybody that describes AC as pure shit is trolling, has impossibly high standards or yeah, is trolling for a reaction.

    #37 1 year ago
  38. Moonwalker1982

    Goddamn, so it really is pretty much certain that Rocksteady is not developing it? It’s odd cause i heard Gametrailers has confirmed that Rocksteady IS developing it. Ah well…this doesn’t have to be bad news, look at 343 with Halo 4 and the other developer that made Forza Horizon.

    I just find it very weird how they let the world know a new Batman game is in the making. Sure…a few weeks ago we saw those Batman Arkham domains that were registered…but i remember that Batman AA and AC were introduced to the world in a big big way. This is just odd.

    #38 1 year ago
  39. osric90

    Shit, I’m scared. Too soon.

    #39 1 year ago
  40. Moonwalker1982

    @39

    I thought so too at first. But then i realized it was two years between AA and AC too. The engine is still damn nice, so they probably started making the game as soon as City was finished. Just odd this shit about Rocksteady NOT being the dev while GT claims it is.

    #40 1 year ago
  41. watersoul77

    What will the new game be called?
    http://www.facebook.com/BatmanArkhamGame

    #41 1 year ago